§ 3.47 p.m.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, with permission, I will now repeat a Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, and I will use her own words:
"The Road Research Laboratory has now completed its assessment of the 70 m.p.h. speed limit trial, and its Report was published on 8th June. The Report estimated that in 1966, with the 70 m.p.h. limit in operation, fatalities and casualties on motorways were 480 fewer than would have been expected without the speed limit. This was a reduction of about 20 per cent., and included 58 fewer people killed. Also, in clear weather on a 73-mile length of the M.1/M.10/M.45 complex during the trial period, the accident rate was the lowest recorded-10 per cent. lower than the average for the previous five years. The proportion of injury accidents was also the lowest recorded.
"The Report concluded that accidents on main roads were about 3½ per cent. fewer than would have been expected without the limit. On less important roads subject to the limit there appeared to have been virtually no change in the number of injury accidents compared with those expected. There were greater reductions in fatal and serious accidents and casualties on dual carriageways than on single carriageways, but the extent to which this could be attributed to the 70 m.p.h. limit was uncertain. 'The limit probably had little or no effect on the single carriageways because speeds as high as 70 m.p.h. are possible on only a few of them.
"An inquiry undertaken by National Opinion Polls in February this year showed 61 per cent. of motorists questioned in favour of a permanent 70 m.p.h. limit on motorways.
1152 "Before making up my mind on the course of action to follow, I invited and received the views of a wide range of interested organisations. The Report has also been discussed in the National Road Safety Advisory Council.
"In the light of the evidence now available, it is clear that we must distinguish between motorways and other roads.
"So far as motorways are concerned, I accept the evidence of the Road Research Laboratory as clearly establishing that the 70 m.p.h. limit has reduced casualties on the motorways. None of the arguments advanced against the limit convinces me that we should forgo this saving of life and injury. I have therefore decided to continue the 70 m.p.h. limit indefinitely on motorways.
"I have also decided to retain the 70 m.p.h. limit for roads other than motorways, at any rate for the time being But the Road Research Laboratory Report makes it clear that if we want to achieve a really worthwhile reduction in accidents on these roads then we may need to consider lower limits for them.
"70 m.p.h. may well prove to be the right limit for the majority of dual carriageways. But there are others bearing particularly heavy traffic where a limit of 60 m.p.h. might be more appropriate. And this might also prove to be the best limit for main roads other than dual carriageways.
"I am not putting these limits forward as firm proposals at the moment. There has been a good deal of Press speculation about my plans for these roads, and I want to say now that there is no question of a general limit lower than 70 m.p.h. being imposed before the summer traffic peak. But these are the kind of limits which we are now going to investigate and about which I shall be consulting all those concerned.
"I also intend to continue indefinitely the ban on slow-moving vehicles from the off-side lane of three-lane motorways which I introduced on a trial basis on 23rd May, 1966. This has been widely welcomed and should 1153 help to keep this lane free for the faster moving traffic subject to the 70 m.p.h. speed limit.
"The White Paper on Road Safety published last week stressed that we cannot rely on hunches to reduce the appalling total of casualties from road accidents. The Road Research Laboratory Report is, I believe, clear evidence that the right decision now is to keep the 70 m.p.h. limit on motorways.
"But we shall continue to watch the effect of this and other limits. I recognise that there are conflicting views among responsible people about just where limits should be fixed. And I can assure the House that if experience shows that it would be right, as our highway network develops, to consider other possible limits or variations of them, upwards or downwards, then we shall not hesitate to do so."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for giving us the Statement of the Minister of Transport; and may I assure him that we on this side certainly welcome the reduction of accidents and loss of life and limb, however it is brought about. May I ask him whether he is aware that a careful reading of the Report reveals that its conclusions that the limit of 70 m.p.h. was a cause of the reduction is deductive rather than objective? Is he aware that the Report would have been much stronger if it had been able to achieve a comparative analysis of the causes of individual accidents on motorways, both before and after the limit? Is the noble Lord further aware that there is some justifiable anxiety about restrictive limits? Whilst it is always persuasive to impose speed limits in the interest of reducing accidents, they may have a damaging overall effect in slowing up transport, in interference with export markets and so on. Is the noble Lord, therefore, aware that the Minister's intention to consider lower limits for other classes of road—and it has been rumoured possibly 60 m.p.h.—calls for an objective study and research to determine the causes of accidents, to find to what extent they are due to the speed factor?
1154 Finally, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware—I am sure he is—that we live in a world of movement, where it is in the national interest to adapt ourselves to speed so far as possible? Indeed, the noble Lord and his noble friends are asking us now to adapt ourselves to supersonic flight and supersonic boom. This matter of speed limits is very much a matter of judgment which should be founded on the most objective evidence. Provided that he gives us that, he will certainly get my support.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place? May I assure him from these Benches that we will support any measures that will save life or prevent injury. Does not the noble Lord think that in the ultimate the best solution will be found in greater efforts to improve the standard of driving at all speeds, rather than having restrictive limits?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, if I may, I will reply to the noble Lords, Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Byers. Naturally, I did not need to be told by either of them that they supported this Government, any Government, in efforts to reduce the appalling casualties on our roads. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is quite correst in saying that this is a question of judgment. Certainly the more evidence one can obtain on which that judgment can be based, the better. At the moment we have the evidence that has been produced by the Road Research Laboratory, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will give them very great credit for the manner in which they carry out their inquiries. We now have clear evidence from this Laboratory that the speed limit has had a marked effect on accidents. The fact that we save 50 lives, or frankly even a figure lower than that, I think justifies some form of restriction.
I take the noble Lord's point that one does not want restrictions for the sake of restrictions. We want the most economic use of our roads. But if one looks at the fact, one finds that the speed limit of 70 m.p.h. really affects a relatively few number of motorists on the roads. Looking at the figures, I should personally say that only about 20 per cent. of drivers previously drove at 1155 over 70 m.p.h. Therefore, the slight difference is not going to be very great.
I agree with the noble Lord we must obtain more evidence, more information, on accidents, but the Government have made their decision, which of course will be subject to review, as I mentioned in the last paragraph of the Statement. We have also evidence from overseas, particularly Germany, where there was a really terrible increase in accidents when they took off the speed limit. We therefore had evidence from overseas, and we had this in mind when we were considering the Report of the Road Research Laboratory.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that until quite recently we had only one speed limit, 30 m.p.h. We have now in various places, 30, 40, on occasions 50, and 70 m.p.h. Do they therefore not consider the introduction of yet another one, 60 m.p.h., is likely to prove even more confusing to drivers than at the present time? At the same time, will they consider the advisability of doing away with as many as possible of those death traps, the three-lane roads, which are responsible for a large proportion of the accidents?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, we are in the middle of a Scottish debate, and I will not follow the noble Earl into the question of three-lane roads. I will say this: we have now a Committee considering the whole question of speed limits, and I believe their report should become available to the Minister in September. One of our difficulties is that we have a wide variation in the standards of roads in this country. One tries to make the most economic use of these roads, and this has resulted, through experiment, in a wide range of speed limits. I would agree in principle that the fewer limits we have, or the greater standardisation, the better.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, may I put a couple of questions to the noble Lord? Would he confirm my understanding that this is to be a continuing experiment? I thought that was what I was to understand from the Statement. I should like to be confirmed in that understanding. I do not wish to carp, 1156 but it is a trifle disappointing that, after 20 months of experiment, the available evidence is not a little more positive. The noble Lord himself used the words "it is estimated" and "would have been expected". Am I definitely to understand that this is to be of a further experimental nature, and that further evidence which many people think is required as to the variations in factors, including speed, will be considered in the future?
May I further ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us what are the views generally of the police on the action the Minister has decided to take? And, in view of the necessity of obtaining such adequate enforcement as is needed for safety, should not such a limit be seen to be reasonable by those who are affected by it? Possibly they are a different category from those referred to in the Opinion Poll figures, many of whom may not have been affected by it. Can the noble Lord further tell us what were the views of the National Road Safety Advisory Committee on this matter?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, with regard to the first of the noble Lord's questions, perhaps I may repeat that this speed limit on motorways will remain indefinitely, but that we shall have it much under review, studying all its effects. I think I should also say to the noble Lord that at the moment we shall not be undertaking any change. Therefore we wish to see this limit remain certainly for some time. As to the police, of course they have the problem of enforcement; and, to be quite frank with the noble Lord, they might have preferred a slightly higher limit in terms basically of enforcement, although they recognise the case made by the Road Research Laboratory as to the effect of this particular speed limit.
The Advisory Committee's Report has not yet been delivered to the Minister, but my information is that the Committee, which embraces a fairly wide range of interests, was fairly split between the maintenance of the 70 m.p.h. speed limit and perhaps a higher limit. However, there was unanimity of view on that Committee that the 70 m.p.h. speed limit should remain as an experimental limit. As the noble Lord will see from my Statement, we intend to continue this limit for 1157 an indefinite period, but naturally we shall be keeping it under review.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I do not wish to prolong this matter unduly. The noble Lord referred to Germany. Am I right in thinking that nowadays on the autobahn there is a selective system, which clearly indicates what is the right speed for the section of the road; and that in fact some sections are completely unrestricted? This is a system which I believe gives confidence to the motorist. Is it not worth considering something along these lines for Britain?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. One does not wish to develop this matter, but the noble Lord will be interested to know that when the speed limit of 62 m.p.h. on the Frankfurt—Mannheim autobahn, imposed in 1958, was removed in 1961, there was an increase in accidents of 35 per cent. and in deaths and injuries of 43 per cent., although the increase in traffic was only 9 per cent.
§ LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATHMy Lords, is there any statistical evidence as to the deaths caused by the influence of drink? If this evidence is not available, might not this be examined by means of coroners' depositions? The reason I say this is that I administer a benefit which pays out in the case of fatal accidents; and I must say that from my experience which covers about 60 deaths a year, I am appalled at the number of deaths which can be associated with drink. I would emphasise that it is not just drink on the part of the driver. I do not think that it is appreciated how many pedestrians under the influence of drink will walk into a car at about half-past ten or eleven o'clock at night.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, we have had a number of full debates on the question of drink and driving. There is now in being an Act, which I believe will be in force later this year and, I should imagine, will have a material effect upon the question that the noble Lord has put forward.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, one more question to the noble Lord. I heard with interest his reply to my noble friend Lord Chesham 1158 about police preference for having a higher limit. Is he aware that my own feeling is that had this limit been set at 80 m.p.h. instead of 70 m.p.h., we probably should have got the same results? Would he therefore stress to his right honourable friend in another place the importance of not relying on "hunches", as she says in her Statement, when she is dealing with the overall speed limit on roads, but to make quite sure that her thoughts are based on scientific evidence?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend Mrs. Barbara Castle is the one woman who does not rely on "hunches". But I will certainly see that the point made by the noble Lord is conveyed to her.