§ 4.8 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"Heavy lorries have been the subject of continuing debate and controversy for over 10 years. The problems are complex and intractable, but decisions have to be taken. We need above all to end the 950 present uncertainty about future lorry weights which is currently placing a handicap on investment in the commercial vehicle industry.
"To clarify the issues, the Government appointed Sir Arthur Armitage in July 1979 to conduct an independent inquiry into the whole problem of lorries and their effects on people and the environment. Sir Arthur and his four independent assessors took evidence very widely, and reported in December 1980. The Government are very grateful to them for their wide-ranging report. It has aroused great interest. A large number of people and organisations have put their views to me and there have been two debates in this House. The Government thought it right to take time to consider fully the many points that have been raised.
"The effect of big lorries on people and communities is a matter of deep concern. The lorry is an offensive element in the environment, and it will make the environment progressively worse unless we take decisions now which will change the trend over the coming years. Our aim is to ensure a more civilised development of freight transport in the future, which will mean a better environment as well as a healthier economy.
"The measures the Government will be taking to achieve this objective are outlined in a White Paper published today. These measures are directed to keeping lorries away from the places where people live, through the provision of more by-passes; to making the vehicles quieter and cleaner; and, in particular, to keeping their numbers down.
"However, to keep costs down, road transport must be efficient and economic. Our present maximum weight limits on lorries place an economic handicap on much of our industry. Our regulations prevent many existing lorries from being loaded to their full technical weight-carrying capacity. This is wasteful. It makes transport costs higher than they need be, which in turn feeds through into prices and makes our exports less competitive.
"The Government agree with Armitage's rejection of the heavier axle weights proposed by the European Commission. We have also announced our rejection of a maximum weight as high as 44 tonnes, which was the heaviest vehicle recommended in the Armitage Report. All the safeguards suggested in the report have been considered very carefully, and the Government are now convinced that maximum lorry weights can safely be raised to 34 tonnes for four-axled vehicles, and 40 tonnes on five axles. These changes are set out in draft amending regulations which are being circulated today by my department for consultation. Copies are being placed in the [Printed Paper Office].
"The proposals outlined in the White Paper will apply to Northern Ireland and, where appropriate, will be given effect to through separate action under the relevant Northern Ireland legislation.
"As well as bringing economic benefits to industry and ultimately to the consumers, through savings in industry's transport costs of around £150 million a year, there will be benefits to the environment. The heavier vehicles will be no bigger than the biggest vehicles on the roads today. Their higher load capacity will enable industry to meet demands for 951 freight services with fewer vehicles than would otherwise be needed. There will be safeguards in the regulations on the design of the heavier vehicles to protect roads, bridges and underground services.
"Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford delay. To do nothing would help neither the environment nor the economy. Freight users, vehicle operators and manufacturers are unable to plan ahead whilst the present uncertainty lasts. It is through the decisions taken now, and the actions initiated, that we can achieve over the years ahead the improvements we are seeking."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
§ 4.14 p.m.
§ Lord UnderhillMy Lords, your Lordships will be extremely grateful for the Statement repeated by the noble Lord today. Reference is made in the Statement to the fact that two debates took place in the other place. I must remind your Lordships that we have had no debate whatever in this House on the Armitage Report. We also on this side of the House give full praise and thanks to Sir Richard Armitage and his assessors for the valuable contribution made to this subject by their report. There are some excellent recommendations, but there are some questions left in doubt. I must draw attention to the fact that there are 58 recommendations in all, 159 pages of the report, that no fewer than 871 organisations sent written evidence and 963 members of the public also gave evidence. But your Lordships have had no opportunity whatever to debate this important report prior to the Statement being made today.
We are very pleased that the EEC proposals were rejected by the report and that the Government have now rejected the 44-tonnes maximum lorry as proposed in the Armitage Report. But you will note that the Government propose that the maximum shall rise from 32½ tonnes up to a maximum of 40 tonnes. In another place in January the former Secretary of State posed the point: Can the benefits—and the Statement says that the benefit to the industry will be £150 million a year—be received without paying an environmental price which the public would regard as too high? That is the important question which faces us in this Statement made today: What will be the costs to the environment?
