| Previous Section | Home Page |
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tribute to Sir Reginald Doyle and to the RUC and the fire brigade. That will be much appreciated. I also welcome what he had to say in the remainder of the first part of his question. He asked whether there would be practical expression of my determination to see the recommendations fulfilled, whether resources would be made available. The answer is yes, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient resources are available to fulfil what I have said. In particular, we intend to recruit an additional four ex-fire brigade officers to the fire inspection branch of the work service which has these responsibilities.
It is appropriate for me to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the assiduity with which over a considerable period he has raised the safety of staff in the context of fire precautions. He will, I know, be as glad as I am that Sir Reginald has made the general finding that he has on the safety of staff--that it was generally satisfactory throughout the Government estate. However, that is not to underestimate the criticisms that have been made. As the Secretary of State, I of course take
Column 218
responsibility for that. It is of great importance that the problems should be rectified. It is of great value that we have a report of this thoroughness.Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Although the work of the emergency services in rescuing the building from a terrible fire was remarkable, was there not an appalling level of laxity in the management and care of the buildings, which is all the more worrying when security risks have meant that heightened awareness has been necessary all the time? In looking forward to the refurbishment of the building and its occupation by a democratic assembly serving the people of Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State also look forward with some confidence to a building that will be looked after properly and with a continued level of awareness of risk appropriate to its importance and to the dangers to the people using it?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the services. Naturally, there have been shortcomings in the management of the Parliament buildings. In part, that has been due to a division of responsibility. As from noon today, the Department of the Environment has attained full responsibility for the management of that building. That division led to the misunderstandings and lack of communication that were apparent in the instructions to the watchkeepers and their understanding of those instructions, for example.
What the right hon. Gentleman said about the chamber enables me to reply to one of the questions of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), which I omitted to do. It is my intention to restore the chamber to its former position and state, but that will be subject to representations that parties--whether political or otherwise--may make to me, especially in the context of a possible assembly, which everyone hopes will come into being. That is the contingent intention, but it is open to that qualification. I believe that, as a result of this inquiry, we shall have a much tighter management, which is desirable for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave.
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his swift response in accepting full responsibility for this report and the events that led up to the fire? May I also add that it is entirely characteristic of my right hon. and learned Friend to accept the blame and not to duck it in any way? When does he expect the work to start?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. To be perfectly frank, there are not many grounds for congratulation in this story, but she has characteristically found one--perhaps the only one. The work on restoration of the Commons chamber is already under way and I am told that the refurbishment programme for the whole of Parliament Buildings should take about two years.
Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford): May I declare an interest, Madam Speaker, as chairman of a company that owns one of the properties listed in the report? The Parliament building at Stormont is of importance in Northern Ireland and of architectural and historical interest. It is also a listed building. Hon. and right hon. Members who have visited it cannot but be impressed at the entire building and its location and setting outside Belfast.
Column 219
I join other hon. Members in placing on record our thanks to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Northern Ireland fire brigade for their prompt attention to the fire. It should be placed on record that the fire brigade was called at 9.5 in the morning. Even with the difficulties presented to it, the brigade gained access and was on the spot at 9.12.We have heard that the fire might well have been caused by an electric wire under the Speaker's chair. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman conclude that there was no criminal or terrorist-related involvement in the fire? If so, can he confirm whether all the workmen involved in the work in the Chamber at the time were screened? The fire was detected by a member of the public at 8.50 in the morning. The patrol within the building had checked it only 30 minutes beforehand, yet the fire had been going for some eight hours. It seems most unusual that the patrol had not observed a fire that had been smouldering away for eight hours but that a member of the public out for a walk with his dog should have noticed it outside.
We now hear that one reason why the security patrol within the building did not observe the fire was that it was not allowed to enter parts of the building because of political talks going on in that section of the building. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the security patrol within the building walked along the corridor that passes the main door into the House of Commons chamber? That is the key question. How close did they get to the location of the fire?
It is outrageous that no fire drill had taken place for the past five years in Parliament buildings at Stormont, and it is incredible that that is confirmed in the report. There has certainly been a degree of incompetence. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) had a question listed on yesterday's Order Paper asking whether the chamber would be restored and the estimated price of that restoration. Unfortunately, that question was not answered, but we have had the reply in today's statement. As the Secretary of State knows the estimated cost, he must have some idea about the design for the new chamber. Will it be designed to accommodate a parliament, a legislative or administrative assembly, or a regional authority? He must be in a position to answer that question.
Madam Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is not a debate. It is questions to the Secretary of State on his statement and I should be grateful if he would come to some pertinent questions so that we might hear a response from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Taylor: I am trying to find out what kind of chamber will be rebuilt now that the Secretary of State has confirmed that it will be restored.
I shall move on to the subject of the lack of fire certificates for Crown buildings throughout Northern Ireland. Why will it not become a legal requirement that Crown buildings have fire certificates, as private owners in Northern Ireland must have? In that connection, I refer the Secretary of State to paragraph 10.4 on page 53 of the report, which says that sufficient resources do not exist and that it will take at least four years for the buildings to be examined.
Column 220
That means that civil servants will have to work in dangerous conditions for many more years, because, even after the four years, the work must then be carried out. In relation to paragraph 10.14, why cannot the fire brigade in Northern Ireland be responsible for inspecting Crown buildings and deciding on the issue of fire certificates, rather than retaining that power within the Department of the Environment?Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the services. He asked whether I had definitely concluded that the fire was accidental rather than deliberate. I can go only on the evidence that has been given to Sir Reginald and on his conclusion, which is set out at paragraph 3.5.9, that it is improbable that the fire was started deliberately. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the photograph of wiring beneath or close to the Speaker's chair, the insulation of which appears to have been eroded, and the course that the fire took is consistent with that. I can go no further than that of my own knowledge.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the workmen engaged in the refurbishment scheme, which had been going on since February 1994, had been screened. I am told that each workman had been screened for security clearance. He also asked whether the watchkeepers walked past the door. I understand that that was the evidence given to Sir Reginald, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that Sir Reginald also says that the fire broke out in the one room or chamber in Parliament buildings least likely to result in a warning being made apparent to people because it had no open windows and the doors were very close-fitting.
Reference is made to the fact that the doors, being so stout and close- fitting, confined the fire's spread. It is a remarkable feature of the story, however, that those watchkeepers did not notice, over a period apparently of some eight hours, that a fire was going on. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that they attributed a curious smell to some lagging that had been placed on pipes. I cannot take the matter further than that.
I have already dealt with the design of the restored Commons chamber. I do not want to add to anything that I have said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). On certification, the position is--I think I have this correct--that Crown buildings must have a certificate, but no legal requirement exists for an application for such a certificate to be made under the Fire Service Order (Northern Ireland) 1984. I am, of course, prepared to consider the legislation following what Sir Reginald and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) have said about that matter. The important thing is that certification is carried out. That has been the practice, albeit with insufficient sense of urgency, as I must concede.
On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I have already said that it is not a question of four years being the target. He referred to paragraph 10.4 of the report. I have said that the target for total certification of the Government estate is two years.
Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome): It may be belated, but the Doyle report is still extremely welcome by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will my right hon. and learned Friend just clarify that he intends to implement all the report's recommendations?
Column 221
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer is yes.Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Would the Secretary of State, as a UK Cabinet Minister, care to speculate as to how many people in Scotland and England who are responsible for Government buildings muttered under their breath sotto voce, when they heard of the Stormont fire, "There but for the grace of God went we"?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Fortunately, I have enough responsibilities without acquiring responsibility for this place. I do not want to take that matter any further.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he had to read to us a most disturbing catalogue of errors and omissions? Does he perhaps think that, in recent years in Northern Ireland, it has been necessary for security to take such a high priority that other matters have been subordinated to it? Has my right hon. and learned Friend ever heard in Northern Ireland a local resident say to him, "Things are different over here, Minister"? Does he agree that that must not mean that standards are lower? In groping to find some way to ensure that standards are the same throughout the UK, might it be appropriate to have a slightly higher level of roulement between officials and inspectors in the UK to ensure that standards are uniformly high?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend makes a most interesting suggestion. Of course, the House remembers his long experience as a Minister with responsibility for Northern Ireland. It is important that Northern Ireland's standards should be no less satisfactory than those in the rest of the UK. This Administration intend to ensure that that is the case. I do not know whether the lifeline that he threw me--the need for concentration on security--has led to the laxity. All that has to be said, grateful though I am, is that that laxity has ended and must never be allowed to return.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): May I press the Secretary of State? As responsibility for fire protection has gone to the Department of the Environment, is he satisfied that it is able to deal with that, bearing in mind that some of us are concerned that departmental officials' guidance to local councils on fire regulation standards in new building is still being debated?
