| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 698
lives by bringing in random testing, for which there is a powerful argument, and I find it difficult to understand why it does not do so.The Department contains two "hangers" and two Ministers who voted against hanging. Therefore, perhaps the Department is equally balanced. The House should at least be given the opportunity to vote on random testing. Let us hear the available evidence and have a debate, just as the House will have a vote on hanging--
Mr. Greg Knight (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury) : Not random hanging.
Mr. Prescott : I am sure that the parents of children killed in drink-driving cases will not find the hon. Gentleman's remark very clever. People do not understand how, despite the big majorities against hanging, the House returns to the subject every 12 to 18 months, but constantly refuses, year after year, to have a vote on breath testing. I assure the House that the Opposition will ensure that there will be a motion to debate that subject and an opportunity to settle the issue once and for all.
Sir John Wheeler : The hon. Gentleman makes some important and powerful points with which the House will have a good degree of sympathy. Does he agree that the simplest solution to the problem of drink-driving is not one of law or the debate about the extent of the law and police powers? I agree that, in their enforcement of the law, police officers should have standardised procedures. However, is not the answer to use the modern technology available to prevent people with alcohol on their breath from starting the engine of a car?
Mr. Prescott : There is a role for technology, but I am sure that it is not beyond human wit and ingenuity to get round such proposals. I am all for welcoming any technology, whether related to red lights to stop people jumping the lights or speeding, but ultimately it is the deterrent, the chance of being caught, that is the most effective way of influencing people and persuading them not to drink and drive.
The options open to us are not limited to random testing ; the blood alcohol level could be brought down to that recommended in Europe. The evidence shows that reducing the level would undermine people who think that they can have two pints or certain drinks, and still be below the limit. Such people are a problem. I understand the logic of the argument that we should not allow any drink, but we must live with reality and bring down blood alcohol levels.
In a pub yesterday I bought a lemonade for 85p. It is scandalous that, in the time of drink-driving laws, one pays as much for a glass of lemonade as for beer, when one person in a group may decide to drink lemonade, as many youngsters do. It is to the credit of youngsters that they are not the targets at which we aim legislation. It is aimed at those aged between 35 and 50, such as business executives, the A1 and A2 social classifications, including company directors and the higher echelons of society, including Members of Parliament.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) rose --
Mr. Prescott : I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He had a number of remarks to make and I have received his apology. He was quite wrong to
Column 699
make the remarks he did in the road safety debate and I have no intention of giving way to him in this debate--he knows what I am talking about.Mr. Peter Bottomley : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The changes proposed in respect of careless, dangerous and reckless driving, to which the Secretary of State referred, are good and proper, and are to be welcomed. However, there is concern about the quality of the advice given to the police on what constitutes careless, dangerous or reckless driving. The changes that North suggests are much more sensible.
Clause 3 refers to drink and drugs, but not to drivers affected by fatigue or sleepiness. The White Paper, "The Road User and the Law," makes reference to the offence of driving while unfit. It mentions "drink, drugs temporary incapacity due to fatigue, somnolence or temporary disability".
I cannot find those categories in the Bill. Incapacity through fatigue, and people driving for longer hours than they should, are important considerations. One can understand the difficulties of bringing charges under that heading, and perhaps that led the Secretary of State to omit it from the Bill.
Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman will surely acknowledge that there is a high degree of culpability if someone drives under the influence of drink or drugs which they should have been aware they had consumed. Driving while suffering from excess fatigue does not, by its very nature, involve the same degree of culpability--and therefore falls to be treated differently.
Mr. Prescott : I was quoting from the Government's own White Paper, and Dr. North also considered the question of fatigue. Although it might be difficult to prove such an offence, perhaps the Secretary of State will address himself to that matter in Committee.
There is undoubtedly a causal link between speed and accidents. I have as much need to understand that as anyone else. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. There is clear evidence of a correlation between speed, road accidents and deaths that no one can deny and legislators must bear it in mind when drafting new law. The Bill strikes the right balance in that respect. I look forward also to debating the role that technology can play, whether in stopping people from jumping traffic lights or driving at excessive speeds. Use of deterrents is the most effective way of preventing road casualties and I hope that we shall be able to make progress with that. I am interested that the Government are giving consideration to introducing corporate liability, which I have advocated in many other areas. The Bill appears to confine the application of corporate liability to cases in which a company is required to reveal the identity of the driver of a firm's vehicle that has been involved in an accident. The Government now seem prepared to attach corporate liability to the firm that owns the car concerned. That leaves the controversial question whether, having fined the company, one or more of its directors will also be given penalty points. One wonders whether that would be acceptable and I look forward to debates in Committee on that aspect also.