The Government have stated that proposals are included in a White Paper issued today. Obviously, neither your Lordships nor I have yet seen that White Paper. But the Statement refers to proposals for the protection of roads, bridges and underground services. I must draw attention to a few points contained in the report. Time will permit these to be given only in shorthand. We find in paragraph 58 that the lorry traffic adds 15 per cent. to the costs of new construction and improvement of our roads. Paragraph 59 says that lorries account for over 90 per cent. of the damage on our roads. Attention is drawn to the fact that major motorway reconstruction has had to come much sooner than was anticipated when the motorways were built.
In paragraph 382 there is an important point:
There is still much uncertainty as to how axles damage roads952 Reference is also made in the report to the damage to pipes and installations under, or adjacent to, roads. Paragraph 60 says that there is no evidence that lorries are the main cause of damage. But I find in paragraph 390 of the report that little is known about the effects of lorries on underground pipes, and it is difficult to say precisely what would be the effects of heavier lorries. This is one of the anomalies in the report, and clearly far more research is needed before a definitive decision can be made.It is clear that more research is needed on the question of the vibration effect on buildings and persons as a result of the passing of heavy lorries. This is not clear in the report. The report also deals at length with the damaging effects on bridges. It stressed that if the EEC proposals were carried through the greater effect would have been on bridges built before 1922. It states that the work to strengthen all the bridges to cope with the heavier lorries would cost £1,200 million. I should like to ask the Minister: What is the proposed cost, or the estimated cost, for the vehicles of 40 tonnes as opposed to the original proposals in the EEC draft directive?
The question of noise is to be dealt with, but the report states that the Noise Abatement Council estimate that £1.6 billion would be needed to insulate against noise for all traffic noise over an accepted level criterion. We all know the general complaint from the public about noise of lorry traffic. There appears to be doubt in the report also about the effect on pavements, verges, et cetera, when lorries leave the motorway. Noble Lords who drive will frequently see hopeless messes alongside the road where lorries have gone off a motorway. We do not know the effect on underground pipes, and so on. Far more research is needed, including the question of cost.
What will be the possible effect on rail freight? History shows that whenever heavier lorries have been introduced so rail freight tends to fall. This decision on behalf of the Government would appear to indicate the need for more integration and co-ordination between road and rail freight traffic. I make it clear from these Benches that we recognise the great importance of road haulage and road freight traffic to our economy. Therefore, we are not being critical on the question of road haulage.
I should like to know whether the Government are able to say how much further help will be given under Section 8 proposals to provide more freight terminals for British Rail, as is applicable in Germany, and thereby assisting in the task of taking off the roads and on to the rail a greater amount of traffic. The TRRL Report SR/572 published in 1980 stated that the average load factor fell from .65 in 1967 to .5 in 1976. What is the present position today about the average loads being carried by lorries?
Reference is made in the Statement to more by-passes. It has been estimated that by 1990 only one-half of the towns with populations of 10,000 or more will have by-passes, and I understand that about 100 important schemes are held up, that some will not be started until after 1984 and that others have been shelved. What actually is the programme on by-passes? Obviously this must have some bearing on the Statement. How many of the 58 recommendations in the Armitage Report are to be carried out?
§ Lord DenhamI suggest that we are slightly in danger of getting into a debate on this subject, my Lords. Could the noble Lord be a little briefer and more questioning on the Statement rather than on the report?
§ Lord UnderhillI apologise to the House, my Lords, but it will be appreciated that we have not debated Armitage and that the Statement really arises from Armitage. However, in deference to the Government Chief Whip I will draw my remarks to a close. How many of the proposals in the Armitage Report will be implemented? When is it proposed that the new limits will come into effect? Do the Government accept in particular Recommendation No. 50, by which additional powers and finance are proposed for local authorities in lorry action areas? If so, how much will be covered by that? Finally, as we have not had a chance to debate the Armitage Report, on which the Statement is based, will there be opportunity for the House to debate the White Paper?
§ 4.22 p.m.
§ Viscount ThursoMy Lords, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, I wish to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I regret that we have not had an opportunity to debate Armitage, but I do not propose to do so today. I shall however ask a few questions and make a few brief comments.
I note that the Government aim to ensure the more civilised development of freight transport in the future. I hope they will let us know what their intentions are with regard to rail because many of us clearly believe that more of our heavy freight should go by rail rather than in ever-heavier lorries. We welcome the measure to keep lorries away from places where people live and the provision of more bypasses, but wonder in these stringent financial times what provision will be made for these bypasses and whether we shall have the lorries before the bypasses instead of the bypasses before the lorries.