May I press the Secretary of State on the concept of finances? I recognise that he may not be able to give me the answers today, but will he tell us-- the answer may even be available in the Library--the amount of money returned from the Northern Ireland budget at a time when not enough money was available to deal with recommendations to protect from fire? Will he tell us how that now compares with the amount that the nation will have to spend on repairing the damage?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I wish to look at the point with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his question. I want to give him an assurance that both my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), and I will closely consider the Department of the Environment and its capacity to undertake those very important responsibilities.
Column 222
Points of Order
4.5 pm
Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter of which I have given you and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs notice. It relates to the proceedings of Standing Committee B on immigration and border controls on 22 March 1995, and the way in which the motion that was agreed by that Standing Committee was unilaterally amended, without advance notice being given to the House or to hon. Members attending the Committee by the Home Secretary.
That is a slightly complicated issue, as you know, Madam Speaker. I shall do my best to deal with it briefly.
The 29th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation recommended that the issue of European immigration and border controls was so important that it should be debated on the Floor of the House. The Government chose, for reasons of their own, not to debate it here but instead to send it upstairs to Committee. There, on 22 March, a vigorous debate did take place. A motion tabled by my hon. Friends was defeated by six votes to seven, and the Government motion was approved without Division.
Everyone assumed, in the terms of the face of Standing Order No. 102, that that motion, approved by Standing Committee B, would come before the House unamended and would then be voted on forthwith. On 6 April, the day after the House had risen, I received in my mail--and I was there when it was opened--a letter from the Home Secretary's private secretary, to say that the Home Secretary had decided to amend the motion of Standing Committee B in three particulars.
Because of the way in which the letter from the private secretary is phrased, I assumed at least that I and other Members attending that Committee would be given advance notice of the Government's intention, but I subsequently discovered that the amended motion had been tabled on the Order Paper on 4 April, and had been nodded through without debate on 5 April.
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight): Where were you?
Mr. Straw: The Whip asks, where was I? In spite of the fact that I assiduously check the Order Paper every day, there was absolutely no indication on the Order Paper that the motion from Standing Committee B had been amended in the way that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary had proposed.
My point of order to you, Madam Speaker, is as follows. First, is it in order for Ministers to act in that way, unilaterally amending motions from Standing Committees? Secondly, even if it is in order, would you agree that it is unacceptable to treat hon. Members in the way that the Home Secretary treated hon. Members on both sides of the House, by ensuring that no hon. Member was given notice until after the motion had gone down? Lastly, would you accept that, if that practice is ever exercised again, there must be on the face of the Order Paper a clear indication that the Government are changing the terms of the Standing Committee's motion?
Madam Speaker: The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is covered by Standing Order No. 102(9).
Column 223
What has happened in this case may be unusual, but it is clearly within the terms of that Standing Order. In fact, the Standing Order does not lay down that the motion tabled in the House must be the same as that agreed to in the European Standing Committee. It does lay down that the motion in the House, and any amendment selected by the Speaker, has to be put forthwith without debate.The procedure is, in fact, not unprecedented, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is flawed, or that it has irregularities, he may wish to ask the Procedure Committee to have another look at it in case of any future occurrence. Perhaps he will consider that very seriously, and adopt that course of action.
Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to you--my final point comes directly within your remit, not that of the Procedure Committee. Would you be willing to make it clear that, when Ministers act in that way, they should ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are told in advance?
Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House knows that I am always in favour of the House knowing precisely what is taking place in the House and in Standing Committees. I ask Ministers to give full notice to the House and those involved of what action is being taken.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): On a slightly less controversial point of order, Madam Speaker. May I express the relief which is no doubt shared on both sides of the House that you managed to escape from the mud of Morocco? You may well find that the mules that came to your rescue by swimming the river were easier to handle than some of the Members of Parliament.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I returned in good form, as she is no doubt aware.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have here a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland which has been circulated to a large number of individuals in the Perth and Kinross constituency. It states:
"Until a successor is elected, the hon. Michael Forsyth MP has been asked to represent your interests in Parliament."
