HL Deb 18 March 1971 vol 316 cc630-7

6.37 p.m.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, for the convenience of the House and with your Lordships' permission, may I take together the two sets of Regulations standing on the Order Paper in my name? I beg to move that the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1971 and the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1971, both dated the 28th January, 1971, copies of which were laid before this House on February 4, be approved.

Maximum speed limits for specified classes of vehicles were set out in Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967. Under Section 78, subsections (2) and (4), of that Act, the Secretary of State for the Environment may, by regulation subject to approval of each House of Parliament, vary the speed limits. Schedule 5 to the Act sets out the limits currently applying to the specified classes of vehicles on roads generally. Under the identical power of Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, which Section 78 of the 1967 Act replaced, the Minister of Transport made the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Motorways) Regulations 1966 which continue to have the effect of substituting as respects vehicles driven on motorways a different schedule of speed limits from that applicable to vehicles on roads generally.

The first set of Regulations for which approval is sought substitutes two new sub-paragraphs for sub-paragraph (1) and sub-paragraph (2) of the 1967 Schedule, so making the following changes in limits apply on all-purpose roads. The speed limit of 40 m.p.h. applicable to goods vehicles is raised to 50 m.p.h. where the unladen weight of the vehicle does not exceed 30 cwt. and a trailer is not drawn. The increased speed limit for light goods vehicles on general purpose roads will enable the vehicles concerned to keep up more readily with the general traffic flow, and the reduced need for other vehicles to overtake them will benefit road safety.

The current speed limit of 40 m.p.h. is unrealistic for these vehicles, which are basically derivative of private cars, with comparable performance and braking capacity. The removal of the speed limit altogether, in line with the position of private cars, is not warranted on grounds of safety, having regard to the somewhat poorer accident rate. Light goods vehicles are frequently more heavily loaded, with correspondingly longer braking distances, than private cars; and the driver has more restricted visibility. The 50 m.p.h. limit is a sensible compromise.

The effect of the second Regulation for which approval is sought is to introduce a speed limit of 60 m.p.h. applicable to goods vehicles exceeding 3 tons unladen weight when driven on motorways, while retaining the existing limit of 50 m.p.h. applicable to public service vehicles when drawing trailers, and 40 m.p.h. applicable to all other motor vehicles, including the goods vehicles I have mentioned, when drawing a trailer which has less than four wheels or is a close-coupled four-wheeled trailer. The 60 m.p.h. motorway speed limit will apply to those classes of vehicles constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden which exceed 3 tons unladen weight; that is to say heavy motor cars, motor tractors and locomotives.

These classes of vehicles are prohibited from using the third lane on motorways and are currently subject only to the overall motorway speed limit of 70 m.p.h. Although better standards of maintenance are now being achieved for these vehicles under the goods vehicles plating and testing scheme there is still room for improvement. Other reasons for the special limit are that the vehicles require longer braking distances than light vehicles and generally their tyres are not suitable for sustained high speeds. The Secretary of State intends, however, that the limit shall be kept under review in the light of progress with improvements in design and maintenance. I hope that the House will now approve the two sets of Regulations. I beg to move:

Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1971, be approved.

That the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1971, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)

6.42 p.m.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I think it entirely sensible that the speed limit should be under constant review as our road network improves and standards of maintenance are improved by enforcement. I think it right that the very valuable and very expensive capital equipment which goes trundling along the trunk roads of this country should reach the maximum speed and productivity, and travel at the maximum safe speed. For this reason I think it entirely sensible that the Government should introduce these two Orders.

I have one question about a point which has just struck me, having travelled on the motorways and observed the very heavy transport from all over Europe which uses them, including vehicles from as far away as Bulgaria. Is a Bulgarian road transport driver, who may be driving down the M.1, informed about these speed limits? What is the machinery which ensures this, and what guarantees are there that the standards of maintenance of these foreign vehicles are as high as we expect from our own transport vehicles? I expect that in fact it is very high and is carefully supervised by the State. Nevertheless, that thought struck me. A foreign driver may be in this country for 24 hours and may get involved in a minor accident resulting from a defect in some part of his vehicle; or he may exceed the speed limit. Is there any way of ensuring that any infringement of the regulations is brought to the notice of his employer?

