11.3 p.m.

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Provisional Regulations, dated 4th January 1935, made by the Minister of Transport in exercise of the powers vested in him under and by virtue of Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and entitled the Traffic Signs (Speed Limit) Provisional Regulations, 1935, be annulled. First, I wish to apologise to the House for keeping it so late, but this is the only way under our procedure in which these Regulations, made by the Minister of Transport, can be discussed. It is a very unpleasant thing for a member of the National Government to have to oppose the Minister, as I have to this evening, and I must apologise for having to do so, but at the same time this is a subject on which I feel very deeply. I propose to raise two points. The first deals with the signs which the Minister of Transport proposes to put up at the beginning and at the end of a speed limit area under the Road Traffic Act, 1934. The second point is concerned with the position of a Member of Parliament who is jealous of the rights of this House, and that I shall deal with later. I wish to tell the House that I have nothing on earth to do with the motor trade. I am not in any way connected with it. I have no share in any company connected with the motor trade, and the only reason why I bring this matter forward is because I have been a driver for over 30 years and I have had a little experience, having driven more than 500,000 miles in various countries of the world.

I have studied this particular question for a long time. I was on the Committee of the 1034 Traffic Bill. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport was not there at the time. His prede cessor, the then Minister of Transport, was on that Committee, and during one of the Debates a description of a built-up area was given. The 30-miles speed limit was decided upon, and it was decided that that limit should apply to certain roads, roughly about 50,000 miles of road out of the 175,000 miles of road in the country. This speed limit is to be applied to what is called a built-up area, which is a place where a system of street lighting exists. That is the description of a built-up area.

I want, if I may, to say a few words about the signs. I take no objection to the sign that is proposed for the beginning of a built-up area, that is, the beginning of a speed limit area, because it is the same sort of sign as is used on the Continent, although it is smaller, being only 18 inches instead of 24. My objection is chiefly to the de-restriction sign. The de-restriction sign is only 8 inches instead of 18 inches, so that a driver knows when he comes into a built-up area, but does not know when he is going out of it because he cannot see the 8-inch sign so well as he can see the 18 inch sign. That is one reason why I object to it. There is another reason, and that is that it is ally black and white. We know that the Minister has marked his beacons with black and white. Black and white is put up to indicate caution. The black and white sign which the Minister proposes to put up at the end of a built-up area indicates that the driver can go as fast as he likes because he has come out of the restricted area. The colour of it is therefore wrong.

I want to examine the history of these signs. In June last year the Minister circulated the signs, and they were, I understand, objected to, certainly by the Automobile Association, which ought to know something about it. I am not sure whether I am correct in saying that the other motoring organisations objected also. The Minister will correct me if that is wrong. Later on he published Circular No. 407, which he sent to all the local authorities, and that circular was also objected to. It was objected to by the urban district councils, who objected to the very same sign as that to which I object, that is, the de-restriction sign. The Urban District Councils' Association, curiously enough suggested—I did not know this at the time—the very same sign which I have suggested in a circular which I have sent round the House, and that is that you should have the same sign at the exit as you have at the beginning of a speed limit area, but instead of having it red you should have it green, and should cross out the "30" to show that the 30-mile limit no longer exists. I asked the Minister a question just before Christmas, pointing out to him that this particular kind of sign with a bar across it conflicted with the international sign. The answer I got indicated, I think, that my hon. Friend did not realise that a bar without anything else was a restrictive sign, and not a permissive sign, on the Continent. On the 6th February I asked another question, and the answer I got from my hon. Friend was as follows: The proposed signs were placed in the Tea Room of the House"— for which I thank him, because I asked him to do it— some time ago, and no objections were received from hon. Members. The original proposals for the design of the signs have met with a large measure of approval"— about which, no doubt, he will tell us— and I have decided not to modify the signs in the light of the criticisms received …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1935; col. 1125, Vol. 297.] That was the answer that I got, but I was convinced, from conversations with various hon. Members in the Tea Room who had seen these signs, that Members of the House did not agree with that de-restriction sign, but thought it was too small and not satisfactory. Therefore, I decided that I would send a letter to every Member of the House, including the Minister, showing the sign which I proposed should take the place of his sign, and the international sign as well. The response to the referendum which I sent to Members of the House was very surprising to me. I did not expect to get nearly such a large number of answers, and I am most grateful to hon. Members for answering the questions which I sent out. I received 262 replies, which I think it a great compliment. The number in favour of the green sign with the "30" crossed out was 237. There were 18 Members who gave no particular opinion on the subject, but did me the honour of answering the letter. There were only seven replies in favour of the Minister's proposal, and here I was rather interested, because, among the replies in favour of the Minister's sug gestion, there was one which had no name on it, and I was wondering whether it was my hon. Friend who did me the honour of sending me that reply.