Can you confirm that, under the terms of our procedures, no one but an elected Member can represent a constituency in Parliament? Given that it is now two months since the vacancy occurred, would it not be a better idea if the Government moved the writ for the by-election and let the people of Perth and Kinross choose who is to be their Member of Parliament, rather than attempting to foist the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on an unwilling population?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that no one can represent a constituent in Parliament unless he or she is an elected Member. Whatever arrangements may be made locally in the area or by political parties are not a matter for the Speaker of the House.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): You will know, Madam Speaker, that for some time I have been attempting to get the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, my private Member's Bill, into Committee. That has now
Column 224
been achieved, and the Bill will be in Committee next week. But that is not the end of the procedural problems I face. You will also remember that last year, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill faced considerable problems on the Floor of the House, which led to criticisms of two hon. Members in particular.Following the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) did not, as he was entitled to do, select this Friday for the Report stage of his Bill. Instead, he chose the following Friday--the fifth Friday, the final Friday, for the Report stage of private Members' Bills. If my Bill, which is going into Committee next week, were able to complete its Committee stage in that time, I could have asked for it to be dealt with on Report on that Friday, so that it could then go to another place. That now becomes unlikely, as my Bill will be placed in second position by the actions of the hon. Member for Rochford. That is as serious as the blocking measures that took place last year, and is part of a procedure that has been taking place in a number of Committees, including Standing Committee C, in order to prevent other Bills from making progress.
Are the matters that have taken place in Standing Committee C, especially in connection with the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill, in order? If they are, are such practices seen as acceptable, or should we look for another method, so that private Member's who do well in the ballot, and whose measures are well supported in the House and in the country, are given the opportunity for those measures to be debated and voted on in the House?
Several hon. Members rose --
Madam Speaker: Let me respond to the point of order.
I think that I understand what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. As far as I am aware, what has taken place in Standing Committee C is perfectly in order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the delay being experienced by his Bill. I can tell him honestly that there is virtually nothing that I as Speaker can do. He and other hon. Members in the House are well aware of the ways and means of getting things done and not getting things done in the House. It is matter for the business managers of the House. If I can help the hon. Gentleman, I shall certainly try to do so.
Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that the whole House wishes to thank you for what you have just said. I think that you will recall that the House did not distinguish itself last year when we witnessed the disgraceful behaviour of the Government Front Bench and of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
The Government are clearly manipulating the functions of the House for a third year so that they can block the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. There is no reason why the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) could not have put his Bill, which left Committee this morning, before the House on Friday. That would have allowed the House to consider both his Bill and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). Is it not an absolute abuse of the Parliament for the Government and their supporters to behave so shamefully in stymieing civil rights for disabled people?
Column 225
Madam Speaker: I believe that I have answered the earlier point of order. Whether manipulation has occurred is not a matter for the Speaker to determine. Bills must take their turn when going into or coming out of Committee, and we are all familiar with the procedures of the House.Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago, you responded to a problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) brought before you, by saying that you would deprecate the way in which Ministers were using the parliamentary system.
In view of the Jopling changes and the complications surrounding the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and other legislation, do you agree that it seems a little odd that the Government have never tackled the question of Private Members' Bills in the House? Do you not think that a little word from you in the right direction might make a difference? If changes are to be made, perhaps under new Labour--new, improved Labour--we ought to turn our attention to doing something about that problem, which affects honest- to-goodness Bills which aim to help disabled persons, wild animals and so on.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member is well aware that I cannot concern myself with the politics of a Private Member's Bill--or even a public Bill, for that matter. I am concerned about the procedures of the House: I want to help the House in general, and I want to help hon. Members, who work very hard on their Private Members' Bills. In the end, it is a matter for the business managers, and I will do all I can to be helpful.
Mr. Don Touhig (Islwyn): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice following a report which appeared in this morning's edition of the Financial Times . It stated that British Gas will lose its chartermark for high quality services unless it improves customer relations. The report also said that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not intend to come to the House to make a statement about the matter, but will report to the House by providing a written answer.
In view of your earlier comments about protecting the interests of hon. Members and of the House, I wonder whether you could provide some advice as to how we might persuade the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come to the Chamber to answer questions about the matter.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member may use the Order Paper to direct questions to the appropriate Minister. I am not sure whether he is aware that it is entirely up to the Minister concerned whether he answers a question by way of a written answer or comes to the Dispatch Box to make an oral statement. The Minister must determine by which method he will inform the House of any policy changes or statements he wishes to make; it is not for me to decide.
Column 226
BILLS PRESENTED
Sports (Discrimination)
Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Gary Waller, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Alan Williams, Ms Kate Hoey and Mr. Tom Pendry, presented a Bill to make it unlawful for any administrative or rule-making body for a sport, or any affiliated club, to discriminate against persons who have participated, are participating or are expected to participate in any other lawful sport; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
Merchant Shipping (Inquiries and Investigations) Amendment
Mr. Nigel Spearing, supported by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Stephen Timms, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Ms Mildred Gordon, presented a Bill to provide for the High Court to order the holding of a formal investigation into a shipping casualty; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
Wireless Telegraphy
That the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 655) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Bates.] Question agreed to.
Column 227
Transport (Motorway Safety)
4.18 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the safety of motorways and motorway driving; and for connected purposes. I seek permission to introduce a Bill which would improve safety on our motorways and on all roads throughout the United Kingdom. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend has contributed much to motorway safety in his time at the Department of Transport, including the very sensible measure of banning coaches from the third lane of motorways. That is something on which he knows I am keen. I hope that my hon. Friend will look sympathetically at the proposals I am making today. The Bill covers two main provisions, one relating to driver visibility in adverse conditions and the other to the behaviour of drivers on our roads. Issues of road safety are particularly relevant to my constituency, not least because we are close to the M25 and the M40. The last census revealed that my constituency is second only to Beaconsfield in the number of three-car families.
Science and technology have made a great contribution to the increased safety of drivers. We all now drive vehicles which give greater protection to drivers and passengers in the event of an accident. The transport and chemicals group of the Technology Foresight process reported last month, and introduced three achievable objectives--the informed traveller, who will be able to make the best decisions on a journey; the foresight vehicle, which would be more environmentally friendly as well as incorporating collision avoidance systems; and the clear zone, to provide high-quality access to central shops through nil-emission public transportation.
In all these future developments, technology will increase safety and reduce environmental impact from motor vehicles. In the meantime, there is a role for Parliament in tackling some of the simpler aspects of motoring safety, where the technology exists but needs stricter enforcement and monitoring, or where we are dealing with the most complex piece of technology--the human being.
In 1993, the last year for which statistics are available, there were 6,863 accidents on motorways. Some 201 people were killed, and 11,046 injured. More than 15,124 vehicles were involved, and 34 per cent. of accidents occurred when the motorway was wet or flooded. I am sure that everyone in the House has found themselves driving on a motorway in wet conditions and- -like me--knows the problems of overtaking heavy vehicles. The spray emanating from the rear of those vehicles can be frightening, and effectively one is are often overtaking blind for 10 or 20 seconds, or longer. If it is at night on an unlit stretch of motorway, it can be more hazardous for the smaller vehicle. I know of many normally excellent drivers who have been unnerved by the experience.
In 1984, the Department of Transport issued regulation 46E on spray suppression and, in 1989, EC directive 89/377 laid out comprehensive rules on spray suppression from HGVs throughout the Community. Many aspects of
Column 228
the regulations are still unsatisfactory, and work is continuing on the technology of both road surfaces and suppression devices to improve the situation.In the meantime, there are vehicles on the road complying with the regulations at the time of their 12-monthly inspection for roadworthiness which, during a journey, sustain damage to their spray flaps or lose them completely. That immediately causes a vehicle in wet weather conditions to produce extra--often life-threatening--spray.
At present, under the Road Traffic Act 1988, a vehicle can be stopped and tested for brakes, silencer, steering, noise, tyres, lights, excessive fumes, smoke or vapours. I wish to add to that all spray suppression devices, including wheel guards, valances, wheel flaps, air/water separators and any longitudinal strips or flaps of spray suppressant material. Any driver in charge of a vehicle which has sustained damage to its spray suppression equipment should not be permitted to take that vehicle on to the highway until it has been remedied, in just the same way as if a brake light had failed or the tyres were bald.
