Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Abbott, Ms Diane (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Bacon, Mr Richard (South Norfolk) (Con)
† Binley, Mr Brian (Northampton South) (Con)
† Blunkett, Mr David (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
† Burden, Richard (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
† Coffey, Dr Thérèse (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
† Esterson, Bill (Sefton Central) (Lab)
† Hillier, Meg (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
† Jones, Graham (Hyndburn) (Lab)
† Perry, Claire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)
† Robathan, Mr Andrew (South Leicestershire) (Con)
† Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP)
† Stephenson, Andrew (Pendle) (Con)
† Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
† Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry (Bradford South) (Lab)
† Whittaker, Craig (Calder Valley) (Con)
† Wright, Simon (Norwich South) (LD)
Oliver Coddington, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 28 January 2015
[Annette Brooke in the Chair]
Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate you on winning a very prestigious competition today.
The draft regulations are being made to increase the national speed limit for heavy goods vehicles of more than 7.5 tonnes on single carriageways from 40 mph to 50 mph, and on dual carriageways from 50 mph to 60 mph, in England and Wales.
As a keen cyclist who lives in a constituency with a large number of rural roads, I and my Department do not take lightly any decision on road speed. We have given careful consideration to whether the proposed speed change passed two core tests: first, that it is truly necessary; and secondly, that it does not increase road safety problems.
To answer the first point on why this is necessary, the freight and logistics sector is an essential part of the UK economy, vital to UK businesses of all sizes and sectors. It is also an important business in its own right, accounting for almost 9% of UK gross value added and around 7% of total employment.
Improving conditions for efficiency and effectiveness of the logistics sector is critical to our growth agenda. We cannot grow the local, regional or national economy without improving how people and goods are transported. In our analysis, raising HGV speed limits, particularly on single carriageway roads, will lead to quicker journeys and lower costs for the sector, aiding economic growth and generating economic benefits of £11.8 million per year.
As many hon. Members will be aware, increasing the national speed limit for HGVs was proposed by the industry, and was recommended in the Government’s logistics growth review and the roads red tape challenge. The speed limit changes are part of a wider package of associated measures that the Government are bringing forward to help this vital industry, such as the longer semi-trailer trial.
The new limits will better reflect the capabilities of modern HGVs. Vehicle-specific speed limits are set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, but the current speed limits for HGVs have been in place since the 1960s. Since then, huge improvements have been made in highways engineering and vehicle design, particularly with regard to braking, and those limits are now outdated.
What is more, our expectations of faster journey times and lower-cost goods are relying on HGV drivers systematically breaking the law in exceeding the current
speed limits. When reviewing the proposals, it seemed to me counter-intuitive that HGV speed limits are slower than those of similar large vehicles such as coaches or cars towing caravans. The changes will also ensure that HGV limits are proportionate both to other vehicles and to the limits on motorways.The second point on road safety is that the Government commissioned research into the potential impacts of the change on single carriageways and conducted an impact assessment and full public consultation. It is very clear that some people have concerns. Our public consultation highlighted that respondents’ reservations about increasing the speed limit were largely about road safety, road maintenance and the environment.
As part of the analysis of the change, we looked to see what we could learn from countries that are leaders in road safety abroad, such as the Netherlands and Norway, which already have an 80 kph limit for HGVs on rural single carriageway roads, which is approximately 50 mph. Our impact assessment suggested that the change in speed limits could, in isolation and based on road safety figures, result in an increase in fatal accidents of two to three per year as a result of higher speeds. However, it also suggested that reducing the speed differential between HGVs and other traffic could reduce accidents, though it is harder to model those benefits. I remind hon. Members that we have all been stuck in that situation, particularly on a rural road, where we are trapped behind a lorry. Dangerous overtaking manoeuvres result and accidents can happen. It is difficult to model precisely, but there is a widespread belief that the change will lead to fewer such incidents.
To address the concerns people raised about safety, we are taking forward a number of measures to improve HGV safety, including conducting work in Europe for the safer design of HGVs, looking at HGV weights and dimensions, the minimum requirements on the fitting of sideguards, and the improved requirements for mirrors on the passenger side of HGVs. That is particularly important for people like me who cycle in urban and rural environments. The draft regulations also specify the Government’s intention to conduct an evaluation study of the impact of the amended legislation within five years of it coming into force.