I think I have said sufficient about the signs, and I now want to deal with the second point, which is that, as a Member of Parliament, I am jealous of the rights of Members of this House. During the Committee stage of the Bill of 1934, the late Minister of Transport used these words in connection with the signs: It is clear that, whatever signs are to be prescribed, they must be prescribed by regulation and not by the Bill. Regulations of this character would be laid before the House, but of course they would not be subject to an affirmative Resolution, but subject to the Parliamentary procedure of a negative resolution, and it is a negative resolution which I am moving this evening. I want to quote the relative Section of the Act of 1930, Section 111: Any regulations made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament in the next subsequent 28 days on which the House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation shall be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new regulation. That is the Clause in the Act of 1930, which controls the Act of 1934, because in the Act of 1934 the signs are prescribed signs. That, in fact, was the Amendment which I moved in Committee and which was accepted by the then Minister. The effect of making a prescribed sign was that it had to be placed on the Table for 28 days. What is the position now? The Minister, instead of relying on the 1930 Act, which he should have done, has pleaded emergency under the Rules Publication Act of 1893, which, in Section 2, states: Where a rule making authority certifies that on account of urgency or any special urgency any rule should come into immediate operation it shall be lawful for such authority to make any such rules to come into operation forthwith as provisional rules. That is how the Minister has brought in his regulations, and this is what I complain about. The late Minister did exactly the same thing. He did not bring them in under the 1930 Act but under the 1893 Act. The present Minister brought in his regulations about beacons under the 1893 Act again. He presented the House with beacons that were already up. The only thing we could do was to pass a Resolution annulling the regulations. The only effect of that would have been that my hon. Friend, who had already put up his beacons, would have had to pull them all down again, and we should have had to pay the expense of putting them up and pulling them down. That is because he stressed emergency and he did not wait for the 28 Parliamentary days in order to bring it in under the 1930 Act, which he ought to have done, and exactly the same thing has happened again. These regulations are brought in as provisional regulations under the 1893 Act, which was passed long before the Ministry of Transport ever existed and I think before the present Minister was born. We should protest against this Act being used. We passed an Act in 1930 which lays down that the regulations shall lie on the Table for 28 days. He has ignored it altogether and has presented us with a fait accompli. He tells us that some of these signs are already up. I do not think he has any right to put them up. He has no right to do that. What is the urgency in this matter? It is only a question of 28 Parliamentary days. He has to wait 28 Parliamentary days when he can bring it in under the ordinary procedure. This is becoming a common way of bringing in Regulations by the Minister of Transport. I have taken the trouble to look up Regulations which the Minister has brought in during this Session and I find no fewer than 15 Regulations have been brought in under the 1893 Act instead of the 1930 Act under which they ought to have been brought in. The House should protest. It is not too late. There are very few of these signs up in the country. I have heard that there are some in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and that they have been seen up there.

No signs have been seen in the North Riding of Yorkshire. There are some up but they are quite indiscernible.

I am very grateful for the interruption of my hon. Friend.

If you cannot see them, how do you know they are there?

