HL Deb 21 July 1964 vol 260 cc619-34

7.0 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of their having increased the permitted speed limit for goods vehicles and their announced intention of increasing the permitted size of such vehicles, what proposals they have for ensuring that such vehicles are properly maintained and do not carry loads in excess of the permitted weight. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I cannot imagine that this Question will raise quite the interest that the last debate raised, for I must say that I found the last debate extremely interesting despite the fact that I had to "sit in" all the way through it, waiting for my Question to be called.

My Lords, it is nearly 18 months since we debated the Regulations under the 1960 Road Traffic Act increasing the speed limits on goods vehicles without trailers from 30 to 40 miles per hour, and the addition of at least 10 miles per hour to the maximum speed limits of most goods vehicles. A large part of the debate on that occasion was centred around the possible effects of those increases on road safety, particularly as to the possible enforcement of the new speed limits; and we debated at some length the improvement in the standards of maintenance that would clearly be necessary unless the higher speeds were to prove a great danger to other road-users. My Question to-day is designed to enable us to consider whether the increase in speed limits has resulted if any increase in road accidents; whether anything has happened in the meantime po ensure the better enforcement of the maximum speed limits; whether the standard of maintenance has improved; whether the existing standards of enforcement and vehicle maintenance are now such as to enable us, with a reasonable degree of safety, to embark upon permitting wider, longer and more heavily-loaded vehicles on the roads in the near future; and, finally, whether our roads are yet suitable for the longer and heavier vehicles the Minister proposes to permit upon them.

On my first point, whether the permitted increase in maximum speed limits has resulted in any increase in road accidents, it is extremely difficult for me to ascertain the figures, because the latest information available to me in the Printed Paper Office here is the Ministry's publicaton Road Accidents. for the year 1962, which is, of course, the year before the limits were raised. But, in any event, even if we had the figures for 1963, it would be very difficult to discover what had been the result, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, told us in the debate of last year, the old limits were widely and flagrantly disregarded, and enforcement by the police had been virtually impossible.

In addition, there is always the difficulty of disentangling from the reports of accidents in which lorries are involved the extent to which the accidents are caused by excessive speeds. Always the tale is, "I was doing well under 30 or 40", or whatever happens to be the applicable speed limit for that class of vehicle or the class of road upon which the accident took place. But the Ministry have later figures than I, and I hope they have managed to make for our purpose a detailed analysis which, despite the difficulties I have mentioned, will tell us what has resulted from these increases. Of course, if the Minister cannot give us this information, I think I can understand. I have mentioned the difficulties.

The next question I should like to ask in this connection arises from the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that if the speed limit is too low the police find enforcement virtually impossible. My question is: to what extent has increasing the limit enabled the police to enforce the law in this connection, and has there been an increase or a decrease in the number of prosecutions? I do not know what is the experience of other noble Lords, but I must admit that I have seen no difference at all. About the most frightening thing that happens to me, when I am driving at 50 miles an hour on roads on which I feel that a greater speed would be unsafe, is to find a huge vehicle breathing down my neck for mile after mile, filling my mirror with its bulk and me with apprehension. This is especially the case when I remember that so many of these vehicles have such a shocking standard of maintenance—and here I come to maintenance.

How are we getting on with the job of ensuring the higher standard that we clearly must have? The latest information I have is in the 1961–62 Annual Reports of the licensing authorities. In those reports I find these sentences. The North-Western Traffic Area report says: 53 per cent. of all vehicles inspected were issued with prohibition notices, 15 per cent. immediate and 38 per cent. delayed. These figures continue to emphasise that the standard of maintenance of goods vehicles is still too low. My Lords, although I have placed upon my notes similar extracts from all the Commissioners' reports, I shall read only one more. They are all very much like the one I have just read.

This one is from the Eastern Traffic Area report: Special brake efficiency checks have been held on trunk roads following a suspected increase in speed along dual carriageways and in the loads carried, particularly coal. Such checks have in fact revealed a low standard of brake efficiency, 40 per cent. of the vehicles checked being issued with prohibition orders.… I regret to report that, in general, the standard of maintenance has deteriorated slightly. This may, as I have suggested above, be due to higher speeds and heavier pay loads, both of which must add to the difficulties of an operator's maintenance staff". This Commissioner continues: It is unfortunate that the number of goods vehicles inspected has fallen during the past year from 15 per cent. to only 11 per cent. of the estimated total fleet strength and with the increasing demands being made on the time of the technical staff it is unlikely that even this low percentage will be maintained.