As I mentioned, on single carriageways, the current 40 mph speed limit causes unnecessary cost to vehicle operators and unnecessary congestion. Because of the 20 mph differential between the speed limits for HGVs and cars, lengthy platoons of traffic often develop behind HGVs adhering to the 40 mph limit. The drivers following can become frustrated—I am sure that we all have—which can lead to avoidable accidents from unsafe overtaking manoeuvres.
The nature of dual carriageways varies across the national network. Many dual carriageways in urban areas and elsewhere are subject to lower local limits or the 30 mph urban limit. Other dual carriageways are major trunk roads, built close to motorway standards. Therefore, the use and function of dual carriageways varies but they are important for driving, riding and walking and for the people living by them.
On dual carriageways, the regulations will modernise the speed limit and bring it into line with the behaviour of professional HGV drivers. The Government’s analysis suggests that it will not result in significant changes to average HGV speeds. There is therefore not expected
to be an adverse effect on road safety, greenhouse gases or other environmental impacts, but the Government will monitor such effects closely.While the Government set national speed limits for different road types, it is obvious that such limits are not appropriate for all roads. Crucially, the speed limit regime gives powers to traffic authorities to set local limits in situations where needs and conditions, such as the composition of road users, the road layout and the history of collisions, suggest that the speed limit should be lower than the national limit. We updated our guidance to traffic authorities to remind them of that back in 2013.
In conclusion, the proposed speed limit changes will help an essential sector to make its contribution to Britain’s long-term economic plan. I have looked carefully at the balance of safety concerns and, based on evidence, I am confident that the regulations are a sensible and rational approach to take, given the balance of operational, safety, economic and environmental factors.
I remind Members that Britain has one of the best road safety records in the world. Last year saw the country’s lowest figures for road deaths since national records began in 1926. I am determined to ensure that that progress continues. The regulations will help to get the country moving and create a fairer and more proportionate system for professional drivers on our roads.
2.37 pm
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I echo the congratulations the Minister gave to you. As the owner of an entirely black cat called Charlie, I offer Charlie’s congratulations to the black and white cat in your family. I say that genuinely, because that is probably the first and only time that I will be able to get Charlie into a debate in the House of Commons—he will be pleased to hear that I have done that.
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations. We are considering secondary legislation on a complex area that could have important impacts on the economy, employment conditions, the environment and road safety. I therefore have a number of concerns to raise with her. The Opposition are committed to restoring road safety as a transport priority if we are elected as the next Government in May. It is with that mindset that we approach our scrutiny of the changes to speed limits.
The proposal to increase the limit on single carriageways for HGVs weighing more than 7.5 tonnes from 40 mph to 50 mph has been debated to and fro over many years. The widely held view in the freight and logistics sector—the Government appear to have accepted this—is that a higher speed limit will lead to quicker journeys, less congestion and lower costs for the sector. It argues that lower speed limits cause significant frustration for motorists following HGVs at 40 mph, as the Minister mentioned, which leads to risky and inappropriate overtaking. The industry also states that many operators do not adhere to the current limits, so higher limits are needed for a level playing field.
There are significant concerns about the impact that increasing the speed limit will have not only on road safety, which I will come to, but on the environment.
Higher average speed levels could increase fuel consumption and emissions, and could therefore have a detrimental effect on air quality. There is also the question of road maintenance. I am not sure whether the impact assessments give any indication of whether changes in the speed limit and the likely average speed of vehicles will have any impact on road maintenance schedules.There is also the question of what the public feel about the proposal. The Minister mentioned that the proposal had attracted adverse comment. The consultation was launched in 2012 and the Government did not respond until 2014. Perhaps the reason was that the Department received 703 responses, nearly three quarters of which were opposed to the higher speed limit. The primary concern—the Minister mentioned this—was road safety.
The Opposition have looked at the arguments and the Government’s rationale for the increase. From what I can tell, the Government are putting forward their proposals today on the basis of highly inconclusive evidence. The impact assessment does not make for easy reading. It states—the Minister mentioned this—that raising the speed limit on single carriageway roads to 50 mph could result in an additional two to three fatal accidents, and between four and nine serious accidents every year. I am sure I do not need to remind hon. Members that, if that is true, those are not simply statistics, but people with names and faces.
The Minister has said that she is not sure about the increase and that that is not a certainty. She said that the increase could improve road safety because it will result in less risky overtaking. She said that there is a “widespread belief” that it will reduce the number of collisions, not increase them.
