HL Deb 19 December 1961 vol 236 cc716-23
19. An offence under section 64 (2) of the principal Act (contravention of construction and use regulations) committed by using a vehicle on a road, or causing or permitting a vehicle to be so used, either— (a) so as to cause, or to be likely to cause, danger by the condition of the vehicle or its parts or accessories, the number of passengers carried by it, or the weight, distribution, packing or adjustment of its load; or (b) in breach of a requirement as to brakes, steering gear, or tyres. The words from "as to the construction" to "hereof" shall be omitted and for the words from "to a fine", in the first place where they occur, to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds".

5.45 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit paragraph 19. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object in putting this Amendment down is simply to provide a peg upon which to hang a plea to the Government to look again, while this Bill is on its way to another place, at the whole system of the Statutes as regards the permitted loads of goods-carrying vehicles. I can say this straight away: that I am fully aware of the great technical difficulties in this subject. I did not spend my life in the motor industry without learning all about them. But when the Government come forward, as did the noble Viscount the Leader of the House during the Committee stage, and tell the House and the country that they are contemplating increasing the permitted speed limits of goods-carrying vehicles, I think a number of the public will be affrighted unless, at the same time, they do something to limit, or attempt to limit, the gross overloading of the average goods-carrying vehicle.

I will illustrate in a few words what I mean, and I will take for my example a common, four-wheeled vehicle—an ordinary, four-wheeled, dropsided truck. The Statute says that the total permitted weight of a four-wheeled vehicle, gross—that is, unladen weight plus load —is 14 tons. I have here a schedule of what a manufacturer of that type of vehicle recommends. I have taken just five of them, and they range from a 25 cwt. Dropside lorry to a 5-ton drop-side lorry. In each of those categories the total weight that can legally be carried, so long as it is not slipshod and so long as it is not displaced, is 14 tons in all. The manufacturer here—and this is an example typical of all the popular manufacturers—for his 25 cwt. Dropside truck, says that the advised load is 1 ton 9½cwt; for the 35 cwt. dropside truck it is 2 tons 2½cwt.; for the 3-ton it is 3 tons 18¾cwt.; for the 4-ton it is 4 tons 6½cwt.; and for the 5-ton it is 5 tons 7¼cwt. After the manufacturer has said, "I have designed my vehicle, its brakes, its steering, its components and everything else, and that is the recommended load that I say my vehicle is built to carry", the Statute allows, progressively from the smallest to the largest, 12 tons, 12 tons, 12 tons, 11½tons and 11¼tons.

Now, really, that does not add up to sense. It is handicapping the police and handicapping the magistrates. If you go through the regulations, from the Construction and Use Regulations right the way through, you will see the impossibility of trying to enforce the law as it is at present. Regulation 68 of the Construction and Use Regulations says that the total laden weight of a goods vehicle must not exceed 14 tons for a four-wheeled vehicle. My Lords, prosecutions are very rare—almost none at all, although you do get prosecutions for shifting loads, for badly balanced loads and for displaced loads.

How can we contemplate increasing the permitted speed limits of these vehicles? The limit is going to be 40 miles per hour. If we have any common sense with which to judge, we know that the police to-day seldom prosecute under 38 miles an hour in a 30-mile limit. Will it be 48 miles an hour in a 40-mile limit? Although the police or the highway authority, or in some cases other authorities, can say to a driver, where they suspect that the load is in excess of what the vehicle should carry, "We want you to take this vehicle on a weighbridge", if the weighbridge is more than one mile away from the place and the load Is not in excess of the permitted load—this is the language of the Statute—and the weight is found to be within the limits authorised by the law—14 tons—then they have to pay compensation to the owner of the vehicle.

I could cite quite a number of cases showing the ridiculousness of this situation. That is why a lot of these vehicles to-day are being so grossly overloaded. There is alarm among licensing authorities. They have drawn attention to it in their annual reports. There is alarm among the police. All I seek to do is to ask the noble Lord whether, if the Government cannot do so in between now and the time when the Bill arrives at another place, he will give me an undertaking that this matter will be looked at seriously. Because I feel certain that what he wants to do, what the Government want to do, and what we all want to do, is to carry the public with us. This question of speed limits is not an easy one. The public is not quite happy about allowing these goods vehicles a higher speed limit than the one allowed at the present time.

I am at one with the noble Lord in believing that the secret of good traffic control is to try to get all your traffic travelling at the same speed. But we must have some common sense in this matter, and we must try to amend this antiquated law, which was made years and years ago. when the first consideration was the safety of our bridges and drains. The fundamental fault with commercial vehicle taxation is that the taxation is based on the unladen weight, instead of on the total load which bears upon the road. My Lords, I do not want to say any more. 1 just wanted to make this, I hope, prima facie case. Will the Government look at this matter and see whether something can be done in between now and the time that this Bill gets to another place? My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 10, leave out paragraph 19.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I am sure that many people will give support to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on this particular point which he has raised. I found it difficult to follow his arithmetic, because he was comparing total laden weights in one case with the net weight in another case. I do not know what the unladen weight of some of these vehicles is, but obviously there is a very big discrepancy between the two, three, four or five tons he mentioned on the one hand, and the eleven to fourteen tons he mentioned on the other hand. The general public see vehicles on the roads in what appear to be an advanced stage of obsolescence, and I believe that it is very important that these vehicles should never he loaded to a greater extent than the weight for which the manufacturers have designed their brakes, and so on. This applies to goods vehicles. When it comes to passenger service vehicles, et cetera, they have the knowledge that the chassis and everything are designed to hold the thirty, forty or fifty passengers, that no excess weight is ever carried, and that the greatest possible safety margin is embodied in the vehicle. But we have not the same confidence in these goods vehicles, and now that the speed limit is to be raised to the speed at which they normally travel, I beg that Her Majesty's Government will look into this question of the limit of the weight they are allowed to carry.