My Lords, I have quoted at some length (though perhaps not the length I had intended if we had started on this Question a little earlier) because of the gravity of those reports—and they are indeed grave reports. But, as I have said, those reports are for the year 1961–62. Fortunately, we have for our consideration some figures a little more up to date. Mr. Marples has donned the overalls and got on to the job of inspection himself. On Tuesday of last week, the Daily Express carried his photograph so attired and a report of his and his officials' examination which took place on Western Avenue. The report says: In an hour and a half while he watched them, police and his Ministry testers stopped 70 lorries. And this is what happened:— Nine were so dangerous that they were not allowed to go on; Thirty-eight were defective and must be put right within 10 days; Only 23 were road-worthy. In fairness to the lorrymen Mr. Marples", and, I would say, rightly, pointed out that the police were only stopping lorries that looked possible offenders. But those that were stopped were often shockers, as he found when he put on a khaki overall and got under some. Among the stopped lorries there were bad brakes, loose or worn steering gear, broken springs, fractured chassis, and faulty lights. One gravel tipper had twenty-two faults. 'This is frightening' said Mr. Marples. It was. And the report went on: Mr. Marples took yesterday's check fairly cheerfully. To Mr. Frank Egan, driver of the 22-faults tipper, he explained that the lorry would have to be towed away, then shook hands with him, slapped him on the shoulder, and said: 'Goodbye and good luck. You need it!'. I must say that I liked particularly the final remark of the Express reporter, which was: With nine positively dangerous and 38 defective lorries passing every hour and a half, everybody needs it! And so they do.

This morning a brief report appeared in the same newspaper. Perhaps I should add here that I do read other papers—

A NOBLE LORD

Thank God for that!

LORD CHAMPION

My noble friend says, "Thank God for that!" but I find this a reasonably lively sort of paper, and the sort from which one can extract these little things. This brief report appeared in the same newspaper this morning: Transport Minister Mr. Ernest Marples has ordered priority talks to make Britain's lorries safer. He wants leaders of all the lorrymen's national organisations to meet him as soon as possible so that a drill can be worked out which will ensure all operational lorries are road-worthy. More than 1,000 of 2,000 goods vehicles examined in London spot-checks last week were defective and 195 were in dangerous condition, it was revealed yesterday. All I can say about this is that these priority talks ought to have been ordered years ago. They ought not to have been left to this stage; for the shocking facts have been available to us all for many years. Certainly we discussed them last year, and I know they have been previously discussed in the other place because I have heard such debates there myself. It just will not do to have increased speeds and heavier loads with vehicles of that sort. If you do, it is simply asking for trouble.

In so many of these cases that find their way into court there is the miracle of the coincidence of finding the sadly defective vehicle when, as the lorry driver explains, it was actually on the way to a garage for repairs. I seem to hear this every time I am sitting in court—this miracle of the lorry having been stopped on the way to the garage to get all these faults put right. In this matter of maintenance, the greatest deterrent against "chancing your arm" with such vehicles as those found last week and as have been found for many years past, is the fear of being caught. My noble friend Lord Gardiner said last week that if the conviction rate goes up, crime goes down; if the conviction rate goes down, crime goes up. What is true of housebreaking is, I am positive, true in the case of "chancing it" with an unroadworthy vehicle.

The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, last year said that to ensure an annual examination of the over-30 cwt. vehicles would necessitate doubling or trebling the staff of 320 examiners; and he went on to say: I do not believe it could be done, on financial grounds. The cost of doubling or trebling that staff, I venture to suggest, would be more than offset by the saving in the cost of road accidents caused by faulty vehicles. If one were balanced against the other, then I feel the financial advantage would be on the side of more examiners, more tests, more driving of faulty vehicles off the road, as against not only the distress of the people concerned but the actual cost of accidents, the cost to the nation in loss of life and all the rest of it. The question I would here ask the noble Lord is: what is now the size of the Ministry inspecting staff and what is being done to recruit more for this purpose of examination?