Column 700
I would like corporate liability extended to heavy goods vehicles. All too often we blame the worker--the driver involved in an accident that has occurred in difficult circumstances. The White Paper suggests that responsibility should not be taken from the driver, and that philosophy is reflected in the Bill. That will simply place the driver under greater pressure from the lorry owner.The recent BBC "Watchdog" programme on lorries was a powerful piece of work, and clearly showed that of the 19 million cars in the United Kingdom, 5,000 are involved in fatal accidents each year, whereas the half a million lorries are involved in 1,000 fatal accidents. The number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled is 1.7 in the case of cars, and 3.4 in the case of lorries--twice as many. In 1989, 88,000 heavy goods vehicles were tested at the roadside, 16.5 per cent. of which were prohibited from continuing their journeys due to law-breaking defects--a total of 15,000 HGVs. In October 1989, 5,500 lorries were stopped in London, and one in 10- -a total of 550--were unlicensed. Of the 100 lorries mechanically tested, 50 per cent. were faulty. Those are serious statistics.
There have already been complaints about ineffectual fines. The "Watchdog" programme also investigated the fines imposed on companies for running vehicles with defective tyres. The average fine was £150, which is less than the price of a single tyre for such vehicles. Also, one third of the HGVs in the sample failed their MOT the first time, and one quarter of them failed at the second attempt. I am glad that the Secretary of State is taking extra powers in the Bill to improve the standing of test stations. However, I hope that he will increase also the number of inspectors, because it has been falling over a period of time.
If there is corporate liability, we are then faced with the problem that many transport companies go bust the moment that any action is taken against them. Many are one-lorry firms. They automatically go bust and cannot be brought to law, yet they are the very people one wants to catch because they undermine the competition. The Road Haulage Association's recent report made it clear that it wants more prosecutions, and heavier penalties :
"It is recommended that vehicle confiscation would be a constructive move to terminate activities that have given rise to fly tipping, abuse of driver hours regulations, avoidance of vehicle excise duty, and environmental nuisance. Such a measure would have widespread support within the haulage industry and would be welcomed by the public at large."
Dr. North also spoke of vehicle confiscation, but no such provision is in the Bill. We intend giving powers to the transport inspectors, who will be able to confiscate an operating licence, but more should be done to penalise the owner.
As to tachographs, the United Road Transport Union under Frank Griffin wants a simple new measure, which could be provided in the Bill, to ensure that tachographs are properly numbered in sequence so that inspectors will more easily be able to locate them when bringing prosecutions. At the moment, a tachograph can simply be thrown in a box and it can be made very difficult to find that evidence. That small procedural change would improve the Bill.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider also the plight of drivers who cannot gain access to service station facilities, including sleeping accommodation, and an opportunity to have a shave or take a shower. Lorries are banned from many such facilities, which leaves their
Column 701
drivers tired and less alert, and makes it more probable that they will be involved in accidents. In the Birmingham area, the Transport and General Workers Union, under Dennis Mills, has been campaigning for change for a long time. Service stations depend on lorry drivers for their own supplies and livelihoods, as much of the British economy does, yet deny them decent facilities.Part I at least is a great step forward, though my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford will have something to say about part II. I do not have time to talk about rear seat belts, but I know that the Department is probably about to make the wearing of them compulsory--and if that happens many more injuries and deaths will be prevented. If provisions on seat belts and random testing of drink driving are put into the Bill, they will save many hundreds of lives and thousands of serious injuries. They are worthy of consideration and of inclusion in a Bill devoted to road safety. Those two measures would make the Bill a far better piece of legislation.
5.59 pm
Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point) : As one who has campaigned for many years for effective measures to combat drinking and driving, I warmly welcome the Bill. May I also welcome the arrival of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities, and the most constructive and challenging remarks made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? I enjoyed both their speeches immensely.
Our country's record on drink-driving legislation is already good by international standards. But for two regrettable and notable omissions, the Bill would mark an advance that would make Britain a world leader in road safety. Much of my speech is related to those omissions. We have the time, the opportunity and, I hope, the will to remedy them.
In recent years we have learned that the problem of drinking and driving is not nearly as intractable as it once appeared, and that effective measures can be taken to reduce the toll of alcohol-related deaths and injuries on our roads--a toll that is as appalling as it is totally unnecessary. It is not so long ago since drinking and driving were hardly viewed as a crime in any real sense of the word--save by the victims and their relatives. Indeed, offenders were often regarded as deserving of sympathy--as people who were unlucky to have been caught. Thank God, all that has changed.
