§ 3.27 p.m.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the special regulations covering the servicing of vehicles carrying dangerous liquids, and the restrictions governing their speed.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, there are no special regulations. Vehicles carrying dangerous liquids are subject to the same statutory requirements on maintenance and speed limits as vehicles carrying other goods. All goods vehicles over 30 cwt. unladen are restricted to 40 m.p.h. except on motorways, where they are subject to the general limit of 70 m.p.h. Goods vehicles over 3 tons unladen weight are in addition restricted to 60 m.p.h. on the motorways.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, does the noble Lord really mean that exactly the same conditions of serviceability and speed apply to these dangerous vehicles as apply to any other goods vehicle using the public highway? Is it not high time that further conditions were imposed, such as regulating the maximum speed to not more than 30 miles an hour; prohibiting these vehicles altogether from using the fast lane of a motorway; and subjecting them to regular examinations for serviceability, either every three months or alternatively after every 3,000 miles?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I must honestly say that we are not aware of any special need for this, because we are not aware of any special danger that has been caused through negligence on these points.
§ LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that almost every chemical that is transported on the roads is a potential danger? Does he mean that there are no regulations at all 1290 about the nature of the containers? Is he aware, further, that about 12 years ago, I think, there was a very serious accident when a large quantity of high test peroxide which was being carried on a vehicle set fire to an enormous quantity of organic matter, and that about six houses were destroyed as a result of a vehicle turning over?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. What I was saying is that, so far as the environmental tests on brakes and mechanical things are concerned, we are at the moment fairly content that those are being looked after. We have the latest figures—I asked for them only this morning—and in the 12-month period ending September, 1972, our inspectors on the roads (not only do we have annual inspections, but the number of inspectors has increased by about 20 per cent. in the last year) stopped over 100,000 goods vehicles to examine them for these mechanical points and to see that they were in adequate order. Furthermore, if I can deal with the other point the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, made, (which is more a Home Office point) about the construction of vehicles carrying dangerous liquids, I can tell him that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is proposing to introduce new regulations for vehicles carrying inflammable liquids and corrosives other than petrol. The petrol vehicles are already adequately dealt with, but we are not totally happy about others apart from petrol, and my right honourable friend is proposing to introduce further regulations—I presume this year.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the House will be reassured that the noble Lord, or his Minister, is not entirely happy with the situation. Could the noble Lord say, in respect of inspections of this class of vehicle, what percentage of the vehicles were found to have defects which affected their safety on the road? And could the noble Lord give an assurance, recognising that we are now carrying on the roads more and more dangerous and inflammable materials, that this is a factor which the Government will look at, particularly in terms of speed?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, of course we will look at these 1291 matters in terms of speed, but where inspections are carried out and vehicles are properly maintained it is usually the human element that is wrong. With regard to the specific point the noble Lord asked me, of 103,000 vehicles that were stopped in the 12 months ending September, 1972, 4,238 were immediately prohibited from use, and a large number of those would also have been subject to prosecution. Also, I am informed, a further 18.067 were subject to delayed prohibition.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the figures he has given do give great anxiety to those who see these heavy vehicles on the roads carrying dangerous materials? Would he not also agree that these heavy vehicles, travelling at 70 miles an hour on motorways, require a very considerable distance to come to a halt, even if their brakes are adequate? Is it not a fact that many of the problems and dangers on the motorways are a consequence of speed and vehicles driving too close together?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I think, with great respect, all vehicles have to be able to come to a halt—their brakes have to be adequate to do that—within a certain distance according to Ministry regulations. I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, missed the point I made that vehicles over three tons unladen weight on motorways are limited to 60 miles an hour.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, could special regulations be imposed to ensure the efficiency of the drivers of these vehicles? What special action is taken if it is found that their licences have already been endorsed?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I think that is a point which is certainly worthy of consideration.
§ LORD HANKEYMy Lords, would the Government consider whether it would not be useful to introduce regulations by which the truck carrying a certain type of cargo should have a prominent notice fore and aft saying that it is a dangerous cargo? My experience is that when one sees on a motorway a truck marked "highly inflammable" one keeps very well away.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I do not know. I can only tell the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, that I have noticed that very often they are so marked.
§ LORD REDESDALEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Transport and General Workers' Union are very concerned about the standard of training of the drivers carrying these special loads; and would the Minister give consideration to regulations concerning special training or qualifications for these drivers?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, that is very similar to the point the noble Lord, Lord Segal, just made. My right honourable friend is always willing to give consideration to points of this kind, and does continually do so.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the onus should rest on the drivers of these vehicles to avoid endangering the lives of other road users instead of the other drivers having to avoid these vehicles?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I think the traffic regulations as they are already cover most of these points.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the railways are very well equipped to carry these dangerous loads, and would it not be advisable, wherever possible, to get these loads on to the railways instead of the roads?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, if the people sending the goods find that rail transport is suitable they will obviously send them by rail, but quite often the destination and the place of origin do not have a railway beside them.