My hon. Friend has made the point that they are almost invisible. It really is not too late to have this design of sign altered. A very large Majority of the Members of this House are anxious to have this done. I do not want to go to a Division on this Motion, but if the Minister cannot give some assurance on the matter, I propose to take it to a Division. I want to say to him that his predecessor at the Ministry of Transport, the present Minister of Labour was big enough to admit not very long ago that he had made a mistake and he was quite ready to admit it—and I hope that the Minister of Transport is big enough to admit that he has made a mistake, and that he will admit it, with the overwhelming majority of the House against him, as far as these signs are concerned. I hope he will realise that he has made a mistake and will withdraw the regulations, and that he will not insist and compel me to press this Motion to a Division.

11.24 p.m.

I beg to second the Motion.

I agree with everything that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) has so ably stated. I think that everyone will admit that, in any regulations that are brought in for the safety of the users of the road, the most important thing is that they should be understood by the country as a whole, and, secondly, that they should have the understanding and support of all sections of the community. It is impossible to support something which you are practically certain never to see when you ought to see it. Not only do the signs not fulfil the purpose for which they are intended, but so far the regulations do not fulfil the definite promises which the former Minister of Transport laid down. When we were considering the Bill on Report the Minister said: It is not my intention to bring a speed limit into force and then allow local authorities, piecemeal, to suggest that this area should be taken out or that area brought in. I intend to circularise local authorities at the earliest possible moment and ask them to submit general schemes for their areas, and I have no intention of bringing the Clause into force until I have most of these general schemes before me so that I am able to ensure uniformity of inclusions and exclusions throughout the country and, above all, make certain that satisfactory arrangements are made for the guidance of motorists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1934; col. 1432, Vol. 291.] At present there is no uniformity in regard to these schemes. We know that a restricted area is to be one where there is lighting at 200 yards apart. We know that the Minister can de-restrict certain areas even where there is lighting. He has made it plain lately that where there is a main road or an arterial road he does not want such road restricted. That is made clear in regulations issued to the authorities in October last in Circular 407. One circular indicated clearly the intention to de-restrict all main roads constructed for fast traffic. I understand that reports have come in which show that in a great many cases local authorities have followed that advice and made a careful study of their areas, restricting or de-restricting roads as might seem best in the area. On the other hand many areas have done nothing of the sort. They have included every area in their borough, every road, whether it was meant for fast traffic or not. Examples of various boroughs which have done this are Birmingham, which has included in the restricted area Worcester Road and Lichfield Road; Bristol, which has included the Port Way; Edinburgh, which has included the Sterling Road; Glasgow, which has included the Great West Road to Dumbarton; Leeds, which has included the York Road and the Harrogate Road; Manchester, which has included Princess Road; Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which has included the Coast Road; and Swansea, Swinton and Pendlebury, which have included roads which are not only main traffic thoroughfares but in some cases have a dual carriageway.

In view of the great confusion which must be caused in the country owing to these various restrictions, it is essential that the sign that is to be put up to show when an area is de-restricted should be unmistakable. I think the design which was submitted by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe was a good sign which any normal person would be able to understand. I think that a plain white disc of only eight inches with a black line across it will not be understood by the people of this country, and will certainly not be understood by foreigners visiting the country. We are likely to have a very large number of cases in the police courts of people who have not seen the traffic lights or have in some ways offended against the regulations. The Minister of Transport would be the first to admit that any value which his beacons may have is more likely to be ensured if the beacons are really understood and if the crossings are understood by the general public. These new signs will not be understood by the general public. There will be a very large number of foreigners coming to this country this year, and I am very much afraid that if these signs are put up as at present intended a large number of those visitors will find their way into the police courts. I hope the Minister of Transport will very seriously consider withdrawing these regulations. If he does not do so, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will go to a Division.

11.30 p.m.

I appreciate the seriousness of conviction which has animated the hon. and gallant Member in putting down the Motion and all the more because of the good-natured way in which he has delivered his arguments. For some months past I have been engaged on the not enviable duty of putting into operation the complicated provisions of an Act of Parliament which affects the habits and prejudices of the people at many points. It has involved much consideration, discussion and consultation and also the making of orders at such intervals of time as not unduly to inconvenience and harass the public. Section 1 of the Act imposes upon me the duty of bringing into operation a speed limit of 30 miles an hour in built-up areas. It also imposes upon me the not congenial discretion of prescribing the type, colour and height of the traffic signs which are to give the indications to motorists. Presumably Parliament left that discretion to the Minister because it realised that there would be a multiplicity of opinions and that someone at some stage would have to make up his mind. My predecessor made it plain to the House, and I think that the House agreed, during the debates on the Bill, that two types of signs would be necessary, one at the entrance to a speed limited area, and another at the exit.