Here I should like to pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), whose tireless work during his time in office as Minister for Roads and Traffic did so much to change public attitudes, and to prepare the way for some of the provisions in this Bill. On behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I should also like to pay tribute to the campaign against drinking and driving. Its influence in the framing of the Bill is evident, especially in regard to the proposed new offences of dangerous driving and of causing death by drinking and driving. Greatly aided by the media--a measure of the seriousness with which people view this subject--the campaign has brought home to the British public, as never before, the full, sordid, human realities of the problems of drinking and driving, which are now
Column 702
almost universally recognised as extreme anti-social behaviour, tantamount to a threat of violence that strikes at random. Yet despite the welcome progress of recent years, far too many lives are still being put at risk, or destroyed unnecessarily. Drinking and driving remains the single most important cause of death and injury on our roads, and that must be sharply reduced. Let us consider the figures. I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East mentioned some of them. The year before last, one in six road deaths happened in an accident involving drink-driving ; 840 people were killed and about 22,000 people were injured on the roads in accidents in which drink driving was a factor. I do not believe that the latest figures would show very much improvement. My anxiety about the Bill, which I know is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, concerns the extent to which the measures it proposes would help to prevent the social evil of drinking and driving resulting in unacceptable death and injury, as distinct from the measures that seek to ameliorate the situation once the offence causing death or injury has occurred. The Bill proposes improved, or more appropriate, penalties for drinking and driving. Welcome though they are, I am aware of little evidence that increasing the severity of penalties alone has any significant effect in reducing the number of such offences.Naturally, I fully support the proposed new offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, but the justification for that proposal is not that it will act as a deterrent but that it is justice--that is, "justice" in inverted commas. That may remedy the defect in the existing law, which results in many drink-drivers who kill other road users being charged and convicted only of driving with an excess of alcohol in their blood. The campaign against drinking and driving has campaigned for that much-needed reform for some years but, frankly, like the campaigners, I fear that that will not, of itself, prevent further deaths. The campaign secretary, Mr. Graham Buxton, in a letter that many of us recently received, said that that clause of the Bill
"satisfies the demands of justice but not of prevention." There is a simple explanation for that. When he sets off on his journey, no driver believes that he will cause an accident. If he believed that he would not drive ; he would not even begin. Instead he is unthinking--sozzled--he is sozzled because he is unthinking. I greatly welcome the proposal for a major experiment in education courses for drink-drive offenders. Almost exactly 10 years ago, when I was still chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism, in a Second Reading debate on the Transport Bill of 1981, I argued for just such a development and I am gratified to learn that it is finally to be introduced. It is pleasing, even after a decade, that something that one advocated all those years ago is now accepted. It is entirely right and proper that a person who has been convicted of a drink- driving offence should be expected to attend a rehabilitation course in his own as well as in the public interest.
However, I have some anxieties on that score. To my knowledge, there is little evidence that rehabilitation schemes, however desirable or successful they may be in certain cases in reducing recidivism, have any marked effect on the overall level of drink-drive accidents and casualties. Indeed, American research had estimated that
Column 703
even if all persons convicted of drinking and driving were prevented from repeating their offence, fatal crashes would decrease by 3 per cent. only.Therefore, I am especially concerned about the Government's proposal to trade off attendance at rehabilitation courses against the period of disqualification. That is wholly the wrong approach. Licence suspension is the principle sanction against drinking and driving and, arguably, it will always be a more powerful tool than rehabilitation courses are likely to be in ensuring road safety. I trust, therefore, that the Government will reconsider that aspect of the Bill.
The Government hope that the Bill will be a major means of achieving their goal of a one third reduction in the number of road deaths and injuries by the end of the century. All of us share that aim. However, I am not optimistic in regard to the proposals on drinking and driving, and I shall tell the House why.
The first omission from the Bill is related to the legal limit. I find it strange that, as we embark on another publicity campaign exhorting the public not to drink and drive, the Government should insist on retaining a legal limit of 80 mg--substantially above what doctors and scientists have been telling us for a long time is the maximum compatible with road safety. For some years, the scientific consensus has been that a maximum of 50 mg of alcohol to 100 ml of blood is far more consistent with the known effects of alcohol on driving competence, and it is certainly more consistent with the message of the Government's own publicity campaign.
It is often said that we are now dealing-- or attempting to deal--with the hard core of people who continue to drink and drive. No doubt we are ; but that still seems to comprise a great many who have not been dissuaded by any publicity campaign. A survey carried out by Gallup for General Accident Insurance Group, released last week, found that 30 per cent. of all drivers --or 41 per cent. of all business drivers--admitted to drinking and driving. That is, of course, a minority of the driving population, but it is a very substantial minority. In fact the evidence suggests that the main factor influencing the behaviour of such people is not the size or nature of the penalty, but the perceived risk of being caught in the first place.
Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that there has been an enormous change in attitudes over the past decade? Is not it now acceptable for people who are offered a drink to say, "No, I am driving"? Those who advocate random breath testing seem to ignore the fact that, according to the Department of Transport, that change in attitudes has reduced the number of drink-drivers by half. It was encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) when he was Minister for Roads and Traffic, with the co-operation of the brewers. Is not it wrong to ignore changes in public attitude, which have had more effect than any other factor?
Sir Bernard Braine : I do not know what my hon. Friend was doing earlier, when I thanked the Almighty for that very change in public attitudes. I was not born yesterday ; I have been in the business of alcohol abuse for a long time. As I said, there have been changes, thank God--but obviously my hon. Friend did not hear me say it.
Column 704
I am not talking about that ; I am talking about the continued carnage on our roads. I do not know about my hon. Friend's constituency, but every now and again I have to face a constituent who has lost a loved one because of some drunken driver. I suspect that every hon. Member has experienced that, and it must cease. No mild words can be expected from me about what I regard as a disgrace.My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is tempting me to go into more detail. Regardless of the improvements in public perceptions and attitudes--which I do not deny--the principal failure of the Bill lies in the omission of a measure to deal with the aspect of the problem that I have just described. The Bill does not prevent the commission of the crime and the subsequent suffering of the victims' families, and in that respect it is inadequate.
Virtually the whole community--including the police and the overwhelming majority of the public--know what is required. I find it extraordinary that the Government have not included a clause to introduce random breath testing : experience in other countries strongly suggests that that would provide the single most effective means of reducing the number of alcohol- related deaths and injuries, thus achieving the Government's declared objective.
In Australia and the Nordic countries--countries whose societies are not far removed in character from our own--random breath testing has proved the principal counter-measure, and there is no reason to believe that it would not be effective in preventing drunken driving in Britain. Moreover, random testing carried out by means of properly authorised and designated roadside checkpoints provides built-in safeguards relating to the liberty of the subject and relations between the police and the motoring public. In that important respect as well as others, it is superior to our existing legal framework. I am certain that, on reflection, many hon. Members will make the case for random testing during the Bill's progress through the House. I agree with the contention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that this matter concerns all Members of Parliament, wherever their constituencies may be. There should be a free vote on the issue--unless, of course, the Government recognise the strength and validity of my arguments and act accordingly.
I sincerely hope that the Government will listen. If they have a better proposal, we and the public outside would like to hear it, but I hope that they will think again about the omissions from the Bill before the Report stage. I do not deny that progress has been made--it would be dreadful if it had not--but that does not justify complacency or inconsistency.
On 16 November, speaking in the debate on road safety, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic justified the Government's intention to enforce the wearing of rear seat belts on the ground that it would save 100 lives and prevent 1,000 injuries. He said : "With such huge benefits available, we must not delay."-- [Official Report , 16 November 1990 ; Vol. 180, c. 807.]
That is quite right--but, paradoxically, those words are in direct opposition to the Government's reaction to the proposal for random breath testing, although that would certainly prevent a much greater number of casualties.
I cannot comprehend why the Government continue to fly in the face of public opinion. I warn them, here and now, that the safety of innocent people using our roads
Column 705
--young and old, in my constituency and in every other constituency in the land--must no longer be fettered by vested interests or faint-heartedness.6.16 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : It gives me particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House. Nearly 40 years ago, as a student, I was responsible for assembling a non-party platform of Members of Parliament ; the right hon. Gentleman travelled some distance to attend, along with some Labour Members. It is also a pleasure to follow him because I can endorse almost everything that he has said : I do not think that his logic can be faulted. He is entirely right in saying that the licensed trade is now showing a degree of enlightened self-interest. We should commend that and hope that it will show even more.
I have encountered a slogan which reads : "If you drink, do not drive ; if you drive, do not drink". If we are not to copy the Swedes, who do not allow people to drink and drive at all, perhaps we should introduce a limit of 50 mg. Certainly there is a strong case for reducing the maximum to the level suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
I have a third reason for welcoming the opportunity to follow the right hon. Gentleman. This is a non-party occasion. As far as I know--I cannot imagine why this should not be the case--both parts of the Bill involve good citizenship and good administration ; it is relatively rare for such a measure to be debated on the Floor of the House.
I intend to address my remarks solely to part II. Before I do so, however, I should say that I consider it a scandal that we are debating part II at all. More than 20 years ago, I was involved in this very matter as a co- opted member of the GLC highways and traffic committee, latterly the planning and transport committee. This should be a matter not for the House of Commons but for a properly constituted London authority. Alas, there is no properly constituted London authority. The former Secretary of State for Scotland, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport for the United Kingdom, would not be very popular if he suggested that part of the traffic responsibilities for Glasgow should be handed over by statute to the civil servants in St. Andrew's house, Edinburgh. That, in effect, will be the result of this measure.