We welcome the dropping of axle weights to approximately eight tons, rather than the raising of them to the higher figure proposed by the EEC Commission, but we wonder about the enforcement of regulations. We know that overloading, lack of adherence to drivers' hours and the ignoring of speed limits are all widespread and we wonder what the Government propose to do to make certain that these heavier lorries do not continue to break speed limits, overload and commit the various offences which it is known that heavy freight commits on the roads.
We should like more information about the contribution to road costs. We feel that heavy lorries are contributing very little to the costs which they incur and we should like more information about how these costs will be recovered. We should like to know more about what is to be done to help protect bridges, roads and underground services both in the provision of funds to local authorities and in the new regulations and design.
§ Lord BellwinI am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for commenting on the Statement and I shall try to answer their remarks. First, the issue of there not 954 having been a debate and when will there be a chance for one. As for when there will be a chance, obviously a resolution will have to go through this House as well as the other place, and clearly there will then be an opportunity to debate more than, as it were, just the philosophy but the nuts and bolts as well, and I should have thought that was the best kind of debate to have, and that will come. It is a White Paper and it is there for consultation, and therefore that debate will be all the more informed because presumably it will be conclusive. Perhaps I should add, however, that I am told that there has been a Motion down for debate for most of the last Session which was not taken up through the usual channels. So, although I entirely take the point made by both noble Lords, I suggest that it should be a matter not so much of criticism but more of comment.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked what the cost would be to the environment. Clearly he needs the opportunity, as does the noble Viscount and others, to read the White Paper. When the noble Lord has done that I think he will be encouraged, as I was when I read it, because, for example, in terms of damage, it is estimated that the damage to the roads will be some 5 per cent. less than at the present time for the same freight carried. One needs to know exactly how and why that is, and that is explained by the way in which the weight is distributed in vehicles with the extra axle.
That picks up a point made by the noble Viscount when he referred to overloading. The problem with lorries today is that because of their construction, vehicles have to carry less than the full load that they are permitted to carry because they cannot load them in such a way as to enable the vehicle to take it. That will come out more clearly when the White Paper and other literature is available because that will illustrate the point clearly.
I know the noise factor concerns most people. There will be lower noise limits in 1983 and it is the intention to move, by research and other methods, so that perhaps by the end of the decade these heavy vehicles will be no noisier than are motor cars at the present time. That clearly requires some research, but emphasis is being put on that and I am sure the whole House will agree that that is a desirable objective towards which to aim. I am told that the effect on rail freight need not be adverse. Quite the contrary, because in the case of the freightliner, for example, the problem for the railways has been that they could always carry heavier weights, but the size of the containers has been a problem for them. British Rail have said they are not against the proposals we are bringing forward. I was asked when the new limits would come into effect. That depends on the consultation, and I think we are talking about March/ April time, but we shall have to see how that goes.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in particular mentioned Recommendation No. 50. That, he will see, is referred to in the White Paper, which says:
The Armitage Report suggested that some of the worst of these places could be designated as lorry action areas in which special steps would be taken to alleviate the effects of lorries. The Government considers that this proposal is well worth further study and will be inviting the co-operation of the local authorities and others concerned in studying it further".955 I think I have covered most of the points that were raised. I appreciate it is hard for your Lordships to deal with the details without having had sight of the documents and the time to study them, but I hope we shall have a good debate on this very important matter in due course.
§ Lord WalstonMy Lords, I should like to put two questions to the noble Lord. The first follows the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, about by-passes. Clearly it will not be possible to build sufficient by-passes before the regulations come in, but will the Government be prepared, and be able, to take steps to prohibit to an increasing extent the heavier lorries from passing through particularly narrow streets of our small towns and villages, forcing them perhaps to make rather longer detours in order to preserve the environment and the amenities of these places? Secondly, the statement refers to the saving of £160 million. Can the Minister tell us what is the likely destination of that £160 million? Will it go to increase the profits of the hauliers, or will it be passed on to the ultimate consumer, whether in the form of cheaper exports or cheaper prices at home?
§ Lord BellwinMy Lords, with regard to the question of by-passes, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, will obtain some useful information when he has a chance to look at the White Paper itself. Perhaps I ought to state for the record that already this year 38 new starts are being made on by-passes. In addition, the White Paper announces four more new by-passes, and it announces also the bringing forward of yet more from the previous programme; in other words, a phasing forward. I think that that would illustrate that, in so far as is at all possible, the Government are concerned to step up work of this kind within the resources available. I think that it indicates that priority is being given to the point that the noble Lord makes, and I hope that he will be pleased about that.
It is hard to break down the figure of £150 million—it was not £160 million—but perhaps I can give a very approximate indication. In the main the benefits will go not so much to road haulage operators as to the users of road haulage. In turn they will be enabled to be more competitive in what they are providing by way of goods, where they are delivered, or products, where they are sold. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that those who will benefit most will be those who are farthest away from the ports to which they have to go to reach the EEC and the like. Anything that can be done to help in terms of costs can only be beneficial all round. But I should add that part of the saving will also be in general maintenance, too. So the savings are somwehat spread and it is difficult to give an exact sum, but the thrust of the savings will be made where I have indicated.
§ Lord GlenkinglasMy Lords, if I heard correctly, my noble friend said to the House that the new, heavier lorries would be no bigger than the biggest lorries at present in existence, but would he not agree that the biggest lorries in existence at the moment are already far too big for a great many of the roads which they are using? In my part of Scotland they are creating very 956 real problems indeed. It is not a question of by-passes, but rather the fact that the lorries are too big for the roads.
§ Lord BellwinMy Lords, I hear what my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas says about that point, and I think that it only illustrates the difficulty facing anyone who is trying to take on board all the problems mentioned in the Statement. There are complex and intractable problems in trying to find a balance, a way through. I am sure that there is much sympathy for what my noble friend says. However. I hope that he will find helpful what we are proposing. It is not intended to increase at all the size of the lorries as such, but rather to find a way to achieve greater capacity within vehicles of the same size without damaging road surfaces and foundations. Perhaps that will not completely satisfy my noble friend, since he might like to see more by-passes and other solutions to the problem of narrow roads. If he has any suggestions, I would point out that the White Paper is intended for consultation, and we should be very glad to hear them.
§ Baroness Masham of IltonMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government intended to keep down the speed of the heavier lorries?
§ Lord BellwinMy Lords, I believe that the intention—and clearly this, too, is part of the discussion that must go forward—is to keep down speeds. I understand that a particular speed limit, is at present being considered. I do not have details of it, but I will gladly write to the noble Baroness with that information.
§ Lord SomersMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether due attention has been given to the fact that very heavy lorries are liable to cause damage not only to the roads, but perhaps to the valuable architecture by the side of the roads? In view of that fact, would it not be possible to prohibit lorries in the highest weight range from using roads alongside which there is such architecture?
§ Lord BellwinMy Lords, I had hoped that what was said in the Statement, and what the White Paper brings out, would indicate that we are very conscious of the point that the noble Lord makes, as indeed we are of what I may call all the other environmental aspects of the matter. I ask your Lordships to await the details as to how the objective will be achieved through having greater capacity without the vehicles having to be bigger or being likely to cause more vibration. Indeed they will be less so, due to the fact that the lorries will be constructed with an extra axle, as suggested. I think that the noble Lord will be satisfied on that point. In view of the questions that are coming from different parts of your Lordships' House, I feel that there is a need to look at the matter in more detail to see exactly how it is proposed we should move in the desired direction.
§ Lord SwinfenMy Lords, bearing in mind that a number of lorries are already very much overloaded, can the Minister assure the House that adequate steps 957 will be taken to see that the new, heavier lorries are not overloaded to the same extent?
§ Lord BellwinMy Lords, I thought I had made the point that one of the great complaints from the industry is not that they have to overload, but that they have to underload, if I may use the term. I am assured that one of the objects of the exercise—through increasing in terms of tonnes the weight that vehicles will carry, using an extra axle, yet without the vehicles being larger than at present—is to carry an additional amount, thus resulting in extra efficiency and economy, without the necessity for vehicles to be of the heavier type that was previously considered. It is interesting to note that the EEC, which previously had a limit of 44 tonnes, is now coming down to the 40 tonnes limit that we are proposing in the White Paper. If my noble friend Lord Swinfen wishes to pursue further that particular point with me, I should be glad to do so with him outside the House.