My Lords, the final matter I wish to touch on is that of the Regulations proposed for increasing the dimensions and the higher weight-carrying of goods vehicles. Of course, it is not only a matter of goods vehicles; it includes also buses.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am very sorry to do so, but would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? In this case, it is not "also buses", because their dimensions have already been increased.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I understood that buses are permitted now an 8 ft. width and that under the new regulation the heavy motor cars, which I thought included buses, would be permitted to go to 8 ft. 2½ in. But if I am wrong——

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, it is merely a matter of detail for the record. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I want to get it straight that this is already the position for buses.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for interrupting, for clearly I do not want to make any statement which might be misunderstood. I believe my case to be strong enough without adding 2½ inches to something which needs no 2½ inches added under the Regulations.

What the Regulations are to contain was told to the other place in a Written Answer, at col. 208 of the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT for July 1. What is to be embodied in the proposed Statutory Instrument was foreshadowed in Lord Chesham's speech on January 30, 1963, when he reminded us of the fact that these Regulations which Mr. Marples tells us are shortly to be laid will have to be laid under the Negative Resolution procedure. This will mean that to discuss those Regulations we shall have to pray against them; that amendment would be impossible; that we could only either accept or reject them in toto. My Question, I must admit, was primarily intended to enable your Lordships' House to discuss the Regulations as foreshadowed by the Minister before they are laid and to do so in the light of some of the considerations I have previously mentioned.

What are the main proposals? Width: heavy motor cars—I will not here mention buses—is to go up from 8 feet to 8 ft. 2½ ins., and for goods vehicles from 7 ft. 6 ins. to 8 ft. 2½ ins.; the length of rigid vehicles from 30 to 36 ft 1 in.; articulated vehicles from 35 to 42 ft. 7¾.in.; weighty on one-wheeled axles from 4½ tons to 5 tons and on single-axled 2-wheeled from 9 tons to 10 tons. The question we have to ask is: are our roads capable of carrying such vehicles without serious risk? My answer (and here I am taking figures obtained at the beginning of this year) is that on the 145 miles of motorway, they can be taken; on the 8,340 miles of trunk roads, only for a part of that mileage; on the 19,760 miles of Class 1 roads, on not very much; and on the 66,500 miles of Class 2 and Class 3 roads, on very little, indeed, or perhaps none, of that mileage.

The noble Lord's reference to this last year makes it clear that this matter has been under study for something like two years. And at the very end of a Parliament the Minister has decided to lay this Order. I think that we should be told—and I hope that we shall be told tonight—what the study comprised. Did it include the capacity and adequacy of the roads?—for surely that must be a major part of the consideration. Surely it was not enough to say that we must press on with this because these are the lengths, widths and weights used on the Continent. I do a fair amount of driving on Class 1 roads, and on much of them buses and lorries of the old widths take up far more room than is consistent with safety on the roads. To pass them, or to be passed by them, is often a considerable hazard. At one roundabout, which I know very well, in a busy town, long vehicles, including buses cannot get round in one turn and there has to be a great deal of shunting backwards and forwards. The result is that all the other traffic is held up, and this shunting constitutes a considerable hazard in the vicinity of this roundabout.

When the Minister lays this Order, he will probably argue that what he proposes is only 2½ inches wider in some cases; only 8½ inches on goods vehicles; an extra 6 ft. 1 in. on the length of rigid vehicles; an extra half a ton on some vehicles and a ton on others. But these little additions all add up, and they will have to be accommodated on roads that are not elastic and will not stretch to take them. Even if we take into consideration the noble Lord's announcement of this afternoon, after the five-year programme which he foreshadowed is completed the roads of this country will still be inadequate for the size of lorries which the Minister proposes. At the end of the period which the noble Lord mentioned, out of 94,000 miles of road there will still be, if I have the figures right, only 860 miles of motorway—that is, motorways already constructed, those under construction and those foreshadowed in the five years to come. I think that I am right, but if not, I am sure that the noble Lord will put me right. In any case, even if it turned out that there will be 1,000 miles, it would still leave all the rest upon which these larger vehicles will have to travel.