Claire Perry: I want to emphasise that I had no intention of suggesting that the estimate of two to three deaths was not a quantifiable number. Given that the police do not often record risky overtaking of lorries as a cause of a road traffic accidents, there is a concern that that cannot be modelled. I gently encourage the hon. Gentleman to realise that, in making the changes, we have looked at international examples. Countries that have an even better road safety record than ours have those limits in place for their HGV sectors.
Richard Burden: It seems to me that that is why we do impact assessments, and the impact assessment predicts an increase in the number of collisions and crashes. I use those words advisedly. Yesterday, I was at a road safety presentation by the Safe Drive Stay Alive group. One clear message was to not use the word “accidents”, because collisions and crashes are normally avoidable. Somebody somewhere has done something. The word “accident” is a loaded one, so perhaps we should talk about collisions and crashes, rather than accidents.
There is a reason why we have impact assessments. The Minister said that there was a “widespread belief” that crashes and collisions would decrease, but the impact assessment states there is “no conclusive evidence” to substantiate the claim that dangerous overtaking will decrease. That feels right to me. A motorist—I am a motorist—getting frustrated with a lorry going at 40 mph might as easily get frustrated with a lorry going at 50 mph.
The Department for Transport has concluded that there is
“very little evidence that can be used to estimate the road safety impact of this policy.”
It seems that the Minister is basing the speed limit increase on conjecture rather than clear evidence. We have pretty conclusive proof that managing speed is important for road safety.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab): On a lighter note, my dog Cosby would like to send his congratulations to Mrs Brooke. I think that finishes it for the afternoon.
I put this point about speed to my hon. Friend. Particular times of the day are important. Statistics recently given to me in a written answer about the number of fatalities and injuries to children going to and from school bear scrutiny with regard to what might happen, particularly when people draw to the kerb. Those going at very high speeds have difficulty in managing to stop within a limit. We need to take cognisance of that when dealing with single carriageways.
Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend is right. He illustrates the question of improving safety on our roads. The UK has made great strides in that area over the past couple of decades. It is a complex matter and it is important to look at speed, time of day, the nature of journeys, behaviour and culture. All of those things are important, including his point.
We know that the higher speeds and weights of HGVs increase stopping times and the force at which an impact occurs. HGVs are clearly a lot safer than they were, but we should not ignore the reality that HGVs take a lot longer to stop than cars, and the consequences of crashes involving lorries can be all the more serious.
It is important for the Government to support the freight and logistics sector, because it is vital to our economy. However, I am worried that by bringing forward the order on the basis of inconclusive evidence, the Government are not giving due regard to serious safety concerns. One reason given for the order is that 75% of HGVs are breaking the speed limit as it is. If that is so, will the suggested increase deliver the economic returns being claimed, even if the safety angle is discounted? Or is the real reason behind the order the assumption that HGVs will travel faster than the speed limit? If the speed limit is 40 mph, will they travel at 50 mph? If the limit is 50 mph, will they travel faster than that?
The Government recognise in their impact assessment and in what has been said that the measure could have severe consequences. That is why in the summer they announced a number of measures to try to head off concerns. They said there would be an evaluation of the change after five years. That seems a long time to wait to see whether things are going wrong. Will the Minister commit to more regular evaluation than that?
The Government also said they would encourage local authorities to consider lower speed limits where there are poor road conditions and lots of pedestrians and cyclists, or where air quality is a problem. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Rosser pointed out that that indicates the measure has been poorly thought
through. I assume the Government intend that provision to apply only to locally managed roads—if they say it is a matter for local authorities—and not to strategic single carriageway roads, which also have poor safety records.Under what criteria would local authorities be able to make that decision? We could end up in a situation in which most councils reduce the limits, making the Government’s increase pointless. Would a reduction apply only to HGVs or to all vehicles? How would it work and be enforced? What would be the cost of implementing speed limit differentials on different sections of the same road? How would that work on the sections of road joining different local authorities? That could lead to confusion among drivers.
It is therefore unsurprising that the councils who responded to the consultation were concerned about how lower speed limits will be implemented in practice—that is looking only at the local roads. We had a debate this week on turning the Highways Agency into a wholly owned Government company. Will the Highways Agency, which is to be put at arm’s length owing to the Government’s decision, have the same discretion as local authorities to reduce the speed limits that the Government are about to increase? This piecemeal way of addressing road safety concerns really is not good enough.
When the Government announced the policy, they said that they intended to
“procure a major study about rural road safety.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 13WS.]
Will the Minister update us on when that will happen? Here is a thought: why does not the DFT complete the rural road safety review and establish all the facts before increasing the speed limits rather than doing so after the event? I remind hon. Members that 60% of all road fatalities occur on country roads. Three people die on them every day, which is a far greater number than on motorways. We need evidence-based decision making on anything that could increase risk. We are scrutinising a proposal that Lord Popat said will not undermine local road safety
“on the balance of probabilities”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2015; Vol. 758, c. GC426.]
On the dual carriageway increase from 50 mph to 60 mph, we see an even more haphazard approach. I previously referred to the impact assessment, but that was difficult because I do not believe there has been a thorough impact assessment. The argument seems to be that, because 80% of HGVs break the speed limit in free-flowing traffic as it is, the average current speed of 53 mph will not increase and, therefore, there is no need to model the impact of a higher speed limit on the economy, environment or road safety.
Mr Blunkett: I am less certain that the Government are wrong on that than on the single carriageway proposal, but it is strange that they should make this proposition when the imposition of 50 mph speed limits on effective dual carriageways—major motorways with roadworks that normally have six lanes—causes major hold-ups and many accidents and breakdowns. It is strange to impose 50 mph on a motorway if 60 mph is to be allowed on a dual carriageway.
Richard Burden: I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying, but serious concerns have been raised. For example, Brake, the road safety charity, objected to both increases. It said that the Government are “legitimising” the behaviour of drivers who break the speed limit and conveying a message that speeding is acceptable. It also said that the increase could have serious and unintended implications for the way in which road traffic and safety laws are developed and enforced. I ask the Minister again to specify what criteria the Government are using, because that is not clear.
On the impact on employment, we have heard that the regulations are meant to be good for the economy, but a number of drivers I spoke to recently expressed concern about the proposed increases in commercial vehicle speed limits. They said that because there is an increasing shortage of drivers and a skills gap in the industry, the pressure from often reputable employers on drivers in terms of schedules and target times for deliveries is getting higher and higher. They said that if the speed limit is increased, their targets will be to average those speed limits. They are concerned about not only the safety implications, but the knock-on effects for their health, well-being and ability to do their job effectively.
Several different proposals are currently being put forward, with a lot of work being done in Europe. My former colleague, Brian Simpson MEP, has done a lot of work on trying to get safety around HGVs higher up the political agenda. The Government’s performance on such issues has not been helpful.
Retailers are worried, in many cases. Unite, which represents 75,000 HGV drivers in the UK, and the Public and Commercial Services Union have said that higher speed limits will only sustain the longer working hours culture in the UK.
There are serious questions for the Minister to answer about the way in which the Government have approached the speed limit increases, and the impact that they will have on the environment, on employees and on road safety. I ask the Minister to respond to those questions. On the basis of her responses, we will determine our response to the order.
2.56 pm
Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con): I am afraid that I am not a cat lover, Mrs Brooke, so I will not congratulate you, although it sounds good fun.
I want to add to the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield. Technology and vehicles have changed dramatically in terms of safety and of fuel consumption. We need to realise that. I live in a rural area and cars go far too fast down my lane. They go at more than 40 mph down a single track lane. Personally, I would put a 20 mph limit on it, or perhaps dig up the road so that they would break the chassis. We need to consider road safety, but we have to allow drivers some competence in what they do.
On an ordinary single carriageway—not a single track road—most people go along in cars at between 45 mph and 60 mph if they can and if it is safe to do so, and we need to allow lorry drivers some capacity for working out what is safe. When we look at non-compliance, we
must either enforce the law dramatically, which would be difficult—the police have quite a few other things to do—or perhaps take a more sanguine view.I want to raise one other thing since we are talking about varying the speed limit. I know that I am not alone in this room in thinking it. I drive up and down the motorway occasionally, although I prefer to use the train. When I drive on the motorway, I find that as I go along at no greater speed than 70 mph, the rest of the traffic is whizzing past me at speeds of between 75 mph and 80 mph. It is true that cars are much safer than they used to be. They are designed to go faster, and their fuel consumption is much less, I am glad to say, for all sorts of good environmental reasons.
Perhaps the Minister can put me right, because my history is getting a little hazy. I think that speed limits were first introduced on motorways as a result of the fuel crisis following the middle east war in 1973, and the speed limit was introduced at 50 mph to save fuel. When it was time to remove the speed limits—whenever it was in the ’70s—a 70 mph was established instead. By the way, I am not suggesting that we should remove the speed limits completely. I have been to Germany where they go far too fast.
I put it to the Minister that cars are now much safer and much more fuel efficient. If the speed limit was originally a fuel-saving measure, and we are talking about varying speed limits, perhaps we should consider raising the speed limit for cars to 80 mph on motorways, which would tie in with the explanatory note, which states that
“a substantial majority of drivers do not comply with”
The Chair: Thank you. I was tempted to mention the actual title of the regulations before us, but I think the explanatory notes pulled it around.
2.59 pm
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): My cat Kevin was last year’s Purr Minister. Sadly, he is no longer with us. I am sorry to say he did not survive his year in office. I wish Mrs Brooke’s cat a much better and more successful time. For those Members who came in after the start, I am talking about the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home Purr Minister title that Mrs Brooke’s cat has won today.
I am sure that this year’s contest was not dogged by the vote-rigging allegations that we had last year. That was for the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, who mentioned his dog.
I turn to the regulations. I was not surprised to hear the comment about raising the speed limit on motorways, as I thought someone would mention that. Is this the start of a general trend in Government policy to raise speed limits? I know that that has been debated previously, but it would be useful to get the Government’s view on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield made an excellent point about the lack of evidence base in terms of safety. He rightly quoted the sources for that. I had only the guidance in the explanatory memorandum to look at, but it makes the point that the estimate from the Minister’s Department was that there would be two to three
“extra fatal road traffic incidents per year”.
My hon. Friend cited the four to nine additional serious accidents. I agree with him; two to three extra accidents is two to three too many. I ask the Minister and Government Members to consider that point seriously. What is her response? Why has she taken that view, given the guidance she has had from her Department? I take the point about speeding up the delivery of goods and the effect on the economy. However, it would be nice to hear more from the Government about how we can improve rail freight rather than a continuing over-reliance on our heavily congested roads.
Finally, I come back to the road safety point. In my own borough, there is an excellent roll-out of 20 mph zones, which the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire hinted at. Many of the residential roads now have 20 mph limits. Getting drivers to adhere to them is an interesting challenge, as people still tend to do 30 mph or more. Nevertheless, it is a movement in the right direction. Of course, there is a dramatic difference between the survival rates of people hit by a vehicle at 20 mph and at 30 mph in a residential area. The link between that piece of evidence and what is being proposed is interesting, and I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that link and the implications of it.
While councils such as my own and others around the country are making a move for road safety in residential areas and elsewhere by reducing speed limits, the Government are moving in the opposite direction. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough about the difference between single track and dual carriageway. There is a difference, but I have grave concerns about single track roads, not least given the evidence from the Department.
3.3 pm
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. May I say that my dog would love to be in a cat competition? It would cause absolute havoc, but that is another matter.
I find this a particularly difficult matter. I also find it a little surprising that it is handled under delegated legislation. I wonder whether matters of this import ought to be agreed or disagreed in this fashion or whether they should be in primary legislation. This matter affects so many people in so many different ways. To deal with it in this way seems a bit of a derogation of democracy, frankly.
Having got that off my chest, I agree totally with those who say that there is a difference between single carriageways and dual carriageways, especially with regard to lorries. I have serious reservations about increasing the limit on single carriageways, but I have no real concern about dual carriageways. If I may say so, I hoped that the Minister would go further because I believe that there is a real need to increase the speed of cars on our motorways to 80 mph. It would make sense.
I take the point that my esteemed colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire made about the massive improvement in vehicle design over the past 30 years, especially those safety measures that impact on this issue. I am talking mostly about braking but also visibility. There has been a massive improvement
in those areas that we all welcome. That is an argument, in the case of dual carriageways, for not standing still. I repeat that it is very difficult to make a judgment on the risk with single carriageways.Although regular testing has been around for some time, it was not when initial speed limits were brought in. We have a much better testing regime now than when the limits were set.
Richard Burden: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. He is right that there should be regular testing. However, is he aware that the number of roadside roadworthiness checks on HGVs has fallen by more than a third under this Government, from 186,909 in 2009-10 to 115,208 in 2013-14? The number of checks on the number of drivers’ hours has also reduced significantly. Less than half the number of checks, prohibitions and fixed-penalty notices for drivers’ hours contraventions were made last year compared with 2010.
Mr Binley: The evidence is pretty clear that professional lorry drivers are well aware that their job is at risk. The business of testing and regulating in cab has been a major and welcome step forward in that respect.
I conclude by saying that, although I welcome the dual carriageway argument and will support the Government on the single carriageway matter, it would be useful to reconsider the matter in two or three years, when we have the evidence about goods vehicles on single carriageway roads. I think the public would welcome a promise to reconsider this. I urge the Government to make that promise because it is a sensitive issue. If we went ahead but said that we would seriously look at this again in three years, that would put many people’s minds at rest.
3.8 pm
Claire Perry: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for raising a number of issues around this thorny problem. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield said, that is why the matter has been debated, ducked and discussed for many years by successive Governments. It is always difficult to make such changes, particularly when they include a conversation about road fatalities.
I will try to answer specific points. A lot were raised and if I do not get to them, I am sure my officials will note those I miss and we will write to hon. Members. The first was about fuel consumption and emissions. As hon. Members know, taking one’s engine to a slightly higher speed—55 mph in my car—is a way to achieve a more efficient and effective burn of fuel oil. Evidence suggests that, although certain emissions will increase as a result of speed limits, others such as nitrous oxide will decrease as a result of allowing HGV engines to run at a slightly higher rate.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield made a point about road maintenance, which, again, we take seriously. I am delighted to say that we now have an unprecedented investment in road improvements and maintenance across the country. In fact, I am told it is axle weight not speed that causes the most damage. We take any proposal to increase loading or weight of HGVs extremely seriously.
Interesting points were made about the challenges of urban versus rural areas. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough raised the important subject of school children being exposed to the changes. I would hope and expect that a 30 mph or lower limit has already been imposed in areas where school children are most likely to interact with road users.
To reassure Members, I will read what the AA’s president has said about the new limit:
“We know from our members that quite often trucks doing 40 mph on rural roads not only causes congestion but actually causes added danger…If the truck is doing 50 mph, all the evidence suggests that the driver will be quite content to stick behind it rather than try to overtake…We think it is a positive step, but on narrower, rural roads which are popular with cyclists the local authorities should be able to apply for 40 mph limits.”
That is exactly the guidance that we have given to local authorities and other transport authorities to enable them to be even more empowered in applying for lower limits. For the villages in my beautiful constituency, in some cases the limit is 20 mph, where it is appropriate. I really support the localism agenda, particularly in terms of speed limits.
Bill Esterson: If the regulations go through, will they mean that the limit on roads will automatically go to 50 mph and local authorities will have to apply to bring it back down to 40 mph or lower?
Claire Perry: No. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that in any area where a lower speed limit is already in place, that limit will be maintained. If a local authority has already gone through the process of applying for a lower speed limit—it need not be in a built-up area; it can also be on a major road where there are particular safety concerns—that speed limit will apply.
Richard Burden: That would not be the case, would it? If the default speed limit on single carriageway roads is 40 mph, the local authority would not have had to apply for a lower speed limit, because that is the default.
Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of what happens if there is a 30 mph limit, which is typically applied on a single carriageway. If a speed limit is already in place that is lower for all traffic on that particular road, it will be maintained.
I was asked about monitoring the impact. Members are absolutely right to point out that monitoring must be done. Of course, we monitor road safety statistics as soon as they come out, and they are published monthly and annually. We would not hesitate to take action if there were any significant changes in the statistics.
On the very difficult question of road fatalities, I want to mention, gently, that 1,713 people were killed on our roads last year—that is 1,713 too many. I find it rather distasteful to model human lives, but the modelling suggests that the changes might increase road fatalities by 0.15%. I hope that all the work the Government are doing on road safety for cyclists, really cracking down on drunk driving and introducing new roadside testing for drugged driving—often a major cause of road accidents—will more than outstrip that increase. It is my ambition to drive down those road fatality numbers even further.
Mr Binley: I note the words “might” and “hope”, and “it might” be the case and “I do hope” it is the case, but that has no certainty. I recognise that no Government can make promises for a future Government, but saying it now would have an important impact, so I urge the Government to promise to look again in three years at the issue of single carriageway roads, to ensure that the might and the hope come to fruition, as I hope they do.
