§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will forbid the introduction of 44-ton load lorries in view of the danger to following cars caused by the obstruction of vision.]
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the proposals for increase in maximum permitted lorry weights will 597 be taken with full regard to safety. Weight increases alone, however, seem unlikely to add to the obstruction of following drivers' vision. No width increases, and only a marginal one in lengths are being considered.
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether it is true that the trade, the manufacturers and the owners, are thinking of what they have on the Continent, namely, a tractor of 38 tons and a following trailer, or articulated trailer, of another 38 tons, which makes 76 tons? If they have it on the Continent, and if we are supposed to be following suit in the interests of our export trade, how will that be affected by our lack of suitable roads?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I do not think the noble Earl's figures tally with our information. I understand that in the case of a combination of rigid lorry and draw-bar trailer the road transport industry have asked permission to go up from 32 tons to 59 tons. It is this figure which they have asked for and which is being considered. As to what is happening in Europe, the fact is that road users there are asking their Governments for very similar figures to those for which our own road transport industry are asking.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that this matter must be given very careful consideration before there is any increase either in width or length of vehicles? Is the noble Lord aware that the overwhelming mileage of our roads is totally unfitted to carrying commercial vehicles which are any longer than those at present in operation? If any increase in length is agreed upon, those vehicles must be confined to our motorways and kept out of our towns and cities, because we cannot travel on many roads in our towns and cities even with the present permitted widths.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, there has been no request by the road transport industry for any increase in widths of vehicles used by the road transport industry. With regard to the lengths, they have asked for an extra half-metre, which is 20 inches. That is all they have asked for in increase in length. This subject is still being 598 considered by the Government, and I am sure that the points the noble Lord added are also well to the fore in the minds of the Secretary of State and the Minister.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, in giving their consideration, which the Government appear still to be giving, to the proposal to allow greater weight and greater length, will they bear in mind the representations made against these proposals by the Royal Institute of British Architects and, I think, by every amenity society that has considered the matter?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONYes, my Lords. I can certainly give that assurance.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, before the noble Lord agrees to the extra half metre of length which is being asked for, may I ask him whether he will stand on the edge of the pavement at the corner of Bridge Street and see how long it is before his feet are run over by some existing vehicle which is too long to be driven around that corner without going over the edge of the pavement?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I should not like to do that experiment, but I am sure that Her Majesty's Government are quite well aware of the position.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that already the immense weight of these juggernauts passing through narrow and ancient streets often causes severe damage, and sometimes destruction, of buildings alongside, which are often of great historic or architectural value? Therefore, is there not a very good case for prohibiting any increase in the weight, as well as in the length or breadth, of these vehicles?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONYes, my Lords. That is the whole point of what the Government are trying to consider. The road transport industry obviously finds it more economic to have larger loads. What the Government have to do is to weigh the interests of other users of the roads, the safety of the people and the congestion of traffic against that factor. It is a matter of balancing and coming out with the right answer.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, when this matter is being considered by his friends, will the noble Lord bear in mind the question whether there could be classification of roads on which certain types of vehicles would not be permitted, so that certain vehicles would be limited to a particular class of road? We might then avoid many of the difficulties and, equally, get our economies right.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONYes, my Lords. I am happy to tell the noble Lord that his suggestion about certain routes is one of the proposals which are being considered.
§ LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELANDMy Lords, is the noble Lord now convinced that market forces are not the ultimate in economics?
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that it would save a great deal of difficulty if these heavy loads were carried on the railways? Will he therefore consider giving no further instructions for railways to be pulled up, but rather see that the reverse process takes place so that the roads may be kept more clear?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, we are getting slightly wide of the original Question. As the noble Lord knows, the Government are in no position to dictate to road users or to railway users how they should send goods. They have to use the most economical way. I agree that when the roads are congested one would like to see the railways carrying more traffic. The railways want more traffic, and we know that, too.
§ LORD BIRKETTMy Lords, will the Government consider that the situation is more urgent even than the question of dimensions, when it is possible in towns like Lewes for pedestrians standing on the pavement to be struck by the wing mirrors of passing lorries, and when the portico of a building, listed as of architectural interest, can be physically demolished nine times in eighteen months by heavy traffic?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I agree that this is very deplorable and very sad, and the Government have every intention of trying to get by-pass roads to meet cases like that. It 600 is a question of using the funds as and when they become available.