I do not suggest for one moment that Mr. Marpies is not alive to the great problem of road safety. Of course, he is. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in the debate last year, he is a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde in all this. On the one hand he makes a big show of dressing up in overalls and getting under vehicles in a spot check, while, on the other, he increases the speed limits for lorries, so many of which are unfit for 10 m.p.h., let alone 40. He increases the weights and the sizes of vehicles that come charging down upon us on totally inadequate roads. Before the Minister lays the Order, I appeal to him to get his priorities right. As they appear to me the priorities are: first, adequate roads; secondly, the maintenance and enforcement of a high standard; thirdly, sufficient speed enforcement devices (radar and so on); and, lastly, adequate police staffing on the roads.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will not say to me, as he appeared to say to my noble friends Lord Stonham and Lord Lindgren in the debate last year, that what they said must be suspect because he knew that one showed great interest in branch lines and that the other was a railwayman. I was a railwayman and I still have a great interest in what happens to old colleagues, but I have never suggested that the pattern of railways built in the Victorian era should remain fixed for all time. If the noble Lord cared (though I cannot imagine he will) to look back over the debates in another place over many years, he would find that I have never taken up such a dogmatic and, as I would regard it, silly position in relation to railways and roads. I readily admit, for certain classes of traffic, the superiority of road over rail, and I hope that I am sufficiently detached to recognise the necessity for the extension of the most economical form of traffic in the national interest. But for Heaven's sake! and for the road users' sake, let us get our priorities right in all this. I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, I am sure that we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for raising this important matter. The report that the noble Lord quoted to us from this morning's edition of his favourite newspaper reached me over the B.B.C. radio. It is obviously reaching the nation, and I imagine that a great deal of public disquiet is being aroused, as the noble Lord has so vividly explained. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this.

7.28 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, can at once disabuse his mind of any suspicion that on account of the fact that he is a railwayman, as I know him well to be, I shall accuse him of any form of bias or unreasonableness in this matter. Even if that suspicion had been there, he would have dispelled it by his serious, reasoned and reasonable speech on this important matter. On a great deal of this question there is no great difference of thinking between us, as I hope will become clear in a few moment. I will only say to him that it perhaps lies in a difference in what I might have said a year ago. The only real criticism I have of his speech is that I thought he rather "over-egged his pudding" as he got towards the end and spoke of the activities of my right honourable friend. But I do not propose to make anything of that point, because we have much more important points between us.

The noble Lord based his Question on the proposals for alterations in the weights and dimensions of certain classes of vehicles and in the speed limits. Even from the figures which I have, and which the noble Lord will have in due course, and recognising the difficulties which he mentioned (thereby saving me the trouble of repeating them), all I can tell him at the moment is that I have no evidence that the increase in speed limit as such has resulted in an increase in accidents. I hope the noble Lord will accept that from me.

On the question of enforcement and prosecution, I am sorry to say that I have not informed myself as to any detail on that, because I have devoted my thinking entirely to the last part of the noble Lord's Question as he put it on the Order Paper. I should like to say, however, that the information about the proposals for the new dimensions was also given to your Lordships' House in answer to a Written Question by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the same date as the noble Lord mentioned.

LORD CHAMPION

I did not notice it.

LORD CHESHAM

I should like to address myself to the thinking I have been putting in, in line with the last part of the noble Lord's Question, and I feel he will see that I have covered reasonably well the matters he raises. The noble Lord correctly pointed out that one of the prime objects of the revision of the Construction and Use Regulations is to bring them more into line with those of Continental Europe as nearly as the physical state of our roads and bridges will permit. I emphasise that on purpose. Doing such a thing has the advantage of moving towards a common European standard, which is both generally accounted to be an advantage and of great assistance to the export trade. But I can assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that no such change has been proposed without the most careful consideration of road safety factors; and it has not been done simply because it is of great economic benefit, important as that may be in itself. Further, it has not been contemplated without considerable work and study on the ability of our road system, to which I thought the noble Lord did a little less than justice in view of the road system as it is now.

The noble Lord asked what has been going on behind these Regulations, and I will tell him. He knows that my right honourable friend must by Statute consult all interested parties when he proposes such Regulations, and this is largely what has been going on. The proposals, as the noble Lord knows, first went round in 1963. They provoked a considerable weight of objection and certain amendments, to the extent that they were withdrawn and new proposals containing many of those suggestions and amendments were circulated in late March of this year. I can tell the noble Lord that discussions on these matters went on until last Wednesday. I can tell him, even, that an amendment was agreed yesterday. Obviously there are conflicting issues that arise in this matter, and the noble Lord has expressed some of them this afternoon. But all these things have been put clearly to the Ministry, and they have been seriously considered. We are the first to recognise that translating these matters into Regulations is far from easy. That is what is behind what the noble Lord mentioned—not, I think, in a complaining spirit—about the Regulations being laid rather late in the Session.