The Government will have to do something about traffic in London. Unfortunately, there is no Greater London council or any other London-wide authority that is sufficiently competent to deal with it. We have to ask whether the Bill deals with the right priorities and whether the measure will work. My answer is no to both questions. London has clearways that were established about 20 years ago. Locally elected people--in both the Greater London council and the boroughs--spent much time considering how they could be established. Bit by bit, clearways were established. A great deal has changed since the old red zones that were established by Mr. Marples. About 20 years ago a gyratory traffic management system was instituted. Parking is controlled. There are traffic wardens and linked sets of lights. Moreover, co-ordinated traffic management was achieved by the GLC before it was abolished. That led to equilibrium. I understood at the time from the traffic engineers that the flow of traffic, measured in passenger car units per hour over the
Column 706
network, increased by 25 to 30 per cent. without the construction of any major new roads. The aim was to keep traffic flowing to the maximum possible extent, taking into account the physical limits of the roads.Leaving aside the controversy over the creation of additional new roads, it was accepted at that time--and it still is--that Professor Buchanan's thesis in his epoch-making "Traffic in Towns" was right : that if we provide even more facilities we generate even more traffic and even more congestion. We need to create equilibrium. Public transport facilities must also be included if we are to reduce congestion to a minimum and improve to the maximum possible extent the flow of all means of transport.
Whatever we do, however, there will always be congestion at times. That is inevitable, for a number of reasons. We have, therefore, to ask ourselves how it can be minimised. That would lead to a reduction in delays. People quite properly object to delays. There are massive and terrible delays in London at times. Generally speaking, however, the big delays are not caused by traffic. That may be so occasionally, due to a football match or other public events. Congestion is usually caused by a number of other factors. Accidents cause delays. Unfortunately, there will always be accidents. Mechanical breakdowns, shed loads and the routine renewal of roads also cause delays. Those are different from the routine renewal of the infrastructure. Moreover, emergency work causes delays. Burst water mains are in a category of their own. They cause delays at the time and the hole that is made in the road takes a long time to repair. Traffic light failures cause delays, as do official events, particularly in central London. Demonstrations lead to delays. An increasing number of delays are caused by vehicles parking by building sites, and by vehicles entering or leaving those sites.
Another cause of delay is illegal parking. Such parking--and parking of any kind, if it is allowed--is only one of all the reasons that I have mentioned. Nevertheless, it is the major issue on which part II is predicated. The red routes are designed to increase traffic flows along certain designated roads in the former GLC area where congestion occasionally occurs. A traffic director is to be appointed for that purpose. I have tried to demonstrate, however, that the flow of traffic on such roads is influenced by a whole host of considerations. The needs of local people--pedestrians, for example, and cyclists--must be taken into account. If traffic flow is to be the only criterion, with no account taken of other legitimate balancing factors, we shall place the wrong emphasis on the director's duties. Many hon. Members will remember Mr. Bob Bean, a former Member of Parliament for Rochester. Alas, he died early. Bob Bean was a local authority man of great experience. The best story told about him concerns the time when he attended a road engineer's demonstration of a new gyratory system for the middle of his home town of Chatham. The road engineer said, "We are going to have this slip road here and that gyratory there ; the flow of vehicles will increase by X per cent., the buses will come in there and speed will increase on average from X to Y miles per hour." The road engineer looked at Mr. Bean, because he knew his Member of Parliament, and said, "And what do you suppose we will do for the pedestrians?" "Give 'em starting blocks" said Bob Bean. All too often in the past
Column 707
that has been the attitude of some road engineers. I hope that that will not happen, but the emphasis on traffic flow alone suggests that it will.Other measures ought to be taken immediately. Part II contains 24 clauses. It is a complex measure. Conservative Members often ask why we need so much legislation. The Secretary of State for Transport could implement certain measures straight away. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who was responsible for these matters. The A13 in east London was blocked for months on end. When it was being widened at one point, there was only one traffic lane ; vehicles travelled at between six and 10 mph through the cones. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to find out why that was so. I found out that it was because the contract for that stretch of road contained no requirement that minimum flows should be maintained. The hon. Gentleman changed that. I hope that what he achieved will be achieved elsewhere. It ought to be written into all contracts. I realise that it will cost money and that the Government do not like spending money. However, the congestion on that stretch of the A13 caused immense delays for weeks and months on end in Newham. There was trouble with the Blackwall tunnel. Again, I suppose that it was because the Government wanted to save money. One of the tunnels was closed at weekends, which led to terrific traffic jams throughout east London. One does not expect congestion on Sunday afternoons, but buses and private cars had to endure hours of delay. Further renewal of the Blackwall tunnel is now being undertaken and it is carried out without closing one of the tunnels. The work is taking a long time because it is being done at night. The hon. Member for Eltham was again responsible for reducing what would otherwise have been great congestion. He used common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is not used in many similar places.
I have spent a good deal of time with the Metropolitan police talking about congestion in the London area. Not so long ago there were terrible jams in this area. One reason for the congestion was that when road works were being carried out on the embankment, the right hand turn into Northumberland avenue was not rephased on the lights. It would have been common sense to do so, but nothing was done about it. I understand that the Metropolitan police do not have a central traffic division, so even they experience difficulties. The police are not mentioned in clause 38, but they are the people on the job and they have been given a rather difficult job. Co-ordination with local authorities does not work The other Sunday in Newham, Bishop road and Commercial road were reduced to one lane, delaying the buses for half an hour or more. There was not a policeman in sight. I got on to Scotland Yard, which said, "The borough did not let us know ; it is an unauthorised closure of the road." It is a question of nitty gritty. Planning is not done in London, but it should be. If it were, the proportion of avoidable delays would decrease.
