|
Mr. David: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many members of the public would say the opposite? They would prefer more policemen to be engaged in duties other than traffic duties.
Mr. Chope: I do not meet those members of the public. However, I am impressed by some of the ginger groups that operate on behalf of motorists, such as the Association of British Drivers, which is behind the sensible speeds initiative. It is against all the fixed penalties and the insensitive enforcement. It wants more sensitive discretion to be exercised in enforcement, and it realises that the best way to bring that about and to bring to book the very bad drivers who are such a menace on our roads is to have more police.
The hon. Gentleman backs his party's policy of significantly reducing the number of traffic police, and I am sure that, in due course, he will get his reward from the Government for having supported them on a policy that is absurd and totally counter-productive in terms of road safety.
We could carry on debating this matter for much longer. However, as I made a full contribution to the previous debate, I will conclude now, and wait with bated breath to hear what the Minister has to say.
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate.
The Minister may be sitting very comfortably at the moment, thinking that he is positioned somewhere between Labour Back Benchers, the Liberal Democrats, and those on the Conservative Front Bench. However, being in the middle is not always right. I ask him to listen to the points that have been made, and in particular those from his Back Benchers in strong support of amendment No. 3, rather than those for Conservative amendment No. 28.
The most pertinent point was made by the hon. Member for Stafford. There is always a lot of pressure in all our constituencies from people who want reduced speed limits in residential areas. The police resist that because, by and large, they cannot police them as they do not have the resources to put in place the mobile cameras and so forth. However, I have something to say about whether a penalty of two points is appropriate. Situations outside schools are easy to deal with, but I can think of two or three dead-end residential streets in my constituency—Third avenue in Teignmouth, for example—where there have been complaints about cars going too fast. We are trying to get the police to put a speed camera in place there to catch the young drivers who speed and to get them to slow down. We may catch them once, but
Column Number: 70
there is not a chance in hell of my being able to get a mobile speed camera there on six separate occasions and to catch a repeat offender. There is no opportunity to do that. Therefore, reducing the penalty to two points for the lower speed limits will mean that people can speed almost with impunity, because they know that they might get caught once, but that they are very unlikely to be caught two, three or four times after that.
Retaining three points for the lower speed limits is therefore entirely appropriate. There must be a risk that persistent speeders, particularly those who speed in built-up areas, will lose their licences. At the end of the day, if they persist in speeding, they are not going to lose their licences, but another person is going to lose their life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, the difference between a 30 mph impact on a child and a 40 mph impact is the difference between the child being in hospital and the child being in a grave.
Mr. Jamieson: This has been a full and extremely well informed debate, and I wish that all debates in Standing Committees could rise to such quality. The tone was set by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who made a powerful contribution in her inimitable way—quiet, but astonishingly persuasive and strong.
My hon. Friend has had a long-standing interest in such matters, both personally and through the Transport Committee. The proposals in the Bill were the subject of an inquiry by that Committee and we were grateful to it for the views expressed. It is unusual, although not unique, for such a Bill to go before a Select Committee, and I am pleased that that was possible.
My hon. Friend painted a picture that we in the Department have been considering as well. The rate of death increases exponentially as the speed increases; so, at 20 mph there is a very high rate of survival of crashes, but beyond 40 mph, and certainly at 50 mph, pedestrians are unlikely to survive. She referred to the campaign of posters and to the television advert that the Department put out recently, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). That advert is good because it does not show the blood-and-guts side, but a girl having an 80 per cent. chance of survival after being hit at 30 mph, with the caption ''It's 30 for a reason''. If a child is hit at a higher speed, the chances are that she will not appear to mend as she does in our advert.
My hon. Friend also said that she was not opposed to the principle of graduated penalties. In response to the discussion document that we put out, that view was almost universally expressed by all who made the case. She made a persuasive case, as did others, and I assure her that her views will be listened to in the next stage when we implement the legislation.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for his support. Just for correction, he talked about enforcement on the motorway of a 76 mph speed limit. In theory that is possible, but the Association of Chief Police Officers
Column Number: 71
guidelines refer to 10 per cent. plus two, and my arithmetic tells me that that makes 79 mph. In reality, however, I think that the enforced limit is somewhat higher than that, although that would depend on the circumstances and the police force concerned. However, they all use good sense in such matters.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the example of 30 mph to 35 mph attracting three points. Again, the limit is not enforced at those speeds but at higher speeds. I thought that I would mention that in case someone read our proceedings and thought the limits were implemented in the way that he described.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford made a helpful speech. His chairmanship of PACTS is well known. PACTS also had a session on the Bill and interrogated me and my officials, which, again, we found very useful. He made a point that should underlie our thinking in this debate: in comparison with the rest of the world—certainly with the rest of Europe—we have one of the best records on road safety, and I am proud of that. Over the years, what successive Governments have done has led to a relatively good record on our roads. Notice that I say ''relatively''. Whether that record is acceptable is another matter. We would not be discussing the Road Safety Bill if we thought that our record was satisfactory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said that the majority—or a large number, at least—of people injured on urban roads are children. I am very pleased that during the past two or three years, particularly among children, there has been a dramatic fall in deaths and, in particular, serious injuries on our roads. We set ourselves the target of a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of children killed and seriously injured on the roads over 10 years; in just over three and a half years, we have achieved a 42 per cent. reduction, and that is very pleasing. A bit more arithmetic would enable us to imagine how many children are now, as a result of that, alive and well rather than injured, and we could picture how successful we have been.
The counterpart, however, is that children are still dieing, and that is unacceptable. As many children as go to a medium-sized primary school are killed on our roads each year. When we think about the issue in those terms, we should realise that, although we are improving our record, we have to do much better.
Not only are we doing well in this country—we take such things very seriously—but I am delighted that the European Union and other countries in Europe now look to us as an example of good practice. That tendency is spreading throughout the world; I have been to conferences in other parts of the world and been approached by Governments who want us to help them get a record that compares to ours. I am proud of that. Having said all that, there are no grounds for complacency. Just as figures can go down, they can go up. If we let off our efforts, there would be a good chance that the figures would start going up again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading. I shall go a bit further. He said:
Column Number: 72
''After the Bill is enacted, we will be obliged to consult by statute.''—
I have underlined that point today. He added:
''People must be able to see fairness and proportion in all laws, but I do not believe that the one-point difference that we are discussing, will mean that lots of people say, 'Well, it is all right to break a 30 mph speed limit.' ''—[Official Report, 11 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 216.]
That is true. People do not suddenly say, ''It is one point down; now I can go as fast as I like as often as I like.'' The Secretary of State's statement was correct, and motoring organisations have made the same point. Notwithstanding that, I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. Our decisions in the future have to be informed by parliamentary debates and by the views of those outside. That will inform the next part of the process.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was going to go into the confessional as he made his comments.
Mr. Fisher: I did.
Mr. Jamieson: He did, indeed. If we asked people in this Room to put their hands up, others might join him. However, I shall not invite them to, lest it create embarrassment.
4.45 pm
The hon. Member for Christchurch made the good point that the issue is not just about speed, but appropriate speed. Speed limits are seen as a target by a minority of people; they are not. They show the maximum permissible speed on a road. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that that is not necessarily the appropriate speed in all circumstances. We can think of examples in the morning when children are going to school along a busy high street. It could be raining, too, as it was a couple of mornings ago. It is inappropriate to be driving at 30 mph in such circumstances. During the week I reside in London, and to travel at more than 10 or 15 mph at quarter to 9 in the morning down the road near where I live would be grossly irresponsible. Parents are arriving in cars and children are milling about the narrow road.
Amusement was expressed in certain parts of the press that in Plymouth, in part of which is my constituency, there was an advisory speed limit of 10 mph in the home zone. It went out in the press—again, in the way in which we debate matters in this country—that the Government will now impose a restriction of 10 mph. There was a picture of someone with a red flag walking in front of a car on the motorway. It would be outrageous to drive at more than 10 mph in the home zone. Although the speed limit is not compulsory, the local people have enforced the restriction. They approached people who were driving too fast and said, ''Hey, just a minute, you live here as well as I do. You are not going at that speed through our community. Our children are on the streets and people want to use the road as a walking space as well as a driving space.'' Such an approach has worked well. There has been much success.
Column Number: 73
I shall clarify one point for the hon. Gentleman. In Scotland, some variable speed limits on local roads have been tried. I am attracted to the idea. Let us suppose that there was a 30 mph limit on the road at a regular time and that, at certain times, it was lowered when children are coming out of school. I stand to be corrected, but I wish to give an example told to me by a friend in the village of Thorney. When the lights flashed, there was a different nature of events near the school. I think that there was a reduction in the speed limit at the times when the children left school. They themselves helped set the sign on, astonishingly, a two-lane trunk road that goes through a village, which is hardly wide enough to take two heavy vehicles travelling side by side. That idea is deeply attractive. Let us say that the regular speed was 40 mph. It does not need to be below that level all the time but, given that the trunk road divides the community, it is outrageous that large vehicles can be travelling at more than that speed when children are coming out of school.
I shall double check, but it is my view and that of my officials that powers exist for authorities to take up such an option. If it were not the case, perhaps we can promote that idea. The only difficulty with it is that, when we impose a variable speed limit, it must be enforced and signing must be in place. That does not come cheaply. The variable speed limit on the M25 has performed well and I should like that system in other areas, nevertheless it does not come cheaply. We must bear in mind signs, enforcement measures and other matters that go with it.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) referred to many points in his helpful and useful contribution. I hope that members of the Committee understand, first, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, myself and others in the Department are committed to reducing the number of people killed and injured on our roads. We are determined about that. We are succeeding, but we want to ensure that we continue to succeed. Secondly, the Department's current advertising campaign stresses the importance of the 30 mph limit and that it is not a matter to be treated lightly. If the limit is 30 mph, it is 30 mph and not more than that. Publicity has been drawn to the problems and dangers of travelling faster. It is fairly obvious what the Department feels; such matters are embedded in its thinking.
I listened carefully to the views that were expressed on Second Reading and I have listened carefully to the views that have been expressed today. We should leave the clause as drafted, as it gives us enabling powers. There may be places where we can consider reducing the number of penalty points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough rightly said, we are talking about road safety. Some yellow boxes and no-right turns are about solving the problem of congestion—to keep traffic moving and to stop people being inconsiderate to others—rather than about safety, and it may be appropriate to take that into account when considering infringements. I would like to hear some more views on the matter.
Column Number: 74
I want to reflect further on the contributions that have been made in this excellent debate. Most importantly, should the Bill receive Royal Assent, which I trust that it will, we must have a further period of consultation and listen to the views expressed on any proposal that we put forward. I reinforce what I said earlier: proposals will arise from the discussion document and the Bill and we will consult carefully upon them. We will then have to return with an affirmative resolution for further discussion before we proceed.
On that basis I hope that the hon. Lady will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
|
