§ LORD MORRIS had given Notice of his intention to ask the following Question:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will consider introducing legislation restricting the height, length and width of vehicles which may be used for the transport of goods et cetera by road, thereby making the roads immeasurably safer for all classes of the community whilst indirectly and simultaneously diverting to British Railways and canals welcome and much-needed freight to help offset their monumental losses.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government if, the next time they have it in mind publicly to castigate and blackguard me, as they did last week from the Front Bench through the mouth of the Lord President to the Council—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD MORRIS—they will have the courtesy lo give me notice, so that I may at least pay your Lordships the compliment of my attendance?
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, I had no notice that anything of this kind was going to be said or that anything other than the noble Lord's Question was going to be put clown. If he feels I was guilty of any discourtesy to him, I will, of course, willingly apologise. I was not aware I had castigated him. I certainly did not intend to do so. I was simply quoting a precedent, something which had happened, in order to illustrate a general point of procedure, and I think I did so accurately. Certainly if the noble Lord feels I acted remissly in any way towards him per- 10 sonally. I can only apologise most humbly; but I did not feel at the time I was casting aspersions on him at all.
LORD MORRISMy Lords, I have been a Member of your Lordships' House now for over a quarter of a century. The words used of me were "offensive", "objectionable" and "improper"; those were the words used by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. I think I might have been warned of this.
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD MORRISDuring my twenty-five years I have always been treated with the greatest courtesy by everyone in the House, the noble Viscount on the Woolsack, the noble Marquess on my left and by his father. I challenge the noble Viscount to repeat what he said outside the House. If he does so, I shall be happy to take him back to the Law Courts.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, if the Leader of the Opposition may speak on this matter, may I say that I know nothing of the particular case and the words used; but I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will feel, when he has had such an answer as the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House has just given, that he might well let the matter drop and let the House get on with its business.
LORD MORRISMy Lords, I accept the apology, if that is what it is intended to be, and I now beg to ask the Question standing on the Paper in my name.
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, [MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)My Lords, the length, width and gross laden weight of normal commercial vehicles are already restricted by the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955. The use of larger vehicles for the carriage of certain indivisible loads is authorised only under restricted conditions. Proposals for tightening these conditions are now under consideration. Really, exceptional loads for which no other suitable means of transport can be found may be carried by road under the authority of individual special Orders made by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport. In such cases, which are 11 relatively few, strict conditions are imposed as to the route and timing of the journey. Within the limits laid down for normal commercial traffic, however, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to leave industry free to choose the most suitable and economic method of transport for each particular purpose.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, I am exceedingly interested in Lord Morris's Question. May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that, in the last 20 years, the size, height and length of goods vehicles on the roads have expanded enormously? One cannot drive on the road every day without observing it. In Germany, famous for its autobahns and the like, they have recently altered their road transport regulations because, in spite of whatever may be said on behalf of road transport, they want to see the big traffic put back on to their railways. I do not see anything particularly out of place in Lord Morris's Question, and I hope that further attention will be paid to it.
§ LORD CHESHAMYes, my Lords; it is for that reason that I said that proposals for tightening the conditions were under consideration at the present time. We are therefore quite aware of that, which is the natural reason for the proposals. But I think I should point out to the noble Viscount that our existing restrictions, under the regulations I mentioned, bring about the fact that our vehicles are already smaller than those in any other country in Europe, except, I think I am right in saying, Portugal and the Republic of Ireland.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, with reference to the noble Lord's mention of indivisible loads, is he aware that one of the greatest troubles on the roads arises from large goods vehicles with equally large trailers? And can he say whether the regulations which his right honourable friend is reviewing will take that fact into account? Because it is not right that industry should have the freedom of choice when it interferes so drastically with the freedom of other road users.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether much of the trouble does not also arise from the problem of double handling?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, in the case of the indivisible loads it is particularly the large loads which my right honourable friend has in mind when reconsidering the regulations. Of course, these days things are getting so large. Pressure vessels for reactors and that sort of thing have to be moved about, and they simply will not go by any other way. They will not go under the bridges and will not go through the stations on the railways; nor could they go by canal. They are not manufactured or destined to go anywhere near a port.
§ LORD STONHAMI was not concerned with those loads: I meant a load which is obviously divisible because it is partly in the main vehicle and partly in the subsidiary vehicle. But vehicles carrying these loads do occupy an enormous amount of room. Are vehicles of that kind to be investigated in the review of these regulations?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy right honourable friend has that very point much in mind.
§ LORD FERRIERMy Lords, in view of the noble Lord's answer to the last but one supplementary question, may I ask whether his right honourable friend would also add the words "coastal shipping" to the question of canals?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am not sure that I understand my noble friend correctly. I am not quite sure what he wants me to do.
§ LORD FERRIERMy Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will explain what I have in mind. I was held up for a long time on the road following an enormous vehicle carrying a vast piece of apparatus which could not have gone by canal; nor could it have gone by rail. But it was going from Port Glasgow to Chatham, and it could have gone by coastal shipping.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I think that possibly it could or possibly it could not—I have not the circumstances at my finger-tips. But one thing I can say is that when there is a special order movement (which is what my noble friend's obstruction appears to have been) the special order is not granted until it has been ascertained that the load could not go by rail or coastal shipping.