6.44 p.m.

LORD REDMAYNE

My Lords, at this late hour I want to speak briefly on these Orders for two reasons; first, to put on record the views of the Freight Transport Association with which I have a commercial connection, and secondly, to say a word as Chairman of the Trustees of the British Industry Roads Campaign whose members have an active interest in any progressive move to lessen congestion on our roads. And, of course, higher speeds, with due regard to safety is one such move, as noble Lords have said.

The increase in the speed limit for light vans from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h. is long overdue. Although I wholly accept what my noble friend has said as to the possible top limit of speed for these vehicles, this will contribute to road safety for the reasons he gave, in that it will make a better combination between the speeds of slow and fast moving vehicles in one traffic flow. It will, in fact, benefit some 900,000 vehicles. The 60 m.p.h. limit for most goods vehicles on motorways is also acceptable for the time being, and I am very glad that my noble friend has said that this speed limit will be kept under review.

I do not have to remind my noble friend that in the letter of consultation circulated in April, 1970, by the then Minister of Transport, it was said that that review would be made in the light of progress in vehicle design and maintenance by the end of 1972. I do not want to tie my noble friend down, but at the same time this would seem a reasonable target date. By that time all load-carrying vehicles will have the same braking standards as private motor cars, and annual testing should by then be firmly established for all commercial vehicles over 30 cwt. unladen weight which are more than one year old. All these are safety factors.

Equally, by that time the majority of drivers will have had to qualify for a heavy goods vehicle driver's licence; and as my noble friend has said we have the effective enforcement of operators' licences, which should ensure higher maintenance standards over all commercial vehicles. Therefore, by then it should be no longer necessary to differentiate between the speeds of commercial vehicles and other traffic on the motorways.

It has already been said, and I have no need to remind my noble friend of it, that these things can bring about a considerable reduction in congestion and a consequent saving in industrial costs. The third point is not in fact covered by these Regulations, but I think that I am in order in referring to it briefly. It concerns the speed limit for commercial vehicles on dual carriageways as opposed to motorways. It is the opinion of people in the industry that the time has come when these limits could safely be increased from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h., again with consequent benefits accruing and congestion reduced.

My fourth point is that goods vehicles with draw-bar trailers, other than certain light trailers, are still restricted to 30 m.p.h. I think this limit must be considered to be out-dated in the light of modern developments in braking and in vehicle stability. The use of these vehicles which tow draw-bar trailers has greatly increased since it became unnecessary to carry an attendant on vehicle trailer combinations. Therefore an increase in the speed limit of 40 m.p.h. would bring them into line with goods vehicles generally, including articulated vehicles, and again it would have a beneficial effect on traffic flow.

These points were put to me by the Freight Transport Association, but I put them forward not only for that reason but also on their individual merits; and because they make a positive contribution to the reduction of road congestion which at this present time is adding some 2 per cent, to the costs of industry. Tomorrow, with the possible increase in the cost of fuel, congestion may add very much more. There is no doubt at all that at a time when industrial costs are soaring the provision of roads which will speed traffic from the factories, and particularly to our ports, must be the top priority of Government. But sensible easement of commercial speed limits, consistent with safety, on good roads, is certainly a positive aid to effective distribution and to keeping down costs. I hope that my noble friend may be able to give me a reply to one or two of the points I have made.

6.50 p.m.

LORD SOMERS

My Lords, I wish to comment on one point. I am quite happy about these two Orders as they stand, but there is one point about which I am not certain. My noble friend said that heavy goods vehicles were prohibited from using the third lane on motorways. I am wondering whether it would be practicable (I am not at all certain that it would be) to confine them entirely to the first lane, because of one fact that is overtaking. Lorries overtaking each other can sometimes take a long time to do so. I saw one frightful case on quite a narrow road only a few days ago when there was not much more than a difference of about 5 m.p.h. between the speed of the two lorries, and it took well over a minute for the one to overtake the other. That could be a source of danger. I do not know whether, in confining lorries to the first lane, it might be necessary to make a minimum speed limit so that one would not get behind a slow moving vehicle and not be able to overtake it. Perhaps my noble friend would give consideration to this point.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have supported what is contained in these Regulations. I intervene only because I am impressed by the common sense that has been shown. I thought your Lordships would like to know that I have had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Casey, in Australia, from the office of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It was held up by the postal strike, but I got it on Monday. He writes about the debate in your Lordships' House on January 13 and says: I am having the record of the debate photocopied to send to State and Federal Ministers of Transport in this country, who would be the better for reading it. I thought that particularly the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, would be glad to know that the proceedings in your Lordships' House on this subject do not go unnoticed.

6.52 p.m.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken and welcomed these proposals. With regard to the questions that have been asked, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, wanted to know whether foreign lorries and heavy vehicles, when coming on to our motorways, would be aware of these regulations and whether it would be possible to enforce them. As to the latter point, regulations between the countries are getting tied up more and more. As to the question about speed limit signs I am advised that it will be open to the operators' Association to make sure that foreign operators are informed. The operators will be responsible for the knowledge of the foreign driver who may be driving a foreign vehicle.

My noble friend Lord Redmayne, whose interest in this matter is well-known, asked several questions, and some of them I am able to answer to a small degree. We shall certainly be reviewing the 60 m.p.h. speed limit, to see whether it is having a good effect or otherwise. He wanted to know also whether commercial vehicles might be allowed to have an increased speed on dual carriageways other than motorways. I am advised that this is open to objection, because the dual carriageways in our country are not of any standard nature: some are of short duration, some of long duration and some end very suddenly, and there are all sorts of hazards. Then we are somewhat unwilling to impose on heavy goods vehicle drivers too many regulations. They are already going to have to remember two limits, one of 60 m.p.h. on motorways, and the second of 40 m.p.h. on other roads. If we introduced yet another limit for dual carriageways, we should perhaps complicate matters too much, and it might result in less observation of limits.

My noble friend Lord Redmayne also asked that the limits for goods vehicles with draw-bar trailers should be increased to 40 m.p.h. We feel that if we were to raise the present 30 m.p.h. limit for these trailer combinations on all-purpose roads to 40 m.p.h. it would not be safe. It may be possible to reconsider this point when braking standards of goods vehicles are raised. These regulations, which were made, I think I am right in saying, in 1968, had to take into consideration that there are a great many old vehicles on the road, and concessions were therefore made in the regulations of efficiency standards which we should like to see altered. When this has been done, and conditions have improved, we have to consider also the ratio to be imposed between the weights of the lorry and the trailer if we raise the speed limit.

My noble friend Lord Redmayne asked me also about the general flow of traffic, and this is one of the most important functions of any transport advisory body advising how to keep the transport moving. We all know that time is money, and in the interests of industry and everybody we must do this. My right honourable friend is keeping this very much under review.

My noble friend Lord Somers wanted to know about heavy goods vehicles being confined to one lane. We will take note of what he has said, but with a speed limit of 60 m.p.h. (up to now there has been no speed limit on the motorway for these heavy vehicles), it would be slightly unfair to confine all vehicles of this sort, because even if there is a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. for some heavily laden vehicles, there will still be the need to overtake. On the whole, long-distance lorry drivers are considerate drivers, rather better than average, and this must be left to their common sense.

I thank my noble friend Lord Ferrier for giving us the heartening news that the noble Lord, Lord Casey, in Australia is following our debates. It is heartening to us to know that our words go so far. With those few words, I hope that your Lordships will approve these two measures.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I may say that the noble Lord, Lord Casey, in his letter indicates that he hopes to be in the House again in June.

On Question, Motion agreed to.