Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury): Will the Government empower and encourage the courts to disqualify from driving drivers who are found to have cannabis or another banned drug in their bloodstream?
Mr. Hill: As I have explained, we are certainly aware that the issue of cannabis and drug-driving has become more prevalent. We are conducting significant new research to identify the role of drugs in road accidents. As the hon. Gentleman will know, drug-driving has long been an offence. It is certainly our intention, when we have the right evidence, to ensure that there is better public education on, and better enforcement against, that particular offence.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West): I welcome my hon. Friend's comments thus far, and look forward to tomorrow's publication of the strategy document. Will he pay particular attention to improving road safety on what are commonly known as rat runs? At 7.30 this morning, I met some of my constituents who live in Sherwood road and in surrounding roads, in south Harrow, and they were rightly very concerned about the speed of traffic along local roads. May I commend road safety on such roads as an issue that is worthy of further attention both in the Department and in relation to local authority SSAs?
Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am certain that his constituents, particularly those living in Sherwood road, south Harrow, will be grateful that he has raised their concerns in the Chamber. Rat running is a matter of concern to people across the country. It is a major issue on which we all receive representations during our advice surgeries. A number of measures are available to deal with it, including a variety of traffic calming devices. I also draw attention to the new powers that we have given to local authorities to introduce 20 mph zones. All the evidence, including that from the previous Government, is that such zones are very effective in road traffic reduction. They should be expanded and increased.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): The Minister said that he wished to change the culture of driving. Does he agree that reducing the speed limit to 20 mph will not work because it will not be policed and implemented properly? Reducing the permitted amount of alcohol in the blood will also not be helpful. The best way to proceed is to pursue persistent speeding offenders and those who are grossly over the alcohol limit. In the same vein, will he join me in a campaign to target company car drivers who persistently cause accidents and have the damage reclaimed on the company insurance? They should be
responsible for their insurance claims. Does he also agree that if we are to tackle the problem of cannabis in the blood, we need a drugsalyser?
Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her proposals. We shall look at all those issues. She will find that the reports that we are about to publish take up a number of them. She and I might disagree about some of the details of her ideas. We intend to develop a national framework for determining appropriate speeds for all roads. There is not necessarily a cut and dried, black and white answer on all such matters. The speed review does not recommend changing existing speed limits. That is also a matter for further examination.
Ms Claire Ward (Watford): I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward these important measures, which I am sure will be welcomed by my constituents. As one who is keen on joined-up government, may I ask him whether he feels that the support of the Department for Education and Employment is sufficient to ensure that children are fully aware of road safety issues?
Mr. Hill: I sometimes have reservations about the phrase "joined-up government" on the grounds of slight overuse, but it is appropriate in this case. That is why I was delighted to be joined two months ago by my colleagues from the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health to launch the STAG report. It is essential that all critical Departments work hand in hand on issues relating to the safety of children travelling to school.
Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester): Does the Minister agree that greater investment in traffic calming and 20 mph speed limits is good value for money? Will he confirm that the cost to the public purse of a fatal road accident is more than £1 million, the cost of a serious injury accident is more than £100,000, and that of a slight injury accident is £10,000? Would it not make sense to give local authorities more money to invest in road safety, thus saving lives and public money? Finally, will he confirm that he will be supporting the Transport and General Workers Union in its "Say No to Tired Drivers" lobby this afternoon?
Mr. Hill: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I might have been with the lobby had I not been detained elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman speaks good sense, as ever. It is important that he should draw to our attention the shared economic costs of road accidents, although the main issue in all our hearts and minds is the tragic consequences for individuals. He asks whether more money will be made available to local authorities to invest in road safety. As I have said, this year there was an additional 20 per cent. in the resources available to local authorities for their local transport plans. The figure was £755 million, and next year it will be £1 billion. The money is there and it is forthcoming. We very much hope and expect that local authorities will devote a good deal of it to road safety measures.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon):
In the context of child safety, I remind my hon. Friend of an issue that I have raised with him concerning MOT tests. It may come as a surprise to right hon. and hon. Members that child seats fitted to cars are not subject to MOT tests, despite substantial evidence that they are frequently badly fitted or adjusted, and that may potentially increase child casualties. Will my hon. Friend look again at making the fitting of child seats part of the MOT test?