Earlier, I listed some of the causes of delays. About a year ago, I asked the Department to give a breakdown of the general causes of major delays. Not every cause can be identified, but it did not know ; the research had not been done. I am not saying that figures could be given to the
Column 708
nearest percentage, but at least some analysis should be done or Scotland Yard should be given the resources to do it.The purpose of clause 38, I suppose, is to show that the Secretary of State is doing something about a problem of which hon. Members are only too well aware. I am saying to him, first, that much can be done and, secondly, that the clause will not work in any case. The hapless traffic director will not be the traffic director. He will look after only the red routes, about which, as I know from my involvement in the clearways, there will be plenty of controversy. It took much time and patience. If the director is to have reserve powers and to be able to crash through, as I suspect he will--I regret that my confidence in the Department of Transport is somewhat limited, but one goes as far as one can--there will be trouble. The poor chap does not have enough powers. Under clause 37, he will have powers "in relation to" the red routes. There will be arguments about whether a road is a red route or not, but, having so designated it, he has powers not over traffic that is on the red route but traffic that is "in relation to" it. There is hardly a road in London that does not come within that category.
Will the Secretary of State--I know he has come from Scotland to take up his new job and may not know the answer, but perhaps someone will tell him- -say whether the traffic director has control of the traffic system? Following the demise of the GLC, there is layer upon layer of organisation for the maintenance of traffic lights in London, which are controlled quite properly by computer. I believe that they are now controlled by a unit for the City of London. I am not complaining about that, but saying that the traffic director will not have the powers that his name implies and the powers that he will have will be only partial because they will apply only to the red routes. Although there is a need to achieve good traffic flows, as I have suggested, those flows can be achieved in a far simpler, down to earth and efficient way.
I fear that I cannot support part II of the Bill, however much, in spirit, I support part I. They are really two separate Bills. I do not believe that the Bill will work in common-sense practice. I travel 4,000 miles in central London annually and I am able to look around and see what goes on. Will the Secretary of State please consult the people on the job, people in local authorities and the police? He may have done so already. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) is not here. I fear that the Bill will be of limited use and there there are much better ways of achieving its aims without presenting the House with 24 clauses that will set up yet another body in London that we can do without. 6.34 pm
Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield) : I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State for Transport. I do not wish to limit his political career, but I hope that he stays in the job for some time. Since I left the Department in September 1981, there have been no fewer than seven Secretaries of State for Transport. A Secretary of State every 15 months is a little too high. I warn my right hon. and learned Friend that, although I spent three years in opposition and two and a half years on the Government Front Bench, it brought me
Column 709
no acceptance with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Nevertheless, it is an important subject. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East--I do not know where he is--referred to my work on deregulating coach services. I have nothing to apologise for, because that provided good, cheap coach services up and down the country. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen opposed that all the way, and in retrospect it was sad that they did so.On returning to this subject after almost a decade, what strikes me is how public opinion has shifted. It has shifted in respect of traffic offences and traffic restraint. Although I am a director of the National Freight Consortium, I wish to confine my remarks to motorists and passengers rather than freight.
In the 1970s and much of the 1980s, the prevailing view was that traffic laws should be enforced according to some unwritten code, that they were not like other offences and that they were not as serious as those offences. When I was at the Department, I initiated changes that distinguished between major and minor offences and introduced the points system. I therefore accept that some offences should be dealt with more administratively. There is no question about that, and I think that it is accepted by the public. The other side of the coin is that other traffic offences are undoubtedly criminal. They cause danger, injury and death to the public. Among those, drinking and driving is unquestionably one of the most serious. I entirely back the introduction of all the new offences in the Bill, none more so than causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink. Public opinion rightly condemns such offences and it is entirely right that the law should set out the consequences for such motorists.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) eloquently stated, we should now go one step further and have the so-called random tests, about which over the years we have been rather equivocal. I heard the defence uttered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State--I have uttered it myself in the past--that the police do not need such powers. The argument is that if the police have reasonable suspicion, they can stop a car in any event. In some circumstances, that seems to rule out the universal roadside check. If it does not do so, there can be no argument against clarifying the law so that the public know what the legal position is. We are getting into a rather curious position on random tests. We are being told that the power to require random tests exists--we are being told that in the House--but the public are not being told that.