It seems to me that a lot of the criticism which has been made outside the House and by the noble Lord to-day is directed towards the point that we should be doing other things, or could be doing better things, in the interests of safety, and, therefore, they are all the more important because of the new weights and dimensions. This brings me to the heart of the matter.

However, before I get on to specific safety factors, I should like to say a word on the question of traffic flow and congestion. We have considered that our proposed increases in width and overall length are acceptable, as such, in relation to both flow and congestion, provided that they are not further increased by removable extensions and things of that kind. Therefore our proposals include the important point that removable extensions will now be included in the maximum length permitted for any individual vehicle, instead of excluded as they are at present. In the case of a vehicle with a trailer, we have, for the first time, included a figure for the total permissible length of the combination of the two, on which there has not been any limit before. In general, if the new types are properly utilised the result will be that more goods should be carried by a smaller number of vehicles than would be possible at present.

Coming on to safety, I would say that there are two things we have to look at. The first is what we are doing about the vehicles of the new weights and dimensions; and the second is the improvement of the standard of maintenance and condition of heavy vehicles generally. The new vehicles will have to carry plates attached by the manufacturers to show the maximum weights that they can safely carry. Any such vehicles constructed since February, 1963 (because some of them have been so constructed in anticipation and are already in use) will be allowed to carry the higher weights only after inspection and, if necessary, modification by the manufacturers, who will then fit a plate to state what they can safely carry.

The second point is that any vehicle authorised to carry the new weights will have to comply with the braking efficiency requirements which are already prescribed for private cars and the lighter goods vehicles. That is a considerable tightening up in this respect.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether these plates will have a registration number to tie them with the vehicle chassis, to ensure that the Hate is not switched from one vehicle to another?

LORD CHESHAM

I had not considered that in detail.

LORD SHEPHERD

It is a possibility.

LORD CHESHAM

It is a possibility, and now the noble Lord has mentioned it I will certainly bear it in mind. The plates on the new vehicles represent only the first step towards introducing further safeguards against the overloading of any goods vehicles. It was almost twelve months ago—actually it was on July 23 last year—that I said, in answer to a Question, again by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that my right honourable friend had set up a Departmental Committee to examine ways and means of developing a plating scheme. That is a matter in which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was particularly interested. We have had a great deal of co-operation and help from manufacturers and operators in tackling it, but what we have found is that answers are needed to a number of complex and difficult technical questions arising from and relating to this question of plating.

What we must do is to produce a common standard for both existing and new vehicles, in that they must all, among other requirements, be able to maintain a reasonable speed when fully laden with the appropriate load, and so we shall have to define a minimum power/weight ratio. Related again to this, we shall have to set a minimum standard of braking efficiency to go with it. As I have said, it poses a number of technical problems, particularly to existing vehicles, not all of which have been resolved. It would not be right if I were to give the impression that a general plating system for all vehicles can be produced quickly so as to establish (as it would be if it could be) an effective and practicable system that will be a real help to road safety when all those problems are resolved. What I can assure your Lordships is that we are pressing on with the matter and tackling these problems as fast as we can.

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Champion, too, that we are just as concerned as he is—and I hope as many other people as possible—that the heavy element should be properly serviced and kept mechanically sound. We attach great value to our own examination and checking, and the intention is to step it up. There is no thought of relaxing it. Furthermore, it goes, not instead of, but hand in hand with the other measures. The noble Lord knows perfectly well, because he mentioned it, that our inspectors have power to put a vehicle off the road either immediately or with a delayed caution, and that it must not come back on the road until it has been passed out again and the prohibition lifted.

We are going to increase the number of roadside checks substantially during this summer. In general, there will be a goods vehicle check in operation in each traffic area on every working day, and there will be these "blitz" operations extending over two days, carried out by a number of teams working simultaneously in an area around a commercial centre or a large town, at least once in each traffic area during the summer. So far as possible, all goods vehicles entering or leaving the centre will be liable to inspection during those "blitz" operations. We wanted to emphasise that what we were really after was not to catch as many offenders as possible, but to obtain an improvement in the standard of maintenance. Therefore these operations were advertised in advance, so that operators could, if necessary, have their vehicles checked and brought up to standard. That was the thinking behind the advertisement. It has already been done, as the noble Lord knows, in Leeds and London, and notice has already been given of other "blitz" operations around Edinburgh, Norwich, Cardiff and Maidstone.

The noble Lord wanted to know about the number of vehicle examiners. It is higher than the number he has quoted. To be exact, it is 343, and it is now being further increased by competition, and the means by which suitable candidates are usually found, to 410. I cannot remember off-hand the remark of mine which the noble Lord quoted, but I am sure I must have said it if the noble Lord says I did.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I did not mean to misquote the noble Lord. I would not wish to do that in any case.

LORD CHESHAM

I am sure not. At any rate, some progress has been made. In the context in which I made that remark—and I should like to repeat this—I may well have been trying to convey at the time that there was that objection, but that there was another one, in that spot checks as such, even with three times the number of people, can provide a number of loopholes because they can miss vehicles. I rather think that was the point I was driving at.

However, even if the number of neglected, or not properly looked after, vehicles are a minority, it still amounts, as the noble Lord told us—and I agree with him—to an alarming figure and in fact to a menace. The noble Lord complained that we were doing something too late, but I will overlook that one. That was bound to come. My right honourable friend is calling together the leaders of the industry—the "A", "B" and "C" licence operators, including British Road Services and British Railways—to treat as a matter of urgency what can be done to improve the state of affairs.

What has come out of the first two "blitzes"? I agree with the noble Lord that it is frightening. There is other evidence that all is not well. The number stopped last year on the roadside checks was high, and certainly I agree with the noble Lord that the licensing authorities in almost all areas have expressed concern. Our own statistics would suggest that, while on the whole the heavy goods vehicles cause proportionately less deaths and injuries than certain other categories, the record is not as good as it has been in the past. The next move is to plan regular tests for all the 700,000 heavy goods vehicles, as well as the 800,000 lighter ones which are subject to the periodic test. A test once a year is not an end in itself, but I think that periodic inspection, under official authority, is something that we know ought to be added to what the operators can do themselves and to what we ourselves can do with our examiners and spot checking system.

It is difficult—I have said this before, but I make no apology for saying it again—to extend the periodic test to these 700,000 vehicles, because their constructional characteristics, because they are "heavies", and certain other factors, necessitate a somewhat different testing technique and probably a more extensive test. The real nub is that most of the commercial testing stations do not have the facilities and the equipment, and in many cases they would not have the experience of dealing with vehicles which are heavy and large. We must have the right men and the right tools for the job, and they cannot be found overnight. But we intend that they should be found, and that they should be. deployed and used as soon as possible.

I do not think I can say that the new weights and dimensions, which will take time to come in, can be introduced absolutely simultaneously with the new safety measures, which also will take time to come in. What I think I can claim is that the weights and dimensions, taken together with the proposals that go with them, are reasonable in themselves. We do not think they will increase the hazards of the road. If we thought that, we should never have agreed to anything of the kind. it may well be that with the other steps in operation, for plating, for better maintenance, and so on, they might even make for greater safety. We know that they will help the country's trade and industry, and I think that that will be done under present plans without added risk to road users generally, because, as always, our desire is to combine efficiency with greater safety.

7.51 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to say that I would agree with him that the new vehicles that will come on to the roads with the new Regulations will not immediately be a major danger, because they are basically new vehicles and therefore will be properly maintained and inspected. Our fear, however, is that we shall not have a system by which these new vehicles are inspected when the wear and tear of hard life brings about a deterioration. Can the noble Lord say whether consideration has been given for the road transport industry to pay an extra amount on these licences, which could be set aside, quite apart from all the other occasions, specifically for the setting up of testing stations with proper equipment and proper staff for maintenance and inspection? I should have thought that the road transport industry, which I think has safety factors at heart, would welcome and co-Operate with such a suggestion, and I wonder whether it has been given some consideration.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I cannot say this evening whether or not it has been given consideration. All I should like to say on that point is what I said before: that certainly the great majority of those in the industry are keen on improvement. It is no benefit to the industry to have accidents and it is no benefit to have lorries off the road. The great majority in the industry have been very co-operative about what we are trying to do and have given us a lot of help. On that particular question which the noble Lord has raised, frankly, I do not know whether or not it has been discussed, but I should like to take the idea away with me.

House adjourned at seven minutes before eight o'clock.