Mr. Hill:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am certainly aware of his long campaign, which has been extremely helpful in highlighting the seriousness of the issue that he has raised. We shall certainly consider his proposal.
Let me explain the central thrust of our proposals. Motorists suffer the worst casualties on our roads as a result of road accidents, therefore motorists stand to gain most from decent, proper driving practices. I am glad to say that we are confident that motoring organisations broadly support our strategy. It goes without saying that we have consulted the motorists' forum which welcomes our proposals.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can we take it that, unless the Minister says otherwise, if you or any other right hon. or hon. Member wants to go to the press conference at 9.30 am tomorrow at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in Birdcage walk, we might be able to do so?
Madam Speaker:
That is a form of advertising. It has not much to do with me.
4.7 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South): I beg to move,
I am pleased that the Government published the Green Paper called "High Hedges: Possible Solutions". It is reassuring to know that the Government are listening to the concerns of thousands of people from all over the country. I would like to see a solution to the problem as soon as possible, either through Government legislation or through the Bill that I am putting before the House today.
There is no proposal in the Bill to ban leylandii or any other tree or hedge. The Bill provides for conciliation between neighbours by environmental protection officers. Failing agreement, environmental protection officers will be able to make binding and enforceable decisions about the height of trees or hedgerows.
We should not dismiss nuisance hedges as a trivial issue. It is a real problem causing suffering to thousands of people. I have received a number of letters from constituents complaining about it. The social and emotional problems described in those letters persuaded me to try to do something. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have received similar letters in their postbags and are all too aware of the distress that is being caused.
The advent of the leyland cypress has made hedge problems far more widespread. It is a new tree, an unlikely hybrid between two distantly related North American cypress species. It was first bred towards the end of the 19th century. Its phenomenal growth rate is alarming because it is not known how high the tress can eventually grow. For example, a tree in Kent is more than 150 ft high and still growing. If a tree is not a nuisance, it should not be cut down. However, we need to take action now to prevent the situation from getting far worse.
These hedges can threaten roofs, guttering, drains and, in more serious cases, even a building's structure. They can deprive unwilling sufferers of light in their homes, and can prevent them from using their gardens in the way that they would choose.
As it stands, the law is biased almost entirely towards protecting those who want to grow leylandii and other high hedges. It offers no protection to people affected by an intrusive hedge. People can grow rows of fast-growing conifers to any height and as close to other people's properties as they like. Neighbours can cut branches and
overhanging fences, but the continual expense and demands on time fall on the person who derives no benefit from the trees.
Trees lacking maintenance can be grown by an individual so that the burden of continual and sometimes hazardous work falls on the offended neighbour--a person who does not want a high hedge and who is prevented by law from reducing its height. The task of cutting back a high leylandii hedge to the perimeters of one's property can be daunting, especially for the elderly. The trees can grow by between 3 and 4 ft a year. Some of the many offending hedges have now reached considerable heights. As the hedges increase in size, they can be a cause of extreme anxiety.
Civil law has proved inadequate at dealing with hedge disputes between neighbours. Such actions can drag on for years, bringing further stress to a victim's life. The legal costs can be enormous. The sums involved can threaten life savings, and sometimes even a person's home.
The present legal situation forces the victim to plead with his or her neighbours to take action and, basically, to rely on the good will of others. The victim has no legal recourse to demand that an offending hedge be shortened or removed; the owner of the tree has the legal upper hand.
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 outlines a variety of nuisances, ranging from noise pollution to the treatment of animals. I urge the Government to look closely at such matters. My Bill would cause tall hedgerows to be included as environmental nuisances. In doing so, it would give legal recognition to the grave impact on people's lives often caused by nuisance hedges.
At the moment, environmental protection officers are reluctant to act. Their legal position is unclear, but the Bill will clarify it. It will allow environmental health officers to make a judgment. It will resolve disputes much more cheaply, easily and quickly, and without half the distress and cost now incurred.
We must strike the right balance between rights and responsibilities. No one wants to dictate the plants or furnishings that a person enjoys in his garden, but the right to make such choices must be accompanied by a responsibility not to intrude into other people's peaceful lives.
I hope that the House will agree that the measures in my Bill do not unnecessarily erode a person's right to enjoy his property as he chooses, because it is just as much a person's right to be free from the invasive practices of another. We must take action now.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |