---

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): I agree with, and support very strongly, my right hon. Friend's point of view on speed cameras, but I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said about graduated speeding penalties. Will not such penalties inevitably lead to some people taking chances by driving faster than they otherwise would, thereby leading to an incremental increase in deaths and injuries at the margin? Has my right hon. Friend's Department done any research on what might happen under such a system?

Mr. Darling: It is difficult to research something that has not yet happened. My own belief is that most people start from the point of view that they do not want any points on their licence or to be fined. I am not sure that that many people say, "I don't mind getting two points, but I don't want three." I look at this issue in a slightly different way: we should distinguish between someone who does 36 mph and someone who does 66 mph, and that is why the graduated scheme is better. I recognise that people have strong views on this proposal, and the last time we consulted on it, the division was about 50:50, with slightly more in favour of graduated penalties. If the Bill is passed, the next stage will be to consult on specific proposals, and depending on that consultation, we will put them before both Houses and they will be voted on. We must ensure that people appreciate that keeping their speed low is the important thing, but when someone does break the law, the
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 836
 
punishment should fit the crime. Some graduation is necessary, but when we discuss this issue in Committee, Members will doubtless let us know what they think.

Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, South) (Lab): In some areas, under the current system, drivers who speed at, for example, between 31 and 40 mph in a 30 mph zone might not be prosecuted unless and until they reach 40 mph. Under a system of variable endorsement levels, might not more such drivers end up being prosecuted because the endorsement level is less? I am not saying that that is necessarily an unwanted consequence, but might it not be one?

Mr. Darling: I am not sure that that will be so, unless the general policy changes on how such cases are pursued. This is a classic case of different views being held in all parts of the House, and I am sure that we will have a decent discussion in Committee. I still tend to the view, which is the Government's, that we should have a graduated response, but I shall be interested to hear what Members have to say. All of us know of people who have been done for going just over the limit, and we must contrast that with someone who drives at 60 mph in a 40 mph zone, which is an extremely serious offence.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Darling: Yes, but then I must make some progress.

Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I am intrigued by his earlier example of somebody driving at 66 mph in a 30 mph zone. Under the current system, surely such a person would be prosecuted through the courts, rather than receiving a fixed penalty from the police. In fact, it is quite possible that they would be prosecuted not just for speeding but for dangerous driving. Will his new measure take people who are guilty of driving at higher speeds out of the court system and away from public scrutiny?

Mr. Darling: No. I think that I gave the example of someone driving at 66 mph in a 40 mph zone, and if I did not, I apologise. As it happens, 66 mph, according to guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers, is on the cusp in terms of being sent to court, so such a person might or might not be sent to court. I used that example because the point is that someone who does 66 mph in a 40 mph zone could get the same number of points and the same fine as someone who does 36 mph; I ask the House to reflect on that.

I will of course take further interventions, but I want first to make further progress. As I said earlier, courts will have recourse to retraining courses, and we will raise the penalty for failing to identify a driver to six penalty points. We will also clarify the law on speeding exemptions and the associated training requirements. People who are transporting organs for transplant by car, for example, are sometimes stopped by the police, and the law in that area needs to be clarified.

On any view, there has been a significant drop in the number of deaths and injuries at safety camera sites. Devices that detect or jam such equipment need to be dealt with, and the Bill does that.
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 837
 

There has been a change in Britain's culture in terms of drink-driving. Generally speaking, the figures have come down since the 1970s, but alcohol is still a factor in about one in seven of all fatal crashes, accounting for some 500 deaths a year. What is worse, 20 per cent. of such offenders are repeat offenders. The statistics also show that younger, predominantly male drivers are more likely to be under the influence of alcohol. So we are giving the courts the power to make repeat drink-driving offenders retake their driving test. That will require secondary legislation, but the principle needs to be dealt with in the Bill. That way, repeat offenders will be kept off the roads until they have completed the necessary medical examination. We will also enable the use of alcohol ignition interlocks, which have been shown to be effective in discouraging reoffending. I hope that all these measures, backed up by others such as advertising, will get across the message that drinking and driving kills.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend also acknowledge the very real problem of driving under the influence of drugs? What progress is being made in finding an effective way of testing people for drugs?

Mr. Darling: I agree that driving under the influence of anything that impairs judgment—drugs are the obvious example—is just as dangerous as the specific example of alcohol. The difficulty, as I understand it, lies in developing roadside equipment that can detect the presence of drugs; however, people can of course be taken to a police station for a blood test. A number of people are working on this issue because, sadly, as my hon. Friend knows, people driving under the influence of drugs is as much of a problem as people driving under the influence of drink.

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Has my right hon. Friend been convinced by the evidence that a lower drink-drive limit would save lives and by the argument from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—I declare an interest as a member—for targeted testing by the police, based on intelligence, instead of random testing?

Mr. Darling: My view is that we need to concentrate on those people who are breaking the law now. As my hon. Friend knows, the lower the level is set, the more difficult it is to justify, because people may have low levels of alcohol in their bodies for all sorts of reasons other than the fact that they have had a drink. The biggest problem we face is from people who are not just over the limit, but way over the limit. That is why the measures in the Bill are important.

I should make it clear that if hon. Members think that we should adopt any other measures, we are willing to listen to any such proposals. However, I am not convinced by the argument advanced by PACTS. Incidentally, the stuff on the front pages of newspapers yesterday about the use of cameras was rubbish, as a simple inquiry could have established.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am still concerned by my right hon. Friend's view that we should not reduce the permitted
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 838
 
level of blood alcohol. I understand that the majority of European countries now have lower limits than we do and there must be evidence that death rates have fallen as a result.

Mr. Darling: The problem for much of continental Europe is that they have much higher rates of offending. They have a low limit, but it is not actually enforced. The French Government have a big problem with this issue and have stepped up detection significantly in the past few years. What matters is that people need to know that there is a strong likelihood that they will be caught. We have been working with chief constables, who have to decide where to target their resources. I strongly believe that the police should target drink driving, because it is a problem, not only at Christmas time, but throughout the year.

The second theme is measures to stop people who drive without tax and insurance. Continuous vehicle registration has helped and the House may be interested to know that vehicle licence evasion has fallen by 400,000 since 2002, which means that the revenue lost from evasion has dropped by £60 million in the same time. The Bill allows the regulation of registration plate suppliers to be extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It also enables us to share driver and vehicle data with foreign authorities. That is important, because one of the themes that has emerged, especially with more and more foreign vehicles being driven in this country, is the lack of access to information about who owns them. We need to do more to build co-operation across Europe on that issue. I hope that those measures will command support on both sides of the House, although I understand that in certain parts, co-operation with Europe creates some difficulties.

When we first published the Bill, it enabled the Department to require the surrender of paper driving licences, probably some time after 2008, to allow them to be replaced with photocard driving licences. That part of the Bill was removed in the other place. We will reintroduce that important measure, because the police need to be sure that the person they stop at the roadside is producing their own documents. Last year alone, the police brought to the DVLA's attention approximately 1,200 cases in which individuals had set up more than one identity, and some of them had many identities. All of us know that the paper driving licence is reasonably easy to manipulate and therefore misrepresent. We should therefore introduce a photographic licence that has better security and makes such deception much more difficult. I am sorry that the Conservatives in the other place are opposed to that: I hope that the Conservatives here will take a more realistic view. The police and others rely on driving licences and they should be as secure as possible. We do not plan to make the change immediately, but at some point it will be necessary to recall paper licences and replace them with licences that are more robust.

---