It is not satisfactory to talk with two voices on the issue. If we want random tests, there should be clear provision for them in legislation and that should be clear to the police and the public. The prospect of such checks on Friday and Saturday nights would have quite an impact on conduct in city and town centres. Many of us deplore the present behaviour. A new look at the issue of random checks should be on the agenda of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
My major contention is that, whatever the law is, it should be enforced. At present, traffic laws are not enforced extensively. Anyone who doubts that has only to wait for the snow to lift and the roads to return to normal and then conduct an experiment on the M1 or M6, without contraflows. We all know that any motorist who sticks to a steady 70 mph will be overtaken by a great flow of traffic
Column 710
going faster. I am not attacking the police- -I recognise that our means of enforcing traffic laws have not been kept up to date. I welcome the fact that the Bill enables photographic evidence of a speeding car to be used. No doubt that will be attacked outside the House as not quite cricket--if cricket analogies can still be used in the political world. The function of enforcing speed limits will never be entirely carried out by patrolling police cars. The police have a range of other priorities that the public place high on the agenda. Photographs are a sensible way of checking speed. They are a random check, but they are likely to be a much greater deterrent to a motorist than being picked up by the occasional police patrol. Their use is not unknown in other countries. In the 1970s, when I wrote a book about the police in Europe, they were used in Germany, and I am sure that they still are.My concern is about not just the motorways but the enforcement of traffic laws in our cities. On many main routes, congestion slows traffic, but many cars still speed along the side roads and residential roads whenever there is an opportunity. Some local authorities remain almost entirely reluctant to build traffic humps, although that power exists widely. It was first given under the Transport Act 1981, which I introduced. The danger in our cities and towns is to children, old people, pedestrians, cyclists and a range of our citizens who have just as many rights as motorists. I support the red routes, which are introduced in the Bill, but with one proviso : I believe that, at the same time as those routes are introduced, efforts must be made to deal with traffic on side streets and residential streets. Action must be taken to exclude through traffic and bring down traffic speed. Although the red routes provision will apply only to London, my remarks apply to many other cities.
The congestion and general environment in London are a disgrace to a European capital city. In part, the chaos is inevitable, but when cities such as Birmingham invested in roads such as the Aston expressway, London stood back and did nothing. London faces the traffic projections of the 21st century with roads that are adequate to deal with the conditions of the 19th century. We may regret that, but there is not much that we can do about it now. The opportunity has gone and I cannot think of any road building scheme that will bring relief to London this century.
The inevitable question is how to deal with commuting motorists coming to London in the morning, usually one to a car, and leaving in a great traffic jam in the evening. The red routes are a major part of the Government's strategy. Sympathetic though I am to that proposal, it is only a partial solution, as I said when it was discussed. It is just conceivable that the prospect of open roads will attract more cars into the city, not fewer. If that is not the intention--it should not be our aim--we must do something more about parking restrictions.
I shall listen carefully to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), although I should counsel her against regarding this as a knockabout, party political issue. I live in Sutton Coldfield and in London, where I live in Hammersmith and Fulham. That Labour borough provides free, unrestricted parking for commuters throughout much of its length. In vast stretches of the borough there are no parking meters or parking restrictions. I am therefore delighted to hear that the hon.
Column 711
Member for Kingston upon Hull, East favours greater use of public transport, but his views would carry greater conviction if we did not have Labour councils providing the obvious means of escaping using public transport or paying a price for using roads.I assume that that issue can be tackled in due course. I hope that the Labour Front Bench will seek to do so. But this still leaves the question of traffic restraint in general. The least convincing part of "Traffic in London" dealt with traffic restraint. I am less than overwhelmed by the argument on road pricing, that we face "major problems for which there are no easy answers".
That summarises the challenge that faces all central Governments and all local authorities on all issues. I do not see how we can cope in London and, conceivably, in some of our major cities and towns without some restraint on the motorist.
Over the next 10 or 20 years, we face a major increase in traffic. Car use will increase dramatically. We should recognise that the car gives the individual a freedom that he values. I, for one, value the car highly. But life is about balancing freedoms. It does not follow that a motorist's freedom extends to the absolute right to drive into the middle of an already congested city free of charge. Whether by supplementary licensing or by some form of electronic road pricing, we should urgently study the different methods used in other countries and consider how they could apply here. It is for the Government to lead such a study and discussion.
It is argued that the beneficiaries of such a road pricing policy should include passenger transport and other road users such as pedestrians, and I broadly agree. Bus services, for example, would substantially benefit if commuter traffic were reduced and the main routes kept open. I do not turn my back on the idea that some of the revenue from such a pricing policy should go to passenger services. Equally, I hope that more pavement space will be given to pedestrians, and, above all, that cities will be given back to the people who live in them.
Whatever changes are made, the law will have to be enforced. Part of the Bill deals with local authority parking attendants--as opposed to traffic wardens employed by the police. The Bill makes a number of sensible changes, but I am unimpressed by the gradations in the work of the enforcement authorities. Parking attendants can enforce regulations governing permitted parking but cannot enforce controls on illegal parking. Traffic wardens can enforce controls on illegal parking but cannot do anything about moving traffic offences. The police can do everything but will never have the time to enforce all the traffic laws. The time has come to see how we can break down some of those barriers and whether we can develop some form of unified traffic corps for cities such as London, so that all the traffic laws can be enforced all the time.
My main message to the new Secretary of State is this : I believe that we need radical solutions in transport, whether we are dealing with traffic offenders or with the chaos in some of our cities. I also believe--and this is most significant--that the public today are prepared to accept such radical solutions. There has been a great change in attitude since the 1970s and early 1980s. I wish my right hon. and learned Friend well and I hope that he will
Column 712
urgently consider those radical solutions. If he does, he will go down in history as a great Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that that will be his future.6.51 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : I shall deal mainly with clauses 1 and 3 but, before doing so, I wish to comment on corporate liability, particularly as it relates to fatigue. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) raised the matter in his expert review of the contents of the Bill and the measures that we should consider during its passage to deal with drink-driving. He also referred to the need for new legislation governing the involvement of the police. We must find some way of intervening, while maintaining the balance of personal rights, to ensure the protection of the general public.
Last week I discovered for myself the dangers of fatigue. On Tuesday morning I took part in an early morning programme on Radio 4. The BBC sent a private hire minicab to my flat to collect me. Within 10 minutes of our leaving the flat, the driver had twice been on the wrong side of the road. On the second occasion, I asked him whether he felt unwell and whether there was anything I could do for him. He told me that he had been driving all night and all the previous evening and that I was his last customer. He promised me that when he dropped me off, he would go home to bed. Within minutes of the conversation, the taxi driver had fallen asleep at the wheel. He went through a red light and involved us in an accident. There was severe damage to both cars, but the minicab driver, the driver of the other vehicle and I were lucky : we came out with a few bumps and bruises, a sore neck and a sore back. That incident brought home to me the effects of our inability to police the arrangements, allowing someone to drive for hours on end, to the point at which his fatigue becomes a danger to himself, his passengers and the travelling public. Were it not for pure luck, I should not have been taking part in this debate. I should have been just another figure in the statistics of those killed in road accidents.
Fatigue can kill and it can cause accidents. It is vital that we should legislate to implement practical solutions to deal with the problem. The tachograph is one possibility, although I know that it is controversial in both the public and private sectors of transport. We should seriously consider its introduction into the minicab and private hire businesses because it could act as a deterrent. We cannot allow employers to force their employees to work long unsociable hours--perhaps 10 or 12 hours on end--without having any liability in the event of an accident. We should also ensure that those who drive licensed black cabs work sociable and safe hours and cannot be forced to do otherwise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also referred to corporate liability as it affects the owners of heavy goods vehicles and their ability to force their employees to drive dangerous vehicles. I used to organise the private office of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). One day, the driver of a heavy goods vehicle owned by Calor Gas came to our office. He had been taken on on a temporary contract and told that, if he came up to scratch at the end of the period of that contract, he would be taken on as a full-time regular employee. Some days earlier, he had been stopped by a
Column 713
police officer and advised that his vehicle was seriously overloaded. He was told that he must return to the depot immediately or face prosecution. The driver complied with that request and returned to the depot in Wigan. The depot manager told him that he must take the vehicle back out or face suspension. He replied that he was not prepared to do what was requested of him because the police had told him that the load was unsafe and in contravention of the Road Traffic Acts. He was not suspended ; he was sacked on the spot for failing to obey the depot manager's orders.I am sure that such occurrences are not unusual. The gentleman concerned had no recourse to an employment tribunal because he was a temporary employee. He had no redress for the fact that his employer had tried to force him to act illegally. Despite an exchange of letters between my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan and the managing director of Calor Gas, that individual was never reinstated. He had to sign on unemployed and seek employment elsewhere in the industry. Such behaviour on the part of employers is quite unacceptable, and I am sure that that case is only the tip of the iceberg. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East found in his own survey, a substantial number of heavy goods vehicles should not be on the road and should not be allowed to return to the road. There is absolutely no doubt that corporate liability is involved. After all, it is not the decision of the driver to take a dangerous vehicle on the roads. The Secretary of State owes it to the House to consider my hon. Friend's valid argument about corporate liability.
I wholeheartedly support the concept and principle behind clauses 1 and 3. Unlike hon. Members who have been here for many years, I cannot claim that I have regularly campaigned for those changes in the House. As a member of the public, I concluded many years ago that the House must take drastic action in relation to drinking and driving. I thought that the House should review the law so that it acts as a deterrent and, when the deterrent does not work, the person responsible for the accident, injury or death should pay in an adequate fashion.
As the law stands at the moment, someone can kill an individual and get off with a fine of only a few hundred pounds even if that person had several other serious convictions against his name and had a long record of having killed or maimed people on the road. Therefore It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by The Chairman of Ways and Means--, under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.
| Next Section
| Home Page |