Claire Perry: I use the words “might” and “hope” only on the basis that I do not think that any model run by any expert could possibly hope to capture the full dimensions of road safety or accidents on the road, which, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield pointed out, generally concern what happens between the driver, the wheel and other road users. Nevertheless, I am prepared to commit to an annual review of the analysis, as we would do anyway when it comes to road safety. That is important.
A couple of other questions were asked. One was about whether there is a general trend of raising road speed limits across the country for all vehicles. The answer is, of course, no. Nothing is done without evidence. When I was discussing the changes last summer, the most compelling thing for me was the question of why it was okay for a coach or a vehicle towing a caravan or a big horse box to travel at a higher speed limit when HGVs, often with a similar weight differential, are restricted from travelling at that limit. That just seems wrong to me. As politicians, we should be in the business of looking at the evidence and being prepared to make changes where evidence supports them. That may be tough, particularly where there are concerns about road safety, which I know that all of us in this Room take very seriously.
Richard Burden: I welcome the Minister’s guarantee of an annual review. It is helpful, but as a number of hon. Members across the Committee have said, the single carriageway/dual carriageway debate raises different issues. I still do not understand why they are in the same regulations. It may be that hon. Members might want to vote for one change and against the other, or abstain on one and vote for the other. Why are they in the same regulations?
Claire Perry: I do not know. That is the honest answer to the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that it is because we are changing the speed limits for a particular class of vehicle on different roads. I say again to him that if one is travelling through my very rural constituency, or taking the A12, one will have long miles of single carriageway, not running through built-up areas, and there will be lorries travelling well below their safety speeds and the permitted speed limits for other heavier vehicles; it just seems counter-intuitive to oppose what are, in my view, very sensible changes. I am sure that he has already spoken to Springer Transport Services and Phoenix Express Systems in his constituency. If he has not, he should know that if they are like other operators, they will strongly welcome these changes.
There is no evidence that the change will increase working hours, which is something that the hon. Gentleman raised. In fact, if one is able to make slightly faster journeys, presumably one can get there a bit quicker, do the job and actually knock off without working such
long hours. So I urge him and other hon. Members to speak to the hauliers in their constituencies. In many cases we have neglected, ignored and demonised our road haulage industry and it is time that we stood up for this industry which is doing so much to build economic growth.Mr Blunkett: I am sure that that is true, although very many hauliers that break down on the roads that I travel on are from outside the UK. Will the Minister agree to speak to the Highways Agency about the contradiction that will arise if the regulations are approved this afternoon? On our motorways the Agency is regularly imposing 50mph speed limits where there are two carriageways each way during road works. It is just nonsense.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD): The Minister referred a moment ago to a situation in which there are long sections of single carriageway. As she will be well aware, East Anglia is extremely grateful and welcoming of the dual carriageway that has been introduced for the full length of the A11. For my constituency it means that Norwich is no longer the largest city that is not connected to the national dual carriageway network. Surely, what these regulations will do is allow areas such as East Anglia to get the full economic benefits of the coalition’s investment in the roads programme.
Claire Perry: I thank the hon. Member for Norwich South for making a very sensible intervention pointing out that this is a huge benefit. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough: it is frustrating for all of us to be stuck in 50mph limits and I can only apologise. They seem to be happening more and more often as this Government get to grips with the backlog of road investment that has been required for so long.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central raised a very important point about rail freight. I am passionate about rail freight, like him, and I was delighted only a few weeks ago to sign off on the continuation of the rather wordily named modal shift grant, which encourages the shift from road to rail freight, in particular where some of the benefits, such as reduced emissions and reduced congestion, are harder to capture in simple
economic terms. I am sure that he, like me, welcomes the fact that we are all committed, across this House, to continuing that shift, not just to rail but, in some cases, to canals and waterways, another passion of mine.In conclusion, I thank hon. Members for the interesting points raised. I hope that they support these changes as sensible and proportionate, as required by the haulage industry and as changes that should not have a detrimental effect on road safety. I also hope that the work that the Department is committed to doing to reduce fatalities on the roads will more than outstrip any potential small increases, as modelled.
The proposed new speed limits did receive significant support in the consultation referenced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield. Of course, many hauliers responded via the Road Haulage Association. If he counted those responses individually, I think he would find that the majority supported the changes for both single and dual carriageways.
The regulations represent a pragmatic change that reflects the needs and capabilities of a modern transport network. I therefore recommend that the Committee approves them.
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 5.
AYES
NOES
Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Committee has considered the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014.