Last week, while travelling to my constituency--a mere 45-minute drive--I counted no fewer than five heavy vehicles with broken flaps or missing a flap at the back. This simple measure would ensure that HGV drivers paid more attention to a simple device which could save lives by reducing spray in wet weather conditions. Drivers would have to make sure that that important piece of equipment was well maintained at all times.
The second part of the Bill relates to the driver, and to a relatively new phenomenon which appears to be an unwelcome import from America. It has been called road rage, or red mist. The issue first came to our attention in the 1980s, when four people were killed and several injured on Los Angeles freeways in a spate of armed violence. We are now seeing an increase in the number of incidents on our own roads, which must be addressed.
A driver in Newcastle had his nose bitten off in a row with another motorist. At traffic lights in Wakefield, a 78-year-old man died when he was punched by a much younger driver during a dispute at traffic lights. A young woman on the M6 at night was forced off the motorway by a male driver, which left her upside down in her car. The Royal Automobile Club, which was most helpful in helping to prepare my Bill, reports that one of its patrolmen was attacked by a motorist whom he stopped to help. I have been on the receiving end of aggressive driving by other motorists--not least, women. In securing support for my Bill, I spoke to several colleagues, and they repeated alarming stories.
Last November, a driver was given a jail sentence for attacking two other motorists in the space of 15 minutes. Mr. Justice Keane, sentencing the offender, said:
"You become highly aggressive behind the wheel. People should be allowed to drive around without being attacked. The courts will not tolerate aggression of this sort on the road, and the message must go out to other drivers loud and clear."
My Bill asks the Government to reinforce that message by introducing a campaign similar to the successful one against drink-driving, to improve driver awareness of the problem and of the discourteous behaviour that can turn a normally mild-mannered motorist into a fiend of the road.
Where road rage may be an element in an offence, the courts should have an additional power to require the offender to undergo a psychological assessment and counselling for anger and stress management before
Column 229
having his or her driving licence returned. Rage counselling could help overcome attitude problems on the road, in the same way as drink-driving rehabilitation courses have helped offenders. The RAC identified a number of incidents that cause great annoyance to drivers. They will be familiar to every motorist. Number one are drivers who cut into traffic queues at roadworks at the last minute. Others include the middle-lane monopoliser, motorists who drive too close at high speed, drivers who overtake on the inside, and parking-space stealers.The RAC has also produced tips for avoiding confrontation on the roads. One should try to stay calm and avoid any challenge, leave room between one's one car and the vehicle in front so that one can drive away if necessary, avoid eye contact with an aggressor, keep the doors locked, and, if one cannot get away, draw attention by flashing one's headlights, sounding the horn or, if one has a mobile phone, calling the police.
Edmund King, head of campaigns at the RAC, and Richard Woods, campaign co- ordinator, have been doing sterling work in spreading the message. It is time for the Government to help spread the message of safety through courtesy on the roads, and to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
I hope that my Bill will heighten awareness of safety matters, not at the leading edge of technology but at a more basic level, by improving the maintenance of spray-suppression devices and highlighting the need for a courtesy campaign, coupled with appropriate penalties to prevent accidents and violent and dangerous behaviour on our roads.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mr. Richard Spring, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Oliver Heald, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Hartley Booth.
Transport (Motorway Safety)
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan accordingly presented a Bill to improve the safety of motorways and motorway driving; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
Column 230
Orders of the Day
Agricultural Tenancies Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 4
Mortgages of agricultural land
`.--(1) Section 99 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leasing powers of mortgagor and mortgagee in possession) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) At the beginning of subsection (13), there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (13A) below,&.
(3) After that subsection, there shall be inserted--
"(13A) Subsection (13) of this section--
(a) shall not enable the application of any provision of this section to be excluded or restricted in relation to any mortgage of agricultural land made after 1st March 1948 but before 1st September 1995, and
(b) shall not enable the power to grant a lease of an agricultural holding to which, by virtue of section 4 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will apply, to be excluded or restricted in relation to any mortgage of agricultural land made on or after 1st September 1995.
(13B) In subsection (13A) of this section--
`agricultural holding' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and
`agricultural land' has the same meaning as in the Agriculture Act 1947.&
(4) Paragraph 12 of Schedule 14 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (which excludes the application of subsection (13) of section 99 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in relation to a mortgage of agricultural land and is superseded by the amendments made by subsections (1) to (3) above) shall cease to have effect.'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
4.29 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |