§ 3.28 p.m.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, the two statutory instruments which are on the Order Paper are closely allied, and I think it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if we were to consider them together. I have frequently reminded your Lordships' House—and I hope not with unjustifiable pride—that there is more work in progress on the roads of this country to-day than at any time since the Romans. This autumn sees another milestone in the history of the roads of this country—eight milestones to be exact: on the eight-mile stretch of the Preston by-pass which will be the first motorway to be opened in this country. The Birmingham motorway will follow in the autumn of 1959.
A "motorway" is now an accepted term in international traffic parlance. It is roughly the equivalent of the German autobahn or the Italian autostrada. Unlike a lot of technical jargon (I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Conesford, in his place), this means what 580 it says. It is a motorway—not a traction-engine way or a milk-float way of a "push bike" way. The road is specifically designed for swift, indeed very swift, motor traffic. All other classes of road users will be excluded. There will be no level intersections as in the ordinary road system, and the secondary roads will pass above or below the motorway. No house will have access to the road. It will be fenced off for its entire length. A motorway is, therefore, a road cut off like a railway line and intended exclusively for the fast movement of motor traffic.
A motorway, incidentally, is not a term recognised in our law. The road, legally, is a particular kind of road built under the Special Roads Act, 1949. But special provisions will obviously have to be made to govern the use by and control of traffic on this road—it is this new general procedure which these two instruments seek to define. Other and more detailed regulations will follow. I must emphasise that they are all of necessity experimental. We have, as yet, in this country no experience of motorways. These regulations I am asking your Lordships to approve will stay in force for only a year. We can then see how they have worked and what improvements are necessary. We have taken all the best advice we can. We have consulted those interests at home who are likely to be concerned. We have consulted our opposite numbers abroad who have experience of this type of road. We hope that we have taken good advantage of their experience, but I am perfectly prepared to admit that amendments, additions and subtractions may well prove necessary.
The view has been expressed that Her Majesty's Government have not given sufficient time to the representative organisations whom they have consulted to formulate their views for the Government and that the Government have shown undue haste in presenting these Orders and Regulations to Parliament. I can assure your Lordships that no discourtesy was intended. I admit that the time given for consultation has been shorter than usual in such cases, but I think that it was not inadequate since the general views of most representative organisations were already well known from preliminary soundings taken as long as a year ago. The issues involved were 581 very tricky ones, and when my right honourable friend had come to the conclusions embodied in the instruments now before the House there was little enough time left to secure the necessary Affirmative Resolutions of Parliament before the Summer Recess. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that it would have been disastrous had the Preston By-pass been constructed and ready for opening, only to be held up while the usual statutory instruments were pursuing their measured course.
There are only two or three points to which I would draw attention which I think may arouse controversy. The original scheme of the motorway makes most of the necessary exclusions—pedestrians, cyclists, slow vehicles and so on. But the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order, 1958, seeks to do three additional things. It excludes from the motorway motor-cycles with a cylinder capacity less than 50 c.c.—for instance, pedal cycles with auxiliary engines. It excludes agricultural machinery and abnormal indivisible loads. All three are obviously slow-moving categories, and their existence is inconsistent with the purpose of the motorway. These cycles are not capable of speeds above 30 m.p.h., and their exclusion, I should have thought, would have been obvious. So, I think, is the exclusion of agricultural machinery. We do not want the boy "Charlie," with his combine harvester, mixed up with the Jaguars and Bentleys. In any case, there will be no access from the motorway to any farms or farmland lying alongside.
The exclusion of abnormal indivisible loads is a little more difficult. We have discussed the question of abnormal indivisible loads on twelve separate occasions during the six years I have had the honour to speak in your Lordships' House for the Ministry of Transport. I hope the fact that this is the thirteenth time is not a bad omen. I also hope I may assume that your Lordships know by now an "abnormal indivisible load" when you see one. I appreciate that the decision we have come to on this point has not met with universal approval. I can assure your Lordships that the Government have net reached the conclusion embodied in the Order without many consultations and a great deal of thought.
