|
Mr. Chope: It has indeed been a useful debate, and the Minister has clarified the matter of extending the graduated fixed penalty points beyond the area of speeding, although that has not hitherto been flagged up in any Government document. It was the Home Office review of road traffic penalties that flagged up the need for some higher fixed penalties for those concerned about excessive speeding. There was never any suggestion that we would be considering different degrees of gravity in relation to some of the other offences to which the Minister referred.
I have not got the Official Report detailing what happened on Second Reading, but I sat through the whole debate and I heard with my own ears what the Secretary of State said. I think the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has a copy of the record of that debate, and I would be surprised if the Secretary of State did not say that what was contained in the proposals on new graduated fixed penalties for speeding was his judgment of the best way forward. However, if the Government are changing their mind on that in response to pressure, we shall no doubt find out more about it in the next debate.
The best way forward would be to see what comes out of the next debate. It may well be that after the next debate we shall get closer to reaching a consensus on what should be contained in such a table. If we do get to that stage, I would support the idea of including it in the Bill on Report, perhaps subject to the ability of the Government to change it later. That is a very different proposition from giving the Government discretion to change everything, and taking their word in good faith without the opportunity to amend the detail of the secondary legislation. In the mean time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mrs. Ellman: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in clause 3, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
'(8B) The Secretary of State may not make any order under subsection (3A) above which would have the effect of reducing the fixed penalty for exceeding a speed limit set at or below 30 miles per hour below 3 points.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 3, in clause 16, page 22, line 29, leave out '2-6' and insert '3-6'.
No. 28, in clause 16, page 22, line 29, leave out '2-6' and insert '1-5'.
No. 4, in clause 16, page 22, line 33, leave out '2-6' and insert '3-6'.
No. 29, in clause 16, page 22, line 33, leave out '2-6' and insert '1-5'.
Column Number: 59
No. 37, in clause 16, page 22, line 33, leave out from 'substitute' to end of line 34 and insert—
'''3-6 or appropriate penalty points (fixed penalty points (fixed penalty) if committed in respect of a speed limit on a restricted road; 2-6 penalty points (fixed penalty) in other cases.''
(c) ''restricted road'' in subsection (b) means a road as restricted in section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).'.
No. 5, in clause 16, page 22, line 34, at end add
'if committed in respect of a speed limit on a restricted road; 2-6 or appropriate penalty points (fixed penalty) in any other case, and (c) ''restricted road'' in paragraph (b) means a road defined as restricted in section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).'.
Mrs. Ellman: The lead amendment is very specific. Its aim is to prevent the Government's proposals for graduated penalties from reducing a fixed penalty for exceeding speed limits of 30 mph or less to below three points.
The concern about the issue has arisen from the Government's discussion document. I note the Minister's statement that he regrets having published it. I am not sure whether he regrets having published the document, or whether he has regrets about some of the proposals in it. One of them is to reduce the penalty points by a third for people driving at between 30 and 39 mph in a 30 mph zone, as well as reducing the fine. I am extremely concerned about that. I know from the statements made by my hon. Friends in this Committee, as well as by others on Second Reading and elsewhere, that that concern is widespread.
To explain the reasons for that concern, let me quote the Department for Transport's own very powerful advertising campaign. It was launched on 11 January and will continue until February. It states very clearly, ''It's 30 for a reason''—''30'' being the 30 mph speed limit. The campaign centres round a poster, which is accompanied by graphic sequences, now on television and due to be shown in the cinema, showing the profound difference for a pedestrian between the impact of being knocked down by a vehicle travelling at 30 mph and one travelling at 40 mph. Both the poster and the graphics are very effective.
The campaign sends out the very good message that the Department regards the 30 mph speed limit as something of extreme importance, and relates it directly to the safety of pedestrians. It is clear that speed kills. It is a contributory factor in some 1,000 deaths and 38,000 injuries every year. The evidence is that a change of speed, an increase at around the 30 mph mark, has the greatest effect on the potential for killing and seriously injuring vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
It is true that drivers cannot be held responsible for all accidents that happen; they are not always to blame. However, in setting appropriate speed limits, particularly in built-up areas, surely we must take account of the nature of pedestrian and cyclist movements, as well as of those of drivers. The facts borne out by the evidence are clear: a driver is twice as likely to kill a pedestrian if he hits him at 35 mph than if he hits him at 30 mph. At 30 mph, half of those knocked down will survive, but at 40 mph 90 per cent. of adults and 80 per cent. of children will die.
Column Number: 60
The overriding concern in this debate, and particularly in this amendment, is for vulnerable road users. Road deaths account for 30 per cent. of all accidents to children aged between five and nine, for 58 per cent. of all accidents to children aged between 10 and 14 and for 84 per cent. of all accidents to young people between the ages of 15 and 19. Those figures are stark and they give us cause for great concern.
Most pedestrian and cyclist casualties occur in built-up areas where the speed limit is 30 mph or lower. In 2003, only 145 of the 2,976 children killed or seriously injured while walking or cycling were not on built-up roads, so the problem is not just about speeding but about speeding in built-up areas where there is a speed limit of 30 mph. Every death is tragic and every serious injury sustained is of serious concern and can disrupt and damage the individual's life, possibly for ever.
Beyond that, however, there is a link between death and serious injury to vulnerable road users and poverty. Let us consider the situation in part of Liverpool, where a safer road partnership is now operating. The figures for 2002 showed that 100 per cent. of people killed or seriously injured in the zero to 11 age range and 50 per cent. of all car occupants killed or seriously injured in the 25 to 39 age range occurred in the north Liverpool area, which is in the top 5 per cent. of deprived areas in the UK. I repeat that, while every death or serious injury to anybody, wherever they are and whatever their position in life, is equally tragic, there is a concentration of the problem in areas that are deprived.
At the moment, 58 per cent. of drivers in built-up areas break the speed limit, and there is a preponderance and concentration of fatalities and serious accidents and injuries in the same built-up areas. In those circumstances, and given the evidence that we have nationally and locally, what sense can it make to reduce the penalties for speeding at the threshold where people are most vulnerable to death and injury on the road? I cannot see any reason for doing that. It would weaken the deterrent message that the Government and the Department for Transport are trying to send out.
I do not oppose the principle of graduated penalties. It is important that, before penalties are set, there is the widest possible consultation and consideration of the impact of those penalties. I do oppose, in principle, reducing the penalties in the area in which it has been proved that most harm is caused to pedestrians and cyclists.
In conclusion, I return to the poster issued by the Department for Transport. On it, a child says:
''Hit at 40mph: There is an 80 per cent. chance I'll die. Hit at 30mph: There is an 80 per cent. chance I'll live.''
With those facts in front of us, and having listened to what the Minister said, I hope he will assure us that the Government will not go ahead with the statement in the discussion document, which is widely regarded as a proposal.
John Thurso: The hon. Lady has put the case powerfully. I will not repeat either her arguments, which she put extremely ably, or the statistics, which I suspect most of us in the Room agree with and are
Column Number: 61
knowledgeable about. I made similar points and used similar statistics on Second Reading and will not take up the Committee's time with them.
It seems to me that the objectives of the Bill and the clause must be twofold. The first is to make our roads safer and to ensure that the number of people killed or seriously injured diminishes. That is what we are all here to do. The second objective is to ensure that the system of justice and the application of justice for motorists and motoring offences is appropriate and just.
4 pm
The amendments all share at heart a similar concern that, particularly in built-up areas where the speed limit is 40 mph or below or, most probably 30 mph, the outcome of the accident is not properly reflected by a reduction in penalty points from three to two. If the Government were to adopt the schedule in their discussion paper—and I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance that they are open to persuasion—the House would effectively say to the outside world, ''We are a third less worried about 30 mph to 39 mph than you all thought we were, and a little bit of moderate speeding in towns isn't that bad.'' However much we may seek to address other questions about the perceived injustice or justice in respect of motorists, for the House to send out that message would be wholly wrong. We must be careful about what we say, what we include in law and the effect that it has on public perception.
It is possible to change what we want to do in order to send out the appropriate message and to ensure that the motorist is correctly dealt with. To do that, we must ask the right questions, and I am not sure that we are. Two issues relate to speed. First, there are questions about whether speed limit signs are correct. We will come to amendments on that subject later, so I will not trespass on it now. However, the questions include whether we should have more 20 mph home zones, and whether roads in rural villages should all have 30 mph limits. There are many areas in which we could lower the speed limit; there are also areas where the speed limit might be examined and raised. Occasionally speed limits have been put up and the 30 mph sign is so far in front of a village that the motorist asks, ''What's the point of this?'' He speeds through the first quarter mile or half mile and does not slow down at the point where the real danger starts.
Secondly, there is the perceived injustice—I stress perceived—that motorists feel when the totting up after four offences brings them to 12 points and obligatory disqualification. I will argue an extreme case, which I do not think is particularly likely, but it is possible for a motorist to be caught four times in succession on a motorway doing 75 mph or 76 mph, receive three points for each of those and then a ban. One might well say that that motorist was somewhat hard done by. My example is unlikely given the way in which our current legislation is enforced and the guidelines that exist, but it is possible.
Column Number: 62
We should consider whether the totting-up system is right. Perhaps the Minister will consider the possibility of raising the number of points required for the totting-up limit, and beef up the number of points given for certain offences. For example, if we were issued with three points from 30 mph to 35 mph and four or five points from 35 mph to 39 mph and the totting-up limit was moved to 15 points, one might arrive at the point where the perceived injustice was seen to be addressed.
With respect to the amendments, however, I am deeply concerned that if the proposals advanced were to become law, we would send a message to motorists that is wholly wrong and counter-productive for areas where the speed limit is below 40 mph, and particularly 30 mph.
I have no problem with the overall principle of graduated punishment to fit the growing severity of crime—that is part of the British justice system and I have no qualms about it. I believe strongly that the outcome for pedestrians, particularly children, has to be taken into account. The statistics dealing with cars travelling below 40 mph and at around 30 mph—as has been well illustrated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside—show that a child is 90 per cent. likely to die if hit by a car going at 39 mph. We simply cannot afford to send out a message that does not take account of that fact. I look forward to hearing what other Committee members say, and the Minister's response. I am grateful to note from the previous debate that the Minister is listening to our representations.
| 
