§ 4.8 p.m.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness BIRK)Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport in another place. His words are as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has informed the House that the Government propose to reduce speed limits on the roads as a contribution to fuel saving.
"In assessing the amount by which speed limits should be reduced there is a balance to be struck. Lower speeds save fuel and reduce accidents; but slower journeys may be uneconomic. Moreover, if speed limits do not command general support from road users their enforcement puts serious extra strain on police resources.
"In the light of these considerations we have concluded that the 70 mph limit should be retained on motorways, but that a limit of 60 mph should be imposed on all other dual carriageway roads and of 50 mph on all single carriageway roads (unless these already carry a lower limit).
"Motorways confer important economic benefits in the movement of traffic, particularly freight. They are designed for higher speeds than other 435 roads and even so are by far our safest roads.
"The 70 mph limit on the motorways also provides a differential in speed limits between heavy lorries and other traffic, while allowing these lorries to travel at economic speeds. As motorways carry only a small proportion of total road traffic, a significant saving in fuel would require a drastic reduction in speed, which could only be achieved by a major enforcement effort and loss of efficiency. I have therefore decided it would be wrong to change the present limit.
"The bulk of traffic flows on other main roads, where a reduction in average speeds by even 5 mph would save about £10 million a year in fuel costs. Recognising that in present conditions few single carriageway roads permit sustained speeds much over 60 mph, we are aiming for an effective reduction in speeds on both single and dual carriageways of between 5 and 10 mph.
"I should also remind the House that efficient driving and proper vehicle maintenance can save petrol as effectively as lower speeds. The motoring organisations and others had a lot of sound advice to offer about this last winter. If, as past experience has shown, lower speeds and more careful driving lead to fewer accidents, we shall obtain a double benefit from these measures.
"The new limits apply to all roads in the United Kingdom. An Order in respect of roads in Great Britain will be made on Tuesday, and come into operation at midnight on Saturday 14th December. In respect of Northern Ireland a separate Order will be made."
§ My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, once again we can welcome this Statement wholeheartedly from these Benches. One point which the noble Baroness has not touched on is this. Are these speed limits intended to be a permanent arrangement and, if so, are we going to have the signs changed throughout the country, or is it regarded as a temporary measure while some kind of short-lived fuel crisis is with us?
436 We also recognise that there is a tremendous problem of enforcement. Indeed, I suppose it is probably true to say that these will be mere presentational measures to bring home to the public the need for fuel saving. For instance, visitors from America have been astonished these past months to discover that there have been no speed limits in this country and they have been wondering what we have been doing. That said, are any special measures going to be taken for any additional enforcement by the police? Finally, will the noble Baroness call the attention of the public to the fact that moderate use of the accelerator, certainly in towns, can save almost more fuel than moderating one's speed?
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, in answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, as I understand the position these are certainly long-term measures. It is difficult to say what is permanent, but the Government envisage them as a long-term measure rather than a short-term temporary measure. We shall see how they work out, both in regard to conservation and also from the aspect of road safety.
So far as signs are concerned, the Government believe that there will not be a need for a greatly increased number of signs since the "no restriction" sign which has applied for 70 m.p.h. will be correspondingly reduced. The motorway signs will remain the same and there may be need for a limited number of signs on the dual carriageways, but as my right honourable friend finds this is needed so it will be undertaken.
In regard to enforcement, we naturally rely on the co-operation of motorists to keep to these limits and also on the police to enforce them, as they have been doing in regard to the present speed limits. The publicity which we hope will result from these statements being made and the information given to the Press should certainly bring it to the attention of everybody concerned. The noble Lord's final point was absolutely right and has been mentioned in the reports of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory: that the use of the accelerator, and the method of braking, is an effective contribution to energy conservation.
§ Lord RAGLANMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she is aware that there are certain roads in this country which are technically known as "limited access dual carriageways", which look like motorways, that people regard as motorways and to all intents and purposes are motorways, but to which the speed limit of a dual carriageway will apply? It is unfair to motorists who on the last occasion were stopped by police for travelling at above the 50 m.p.h. limit, when they thought they were on a motorway, and I wonder whether my noble friend can ensure that these particular roads are exempt.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, my noble friend may be surprised to know that, sitting as a magistrate, one heard this particular excuse so many times, long before the Government did anything about changing the speed limit. However, it is true that there may be a question about particular stretches of road and my right honourable friend has indicated that he will be glad to consider such representations. But naturally at this moment it is impossible to make any definite statement about any particular area the noble Lord may have in mind.
§ The Earl of DENBIGHMy Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me whether the Government will consider the reintroduction of a road fund tax based on the cubic capacity of the private motor car, thus penalising the driver of the large luxury motor car but also safeguarding the rural communities who rely very much on the private motor car as a means of communication? It would be a great help in the matter of energy conservation if the smaller motor car were used, which shows a return of many more miles per gallon than the larger motor car.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, I am sure he will agree that this goes outside the scope of my Statement. It is really a matter for the Budget and for my right 438 honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I will make sure that he has notice of the suggestion.
§ Lord BARNBYMy Lords, while apologising to the noble Baroness for having missed the earlier part of her Statement, may I point out, as an ordinary member of the public who prefers to be driven rather than to drive and who remembers well last November when similar regulations were imposed, that if any driver maintained strictly to the agreed limit it was obvious that heavy lorries, apart from passenger cars, swiftly passed at speeds of more than 10 or even 20 m.p.h. higher. What is the use of bringing in regulations unless the Minister can say that there will be strict police action and that where offences are perpetrated severe fines will be inflicted by the magistrates?
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, of course driving behaviour varies from one person to another. As he is probably aware, the limit for large lorries, even on motorways, is 60 m.p.h. So far as enforcement is concerned, I can only give the same answer as I gave to the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench; namely, that we rely on the drivers themselves to keep to the speed limit and on the police so far as possible to enforce it. The noble Lord will probably be delighted to hear that in fact the magistrates are constantly increasing the extent of the fines for speed offences.
§ Lord ROBBINSMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness a question which I put in pure ignorance? How do the limits that she has just announced compare with the limits imposed in the United States of America?
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, I think I am right in saying that in the United States of America in many places there is an overall limit of 50 m.p.h. We examined that and found that it was not really very satisfactory because one needs different limits on different types of road.