The question we have had to decide is whether the public interest is better served by having ships' propellers or a clutch 582 of nuclear reactors proceeding on the ordinary roads where, as your Lordships on twelve occasions have pointed out to me, they can be an unmitigated and stroke-promoting nuisance, or on the motorways where their presence would defeat the whole purpose of the roads and might lead to a series of terrible accidents. We have decided that the latter is the worse evil. We are not prepared, initially at any rate, to allow any use of the motorways which might defeat their purpose. I realise, of course, that there is a great deal to be said on both sides of this argument, but I think on balance our decision is the right one. However, we propose to conduct some experiments. We propose from time to time to let a few abnormal indivisible loads on to the by-pass under special control and then wait and see what happens. If the result goes against us, we shall not be proud. We shall certainly consider the matter again when it is considered, as it must be, in the summer of 1959.
The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Special Roads) Regulations, which are linked with the Order, and of which I seek approval in the next Motion, are also by way of being an experiment. This Order, also, of course, is a controversial one—everything to do with speed limits always is. But the Government are firmly of the view that since the motorways have been designed for fast driving it is wrong in principle that any speed limit should be imposed on them. General speed limits have not been found necessary on the Continent. We prefer to follow the Continental example, rather than the American example, where every road, as well as motor roads, has its often unenforceable speed limit. I believe that traffic will soon settle down to our motorways at civilised speeds which are within the capacity of both the drivers and the vehicles.
A fixed speed limit on those roads of this country which are really suited to fast driving, where there is no speed limit on the ordinary open road, would be illogical and unjustifiable. I cannot see the logic of putting a 70 m.p.h. speed limit, as has been advocated, on the Preston By-pass, which is designed for speed, and then allowing people, as we do now, to drive at speeds up to 100 m.p.h., which can be achieved on, say, the Diss-New-market-Royston road, which was never 583 designed for fast vehicles. I believe that the ordinary motorist can be trusted to adopt a fair speed for this class of road, and I believe that on the whole the fast driver is a good driver—I repeat, in case by any chance the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice should read my words: "on the whole." If we are proved wrong, then we may have to think again.
I realise that in pursuing the course I am indicating to your Lordships we are taking a calculated risk. We are relying on the fact that the good sense of motorists will not prove this risk to have been unjustifiable. I wish to make it clear that in the unlikely event of motorists abusing the freedom they are now being given my right honourable friend will not hesitate to apply such restrictions as may be necessary, including speed limits. With one exception, therefore, we propose to abolish all statutory speed limits on motorists on the motorways. This obvious exception is the trailer and, in particular, the caravan towed behind the family car.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHIf I may interrupt the noble Lord, he mentioned one type of vehicle that I have not read in the Regulations, the trailer, and in particular the trailer drawn behind the car. Is it proposed to interpret the Regulations as meaning that all trailers behind commercial vehicles will be banned as well?
§ LORD MANCROFTNo, my Lords; they are not being banned at all. The noble Lord has misunderstood it.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHSo far as the heavy commercial vehicle with trailer is concerned, is it to be subject, as well as the close-coupled trailer behind the motor car to the 40 m.p.h. limit?
§ LORD MANCROFTI think that if the noble Lord looks at the Regulations carefully he will see that a distinction is made between those trailers having brakes running hydraulically right through and the trailer to which I am now referring, which has only a contact brake—namely, the caravan or week-end yacht behind the car.
I was saying—and this is the point I want to emphasise—that no driver is 584 compelled to drive faster than he considers safe or reasonable. The absence of a limit in no way exempts all drivers from the obligations of safe and careful driving, of which, of course, speed can be an element. All these Regulations do is to remove an arbitrary speed limit from special categories of vehicle when driving on a special class of road where the restrictions seem inappropriate.
My Lords, I do not doubt that there are many points which I have not mentioned, for which I apologise, upon which your Lordships would like to express a view. One of the things that is not excluded from being driven down these roads is pet hobby-horses. I do not, however, wish to worry your Lordships by raising all the multitude of points which may lie dormant in these two instruments. I ought perhaps to repeat, in case I have been misunderstood, that further regulations about such things as parking and turning, and so on will be required, but they will be subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure. An amendment to the Highway Code to deal with these special conditions of the motorways will eventually be needed. A Committee, the Anderson Committee, is actually in session this particular afternoon to consider the question of signing the motorways. I hope that I have now said enough to give your Lordships a general idea of what is proposed in this most interesting and important experiment, and I hope your Lordships will give it a fair wind. I beg to move that the first Order be approved.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, before the noble Lord finishes his speech would he give one item of information which would help the House to consider this matter intelligently? Would he give the House the measurements of the Preston By-Pass? As I understand it, the Preston By-Pass is a two-lane traffic dual by-pass. Could he give the width of the two lanes?
§ LORD MANCROFTI cannot offhand, but I will soon find out. The noble Lord is perfectly correct in saying that it is a two-lane by-pass. It has two lanes one way and two the other—four altogether. Eventually, it will be a six-lane by-pass. We should have liked to make it a six-lane by-pass immediately, but that would have cost £100,000 or 585 more, and we thought that at the moment that money could be better spent elsewhere. In due course, when these bypass links form part of a motorway chain, of which, on its completion, this will be an integral pant, it will be converted into a six-lane by-pass. The noble Lord is quite right. At the moment it has only four lanes, but the plan is to convert it into a six-lane by-pass.
§ Moved, That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order, 1958, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ 3.43 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, the Minister is right, or perhaps I should say nearly right, because he has, for the first time, accepted the fundamental principle of good traffic control: that all traffic on any road should travel at the same speed. That has been held to be correct by experts all over this country. And how right he is in regard to this principle contained in the Order he has just moved, only proves how wrong the Minister was when he imported the crazy idea and put it into force on our arterial roads in London of a 30–40 m.p.h. speed limit which does just the reverse. That is the negation of successful traffic control, because immediately on coming out of a 30 m.p.h. speed limit some traffic may go at 40 m.p.h. and some must remain at 30 m.p.h. The noble Lord does not shake his head.
§ LORD MANCROFTI do; I shake it very loudly!
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHIt did not remove the 30 m.p.h. speed limit from the commercial vehicle. One virtue of the present proposal is that it will eliminate largely a major cause of accidents to-day—that of one vehicle overtaking another. Having said that—and I support the Minister in his removal from these roads of certain vehicles and the doing away with speed limits—I want to know why he deviates from his course, first of all in the case of trailers that are drawn by motor cars. What he proposes to do, dealing first with the speed limit regulation, is to remove from the traffic using this eight or nine miles of road at Preston all speed limits on commercial vehicles, coaches, and motor cars. Vehicles on that road can travel at what speed they think fit, except that there is a 40 m.p.h. 586 limit on what I have always considered to be the most dangerous vehicle on the road—that is, the trailer caravan drawn behind a private motor car. Why does he not eliminate that vehicle from these roads as well? Why make that exception? We all know that if, when travelling along the roads of this country, we get behind a queue of motor cars, usually one of three things is the cause of the holding up of the traffic: it may be the indivisible load, a subject to which I shall return later, as the noble Lord expected; it may be the gentleman to whom the noble Lord referred the other day, driving the car at about 8 or 10 m.p.h. with both feet down pressing every pedal he can, and still not able to go faster, or it may be the caravan.
If I read this regulation aright—and perhaps I ought to get the exact phraseology—it includes "all Service vehicles that are built for the purposes of defence". Why? Is the noble Lord going to allow on this road a crocodile of 3-ton lorries carrying "L" plates, travelling at the moderate speed of 20 m.p.h., teaching the learner driver how to drive? Would the type of vehicle falling into this category include the Pickford tank transporter? If he is going to eliminate from these roads all the abnormal loads, why allow "Queen Marys", Royal Air Force vehicles taking huge, half-assembled aeroplanes along them? Would the noble Lord give me the answer to that question when he comes to reply? I can understand the free use of the roads for the Services in times of emergency. But why make the distinction between an abnormal load that is trailed along by one of the Services and an abnormal load trailed along by anybody else?
I now come to the indivisible or abnormal load. Here, I know that I shall cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I have done so on many occasions on this particular subject; it is about the only traffic matter upon which he and I disagree. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that this was the thirteenth time your Lordships had discussed this matter. Well, the thirteenth time is an unfortunate one for him, because he has now had borne in upon him, after twelve times, the sense of the argument that I have advanced, that these abnormal loads should not be allowed on the roads. He is now taking them off 587 these motor roads. I have listened attentively to all the arguments that have from time to time been brought forward in your Lordships' House in defence of what I call the abnormal load; and I remain unconvinced. I reiterate that abnormal loads should certainly be taken off roads that are made primarily for fast-moving traffic.
I believe it would be as well if your Lordships could know what an abnormal load is. The width of a vehicle, including load, that is normally allowed to travel on the roads of this country is 9 ft. 6 in. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, a question: whether he could tell your Lordships the width of the Preston bypass. I do not know, but perhaps the noble Lord's advisers have now told him. I should think that it is about 24 ft., dual carriageway. Perhaps the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong. The width of a normal vehicle is 9 ft. 6 in.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, the width of the Preston by-pass is 24 ft.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI thank the noble Lord. Now the width of the normal vehicle being 9 ft. 6 ins. to 10 ft. means that when we allow one foot one side and one foot the other it will take up most of one lane; and an abnormal load is anything over 10 ft. 6 ins. in width. Permission of the Ministry of Transport for an abnormal load to go along a road is not necessary unless it reaches or exceeds a width of 24 ft. and exceeds 150 tons. There are graduations in between the two, and in the case of some the permission of the police has to be obtained and in others the permission of the highway authority as well as that of the police.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him, for I am sure he does not wish to make any mistake? I think he will find that the permitted width is not 24 ft. but 20 ft.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am grateful to the noble Lord. The limits are 20 ft. and 150 tons. Now a width of 20 ft. leaves only 4 ft., so that that load will completely block the road. I aim not an anti-industrialist, for I have lived my life in industry, but I say to your Lordships, without fear of contradiction, that no road user has more abused the roads 588 of this country than those who have propelled along it abnormal loads; and the wider we make our roads the wider will the abnormal load become.
I have heard stories. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has stood at the Dispatch Box in times past and has brought tears to our eyes, saying that if we should turn abnormal loads off the roads of this country our export trade would be greatly affected. Nonsense! Some 85 per cent. of the traffic that uses the roads of this country in normal times is connected with trade and industry, and if a balance sheet could be drawn of the advantages to the abnormal load carriers in cost of production and transit as against the disadvantage to the cost of production and the industrial inconvenience to the rest—that 85 per cent. who have travelled behind these abnormal loads and been pushed into lay-bys so that abnormal loads could pass—I believe the balance to the disadvantage of the majority would be overwhelming.
As the noble Lord has just asked, why should ships' lifeboats be carried from Liverpool and the Tyne to Southampton? Why should ships' propellers be carried from the Clyde to the South Coast? Even ships have been transported from Portsmouth by road—small ones, I admit. Surely that is not because the modern sailor is afraid to go to sea. No, it is because those people responsible for abnormal loads get the services of the police for nothing and handicap and inconvenience every other road user at no cost to themselves. My experience is that if we made it impossible for them to carry those loads on the roads of this country they would soon find another way of carrying them. If British Railways had a spark of initiative, instead of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on building steel trucks for coal traffic that is getting less and less they would build trucks and load carriers for carrying on the railways these abnormal loads which at the present time are put on the roads.
I am certain that the brains of British industry can find many ways of fabricating these abnormal loads differently so that they are not such a terrible inconvenience to the ordinary road user, and so I commend the Minister for turning these things off these motorways. What is the good of spending £250,000 per mile in building these motorways and then allowing them to be cluttered up by all the 589 slow-moving and cumbersome traffic? Let us learn the lesson. Years ago we built by-passes to by-pass crowded areas. Then we succumbed to the blandishments of the speculative builder. He built houses all along the by-passes and so we have had to build by-passes to by-pass the by-passes. That is how we shall go on with these motor roads if we allow the encroachment upon them of all these abnormal loads. I want to say one further word on this question of experiments. I do not know why the noble Lord's right honourable friend wants to carry out any experiments to see the obstruction factor of these abnormal loads. If he drove on the roads as some of us do he would soon find out and know all about it. I have a suspicion that he is doing it only to placate some of the opposition which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has rightly said, will arise.
I want to say a word also about this question of speed. I deprecate people speaking of those who travel on these roads at 100 miles an hour. Of course we shall get "road hogs"—people who "hog" the crown of the road and are just as dangerous as "road hogs" who travel at 100 miles an hour. I would suggest to the noble Lord that if these motor roads are freed of all obstructions and all speed restrictions, within a very short space of time the traffic on them will settle down to a speed of about 55 to 60 miles an hour. That is what will happen.
I want, also, to do something to ease the minds of some of those people who are afraid of speed, especially the speed of some of the coaches that are now predominantly in favour with the travelling public. I want to tell them this, and I speak from a lifetime's experience of the motor industry: there is more care and thought and brilliant engineering put into the safety factor of passenger coaches on the roads of this country to-day than is put even into the majority of private motor cars. I have a great admiration for the engineers who are building our passenger coaches. The hydraulic braking systems are really first-class and there is no undue danger in the modern coaches of this country travelling at anything up to sixty to seventy miles an hour on a road, as the noble Lord quite rightly says, specially built for that—but not on a road like a snake. And we have some. Take the A.34; take the road from the 590 Midlands to Gloucestershire and the Channel ports.
There is one other point I should like to make on this subject. I hope that the Minister will stick to his guns. I am sorry that the Preston by-pass is being restricted to two carriageways on either side. That only illustrates the fallacy of our road policy. Cannot we make up our minds as to what is essential for the future of the motorways of this country? Why do we build one stretch of road with two lanes each side, with another, a third, in reserve? And now we are going to link it up with the London-Birmingham Road that has three lanes each side. Is there in the Ministry of Transport no policy on road width? Surely we cannot humbug about like this, as we have done for thirty or forty years. We buy the land, and by the time it comes to building the other carriageway and making three lines of traffic I expect the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will have gone and will be directing something else in another place. But a Minister will say, "We cannot afford to do it now because it will cost too much."
One final word. I have noticed in the Ministry of Transport recently, and in those who speak on behalf of the Ministry of Transport—and may I now add a caveat: present company always excepted—a certain arrogance and a certain conceit about motor roads. Would the noble Lord accept from me that the conception of motor roads and a motor-road system in this country originated with the Government of 1946 and my right honourable friend Mr. Alfred Barnes? I do not think that the present Government should take too much to itself. If it wants something which will take some of the conceit out of it, then I would ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has seen to-day's front page of the Manchester Guardian. If he has not, I have a copy here and I should like to make him a present of it, so that he can frame it and hang it over his bed; and every morning he can look at it and see the "Ten-year plan for motorways" and "Twelve year's progress".
In 1946 my right honourable friend had a wonderful conception. So have a thought for those who struggled to get this present motorway system inaugurated. Let others not take too much credit to themselves. The people who really have 591 made it possible have a more warmhearted and sensible attitude than that shown by the Treasury. I hope that the noble Lord will answer my criticisms. I hope he and the Minister will not be deflected from the course of giving this country the opportunity of affording a literal interpretation of what was said so many years ago:
The measurement of the civilisation of any country lies in the speed and the safety with which it can transport goods and people from one place to another.