I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and reasoning behind these regulations. I have one or two points that I wish to raise and if the answer to those points is in the impact assessment I have just been given, I hope he will accept that I have not really had a chance to digest its contents in the few minutes that I have had it.
The Minister has not indicated that there has been lobbying for this increase from the road haulage industry. Perhaps he can say whether that is the case, bearing in mind that many are of the view that increasing HGV speed limits is a priority for the haulage industry.
We do not intend to oppose the increases in the speed limits but we wish to express some reservations about the way the Government appear to have handled this matter and to make some comments on the supporting documentation. It seems from the work undertaken that the safety impacts of the single carriageway increase from 40 to 50 miles per hour are somewhat inconclusive. It would be helpful, although I have no doubt that the information is in the document that I have just been given, if the Minister could say what the Government’s impact assessment shows that the increase to 50 miles per hour will result in, in terms of any additional fatalities or serious accidents each year. Once again, I accept that that information may be in the document that I have been given. Could he also indicate how
many fatal accidents involving heavy goods vehicles in excess of 7.5 tonnes there are currently each year on single carriageway roads, so that we can see whether it is accepted that there will be an increase and, if so, at what kind of percentage level that increase is projected to be?
The evidence of a link between increased speed and crashes is well documented. It is estimated that one-third of deaths on the road are caused partly by excessive speed. There has been nothing but anecdotal evidence to suggest that road safety will improve due to less of what is described as “risky overtaking” in the Explanatory Memorandum, as a justification for these measures, if the speed limit for HGVs is raised.
As I look at the Explanatory Memorandum, the single carriageway speed increase appears to have been objected to by nearly three-quarters of respondents to the Government’s consultation, so one could suggest that not very much weight has been given to the results of the consultation. Is it not also the case that the increase in the speed limit is being pushed ahead before the Department for Transport has concluded its promised review of rural road safety?
The consultation on increasing the speed limit for HGVs on single carriageway roads, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, was launched in November 2012 and went on for three months, until the beginning of February 2013. A decision to proceed was not made, presumably, until very recently—that is, 2014. One could construe that the delay was, at least in part, because the Government knew from the responses that the change was likely to be controversial, but perhaps the Minister could comment on that point.
There does not appear to have been too much of an attempt to assess the impact of higher speed limits on dual carriageways. The Government have, presumably, not properly assessed costs and benefits for the dual carriageway increase because they are of the view that, in reality, the speed at which vehicles go will remain the same. However, the majority of respondents to the consultation did not agree with that assertion, which, if it is incorrect, could lead to significant impacts for road safety, the environment and road maintenance. Higher average speeds for larger vehicles will increase fuel consumption, emissions of CO2 and particulates and noise levels. However, it is not clear why the Government want to increase the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes from 50 to 60 miles per hour on dual carriageway roads.
The impact assessment says that the average speed at which HGVs travel in “free flow conditions” is about 53 miles per hour and asserts that the limit of 50 miles per hour is, “out of date”, apparently because it is,
“systematically ignored by professional HGV drivers”,
averaging 53 miles per hours—that is, three miles per hour more, in what are described as “free flow conditions”. If the Government regard a speed limit as being out of date because people are proceeding on average three miles per hour in excess of it, surely on that basis they must be pretty close to regarding the 30 miles per hour speed limit as being out of date, unless the Minister is going to tell us that in free-flow conditions motorists, including lorry drivers, do not go at average speeds in
excess of 32 or 33 miles per hour when there is a speed limit of 30 miles an hour. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the view that a speed limit is out of date if it is being exceeded, on average, by three miles per hour, and where that leaves us in relation to the government view on a 30 mile per hour speed limit.
2.30 pm
If heavy goods vehicle drivers are averaging 53 milers per hour on dual carriageway roads, why is that an argument for increasing the limit to 60 miles per hour when, in their own impact assessment, the Government state that they “do not expect” a change in the average speed of heavy goods vehicle drivers? If the Government’s argument is that they are doing an average of 53 miles per hour in free-flow conditions at the moment, when the speed limit is 50 miles per hour, what is the argument for increasing it to 60, when the Government’s view is that they will continue to do 53 miles per hour? Perhaps the Minister could comment on that point when he comes to respond.
The Government, as I said, refer to average speeds being 53 miles per hour in free-flow conditions on dual carriageways. Free-flow conditions, as I understand it from that impact assessment, mean when heavy goods vehicles are not held up by other traffic or by obstructions such as junctions, hills or bends. The change for dual carriageways means that these vehicles will presumably be able to travel up to 10 miles per hour faster when at, on or approaching junctions, hills or bends. But is it not the case that more accidents happen at junctions or on hills or bends than in what the impact assessment describes as free-flow conditions? Where was that issue addressed in the impact assessment? Was it even addressed? No doubt the Minister will want to comment on that in his reply.
The consultation period on raising the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes on dual carriageway roads was considerably shorter than the consultation period in respect of single carriageway roads. Why was that? Why was the consultation of just some six weeks on the speed limit on dual carriageway roads deliberately held over the summer holiday period from 24 July to 5 September, when many people are away? Perhaps the Minister could comment on that in his reply.
The Explanatory Memorandum sets out from what sources the responses had come to the consultation on the single carriageway speed limit increase, saying more than half came from private individuals. How many replies came from private individuals to the consultation on dual carriageway roads? That figure does not appear to be given in the Explanatory Memorandum. The number of local authorities responding to the dual carriageway consultation is—or was—well down on that for the single carriageway consultation. Does the Minister think that has anything to do with the fact that the consultation period was not only shorter but held over the summer holiday period?
The Explanatory Memorandum also refers in paragraph 8.8 to encouraging local authorities to consider lowering local speed limits. Can the Minister confirm in respect of which roads within its area the local
authority could make the decision itself to lower speed limits, and in respect of which roads within its area the local authority could not make that decision? In relation to lowering speed limits, can a lower speed limit be placed on a road by a local authority for a heavy goods vehicle of more than 7.5 tonnes than applies to other vehicles, or is it the case that if the speed limit is lowered by a local authority, it has to apply to all vehicles?
The quick look that I have had at the impact assessment on single carriageway roads says, I think, that these vehicles are currently travelling at an average of 45 miles per hour. Could the Minister confirm whether that is the same as applies in the dual carriageway impact assessment, where the figure was 53 miles per hour on what were described as free-flow conditions? On a single carriageway, is that 45 miles per hour in free-flow conditions? Presumably it therefore does not apply when there is an obstruction—an obstruction being described as a junction, a hill or a bend. Once again, if the average speeds are 45 miles per hour, why are the Government pushing for an increase in the speed limit to 50 miles per hour?
I would be grateful if the Minister could answer some of those questions but I appreciate that he may wish to reply in writing. I can confirm that, despite all the questions that I have asked—which may not have seemed to the Minister entirely helpful—we are not opposing the regulations.