5.55 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, now that the noble Lord has produced his hat and hung it on the peg, it has turned out to be a hat of interesting design, construction and texture. I think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord has done a good job in airing this matter. I think the first thing I should say is on the subject of the present position, and to point out that the regulations controlling the loading of vehicles fall into two groups. The ones which the noble Lord mentioned, such as the maximum weight of fourteen tons for a 4-wheeled lorry, and so on, are those which are imposed for the purpose of protecting bridges and roads. The other aspect of it is covered under quite separate provisions with regard to overloading. Regulation 73 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, is the main provision. That says: Every motor vehicle, every trailer drawn thereby and all parts and accessories of such vehicle and trailer shall at all times be in such condition and the number of passengers carried by, and the weight, distribution, packing and adjustment of the load of such vehicle or trailer shall at all times be such that no danger is caused or is likely to be caused to any person on the vehicle or trailer or on a road. My Lords, that is, while certainly not laying down any specific load for any specific vehicle, the provision which covers such matters.

I suppose it cannot be denied that overloading occurs. I have tried, so far as I can, in anticipation of what the noble Lord would say, to come to some idea of what might be the size of the problem. Statistics of this kind are never fully conclusive, I agree. In 1958, which was the last convenient year for which statistics in this form are available, it seems that about 350 accidents occurred to goods vehicles which were attributed to overloading. Although, as I say, that is not conclusive I hope it may be slightly indicative.

The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Hawke know already, I am sure, that various schemes for fixing precise maximum weight limits have been considered several times over the last, at any rate, thirty years. One of the troubles is that goods vehicles, or those which are above the smallest sizes, are not normally standard articles, and, in effect, you would have to work out a maximum gross permitted weight for each vehicle. The weight which a vehicle can carry may be determined by what is, or may be, a single weak item of its equipment, which might be the springs or the tyres. Operators can, and do, legitimately alter these things in order to obtain heavier payloads, quite apart from more major operations such as the addition of an extra axle. The job of making these assessments would, of course, be a very complex operation and a skilled job which would make tremendous demands on the Department's technical and professional staff. It would be a heavy task indeed. To give your Lordships some indication of its size, I have here a directory of the different models of commercial vehicles listed by the manufacturers, which consists of some 500 closely printed pages with 20 to 30 models per page, and these, with private modifications, give a formidable number of different types with which we should have to deal. However, I do not want to make too much of this difficulty.

I should like, so far as I can, to accede to the invitation which has been extended to me by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I say to him with sincerity that this matter will be looked at carefully again. I cannot say to him that a conclusion will be reached between now and the time the Bill appears in another place, or that a conclusion will be reached at all. What I can say to him is that our minds are not entirely barren of ideas on this subject and that we shall be just as pleased to do what he asks as I hope he will be to hear this. If he can see his way to withdrawing the peg from inside the hat, I shall be happy to do what I have said.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. When I put down this Amendment I knew that I had given him a headache. It has been a headache for years. I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that speed is becoming greater, loads are getting heavier, and vehicles are getting larger. We have to carry the public with us on the question of safety and this question is something which sooner or later has to be solved. I am grateful to the noble Lord for acceding to my request to give the matter his attention. I know that he will do so. Maybe he cannot do it in time for when this Bill appears in another place, but it has to be done none the less. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Second Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:

LORD BURDEN moved to add to the proposed Amendments of the principal Act:

"Local Authorities' Traffic Regulation Orders

Section twenty-seven. In subsection (4), after the words 'shall not require confirmation' there shall be inserted the words 'unless its effect is such as is mentioned in subsection (4) of the last foregoing section'"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment and the following one standing in my name is to permit local authorities to make orders, subject to confirmation by the Minister, to create peak hour clearways on through traffic routes, similar to the clearways established by the Minister on A.4, the Cromwell Road Extension, which, as your Lordships know, is the main westward exit from London. The Amendment would enable local authorities to facilitate the peak hour traffic flow into and out of towns and cities on main traffic routes during mornings and evenings. The local authorities are well aware that drastic traffic restrictions are no substitute for road improvements and that a complete ban on waiting can cause considerable hardship on those whose premises front on to the roads in question. Therefore, they would be very reluctant to exercise the new power, confining it to cases where for the time being there are no other means of maintaining the flow of traffic at the busy times of day. I would repeat that any new order would require confirmation by the Minister. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 10, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Burden.)

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, in our view, it is entirely desirable that highway authorities outside London should be able to bring in that useful traffic component (if I may so call it), the peak hour clearway, and in view of the fact that this Amendment enables them to do so, I am happy to accept it, with the consequential Amendment. In practice, the Minister would confirm orders for permanent clearways only if the prevention of access was nothing more than technical—that is to say, so long as there was access by a side road or some other means—otherwise orders involving substantial prevention of access would be confirmed only if they applied for limited periods of the day, such as for peak hours.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, and I am sure that local authorities will appreciate his decision. I can assure him that local authorities will use the new power with due discretion and not, I think, overwork the Ministry too much.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule [Enactments repealed]:

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 45, at end insert ("and in subsection (5), the words from 'in relation' to 'next following section'").—(Lord Burden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.