My right hon. Friend, my predecessor, did not wait for the passage of the Bill before asking his technical advisers to produce specifications of the two signs, and indeed these specifications were produced in June last. They were circulated to a number of representative bodies in that month with a request that they would make my predecessor aware of any objections they might entertain to them. I will acquaint the House with the result of this inquiry. The County Councils Association made no adverse comment; the Association of Municipal Corporations no adverse comment, the Urban District Councils Association, agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), the Institute of Municipal and County Engineers, a technical body, no adverse comment. The Association of County Councils in Scotland made no adverse comment, nor did the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland. The Royal Automobile Club made no adverse coinment; the Automobile Association and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club made criticisms of the signs, but did not make the proposals which the hon. and gallant Member makes. The Pedestrians' Association made suggestions very much different from any one else. They suggested that a capital letter R should be screwed on to each lamp-post.

My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that my predecessor lost no time in fulfilling his undertaking to the House. He submitted his proposals to a large number of representative bodies, most of whom had no adverse comments to make and few of whom made suggestions which were reconcilable with one another or with the specifications that were before them. That was in June last. In October I, having inherited my right hon. Friend's position, sent to every local authority in the country a copy of these specifications. I have received no criticism of any kind from any single local authority. On 6th November my hon. and gallant Friend asked me whether I would place a copy of these signs in the Tea Room. I readily assented, and the signs have been there ever since. I have received not one single representation from any one of my colleagues in the House. I waited until 4th January, when I made my Order. 4th January is two months ago, but my hon and gallant Friend puts down his Motion only this evening, when these signs have been before representative bodies for nine months and have been in the Tea Room for over two months—he puts down his Motion within a fortnight of the speed limit coming into operation. Whatever the merits of my hon. and gallant Friend's proposals I think he will agree that it is a little unfortunate that so much time has been allowed to elapse, because the local authorities have placed their orders, manufacturers are turning out these signs in response to the orders, and, indeed, the signs are being erected.

However, I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I would not allow an inconvenience of that kind or a lack of economy of that kind to stand in the way of a fair consideration of any proposals that were made to me, and if my hon. and gallant Friend could show that his signs were so superior to the sign that has been so long before the public I would not hesitate to invite local authorities to cancel their orders. But is it the fact? After all, I have been provided at the public expense, and I think wisely provided, with a body of technical experts, some of whom have been engaged in studying signs for many years past. They have at their disposal a fund of comparative information; besides engineering skill. My hon. and gallant Friend's observation upon this sign is that it is liable to be confused with the restrictive signs, yet his suggested alternative sign contains a bar.

HON. MEMBERS:

No!

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly read out to the House what my suggestion is. I say "a bar sign by itself." The hon. Gentleman did not say that.

There is a bar in my hon. and gallant Friend's sign, which crosses out the figure "30." There is a bar on a letter "P" on the sign which he has described as the restrictive sign. Am I not entitled to Make the comment that both signs have a bar and that the bar in each case obliterates either a letter or a figure? I listened to my hon. and gallant Friend's argument and I am sure he would be the last to resent my replying to him. I ask hon. Members to submit these two signs—this black bar on a white background and the green bar Obliterating the figure "30"—to an optical test and to regard them, not from reading distance but from a greater distance, and I am certain that they will confirm the results of technical experience and that it will be admitted that the black bar is visible from a greater distance than the green bar—

Despite the disparity in size?

Despite the disparity in size. If hon. Members look at the signs from a distance I think they will agree that the black bar is more easily discernible. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I appreciate the position of hon. Members behind me who cannot see them at all. My contention is that the black mark on white is visible from a greater distance than the green mark on white, and as the green mark obliterates two figures it appears in a confused form—as a hieroglyphic. But whether that be so or not, in these matters someone has to take a decision. I have been put in charge of the Department and provided with technical advice. My hon. and gallant Friend at a very late stage, after these proposals have been a long time before the House, takes a ballot of Members, but those Members if they were in my position would not just express a cursory opinion on a postcard—I am sorry that I did not fill in my postcard and return it as requested by my hon. and gallant Friend—but would take technical advice. I have taken that advice. Parliament has given me discretion and in this and other matters I have not shirked using it. As I say there is scope for many differences of opinion on all matters concerning public safety, but on no subject is there scope for greater differences of opinion than on matters of taste. As between my hon. Friend's sign and mine there is scope for that difference of opinion.

My hon. Friend should bear in mind that this de-restriction sign, which is smaller than the other sign, is to be upon every lamp-post in a de-restricted area, and I refuse to believe that motorists are likely to confuse this sign with some of the continental signs, none of which resemble it in the very least, or that they will be unable to distinguish this sign. But an ounce of practice is worth a pound of theory, and these signs are in process of erection. If they should prove unsatisfactory—I apply to them the same test that I have applied to all my other proposals—I shall be willing then to consider criticism based upon actual experience. I do not think the House can expect me to do more than that. I realise the intensity of my hon. and gallant Friend's feelings, but after all he is criticising something which is not in operation, and I repeat to him my great regret at the fact that he did not mass that body of opinion before the 4th January, when I made my final order confirming the original draft order made in October. As his own Prayer recites, these provisional regulations are made in exercise of powers vested in me under and by virtue of Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. In making regulations—and my hon. and gallant Friend has admitted that my predecessors made regulations in precisely the same form—I naturally have recourse, as anyone in my position would, to the legal advice which is placed at my disposal. I am advised that these orders are in proper and constitutional form, and it is open to my hon. and gallant Friend—and indeed he has availed himself of the opportunity—to do what my predecessor suggested he could do during the passage of the Bill itself, namely, to move this Prayer and, if necessary, reject the traffic signs, in which case, of course, there would be the most utter confusion on the 18th March. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly. The House may take my solemn word for that, for local authorities have placed their orders, are receiving the signs, and are in course of erecting them, and there would certainly be confusion. But on the constitutional point there is no doubt that the House has a complete right to reject these signs and to find that as a fact I have wrongly and improperly exercised the discretion which, for good or for evil, Parliament decided should be vested in the Minister of Transport.

Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, will he clear up one point which is new to me? Are we to understand that in the built-up areas there are to be black and white signs on every lamp-post?

11.48 p.m.

I regret that the Minister is not going to withdraw these regulations. His chief argument has been his complaint at the time that has been taken before the alternative signs were shown to him. A lot has happened since we originally discussed this matter last Year in Committee. We have seen the Belisha beacons spread all over the different towns, and we have been told in this House that it is possible we shall have areas in which there is to be no horn-blowing at all. If there are to be silent areas in the daytime, it means that there will have to be further signs, and I think it is a very great pity if we do not have a uniform sign for these speed limit areas. There is a great difference in uniformity between the de-restriction sign with the black bar on the white background, as the Minister suggests, and the 30-miles sign with the red circle, and the black numbers inside, denoting that the speed limit is in force, and the de-restriction sign suggested by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), with the green circle and the 30 crossed out, and the 30-miles sign with the red circle, and the black number inside.

There is another point which has not been mentioned, which is very important. A slow motorist may be in the middle of the road and not be willing to pull to the side to allow another motorist to overtake, and to have a sign larger than the present one of eight inches would be a great help. Motorists are getting very alarmed at all these different signs and they do want uniformity. I very much regret that the Minister is not able to give uniformity in this matter, in having the signs put where the speed limit starts and where it ends, to help the motorist.

Question put, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Provisional Regulations, dated 4th January, 1935, made by the Minister of Transport in exercise of the powers vested in him under and by virtue of Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and entitled the Traffic Signs (Speed Limit) Provisional Regulations, 1935, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 88.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.