---

Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): One of the concerns expressed in the Lords was the potential link between the replacement of paper driving licences and the Government's plans for identity cards. If those two are completely divorced, what he has said makes good sense. If he can give the House a clear undertaking to that effect, we would not have a problem with what he says.
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 839
 

Mr. Darling: That is not a debate that we need to have because I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I refer him to what the Home Secretary said when we last debated identity cards. We are not planning to designate ID cards in that way, and they will be separate. The photographic licence would be a separate requirement for different reasons. At some stage, biometric information will be required and, given that the same information will be required for both passports and driving licences, it makes sense to co-operate on them, but the two documents will be distinct. My concern is to reduce the possibility that someone can use a paper licence to create false identities, with all the problems that that raises. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

The Bill will also require vehicle mileages to be reported to the DVLA, possibly at the time of the MOT to try to combat clocking.

The third element is our attempt to ensure that foreign drivers who break the laws here do not escape punishment. If a driver cannot or will not pay a fixed penalty, the police will be able to require a deposit. If people fail to pay the deposit or the police believe that they cannot rely on the address and information given, they will be able to immobilise the vehicle to prevent it from leaving the country. On most occasions, the value of the lorry is substantially more than the fine, so I hope that that will be a more effective way to stop people than simply imposing a fine that they then ignore. That measure is a welcome step forward.

Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): According to the Northamptonshire police, 70 per cent. of the traffic collisions on the M1 through the county are caused by foreign-owned heavy goods vehicles, because they do not have sufficient mirrors on the correct side. When they overtake, they pull out into other traffic. Will the Bill introduce any measures to assist with extra mirror provision on HGVs, so that the number of collisions may be reduced?

Mr. Darling: There are no such measures in the Bill, but we are working with other European Governments to deal with that problem. It is important that drivers of lorries in this country can see what is going on. I am not sure that the Bill is the right way to achieve that and it might be better achieved through Europe-wide legislation, because there might be reciprocal requirements for our lorries abroad. We are aware of the issue and my hon. Friend the Minister of State tells me that we are actively working on it. If the hon. Gentleman wants some further information, I am happy to write to him.

Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Before the Secretary of State commends the Bill to the House and sits down, will he say something about clause 50. Where a motorist deliberately ignores a red flashing light and descending barriers at a railway level crossing, is there not a case for imposing a greater penalty than six points? In view of the likelihood of death or serious injury for many people as a result, is there not a case for a period of mandatory disqualification to be imposed?

Mr. Darling: I am not quite ready to commend the Bill to the House or to sit down: I am coming to the railway provisions and I will deal with that question then.
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 840
 

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): To go back to the previous point, it is necessary not only that HGV drivers should be able to see other vehicles, but that other drivers should be able to see HGVs. He will be aware that the other place introduced new clause 16 on the conspicuousness of HGVs. It would be good to have a reassurance from the Government that they intend to leave the clause in the Bill and also that they will add a time scale for its introduction. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a longstanding campaign on that issue, and I hope that it has now been successful.

Mr. Darling: I can perhaps cheer and disappoint my hon. Friend at the same time. We do not think that such legislation is needed, because such things will happen anyway, but when my hon. Friend the Minister of State explains the issue in Committee, he will amplify that and—who knows?—he might even deal with it extensively when he replies to the debate.

Other measures will introduce advanced learning packages and ensure that we improve the standards of tuition and instruction. There are proposals on the registration of instructors and others that will allow the publication of their performance, and other measures that, I hope, will raise people's general education and awareness of good driving on the roads.

I wish to draw the House's attention to the proposal on tiredness, which was contained in the previous Road Safety Bill. We intend to introduce picnic areas—or aires, as they are called in France—where people can stop, so that they need not go to a service station or McDonald's, or anything like that, to sit and relax, and the first one will be on the M5 in Somerset.

Other measures relate to radioactive material, London private hire vehicles and the certification of vehicles.

Mr. John Horam (Orpington) (Con): The Secretary of State mentions private hire vehicles in London. I suppose that he was referring to clause 58, under which the Government seek to extend what we think of as the "Minicab Act" to operators who solely hire vehicles under contract to local authorities—for example, those used to ferry children who have special needs to and from school and other such activities. Clause 58 will bring them into the minicab regulations, and many people think that it is a piece of over-regulation. I hope that he will consider representations on that issue sympathetically.

Mr. Darling: I will certainly look at representations, but we are trying to ensure that anyone who drives people and the quality of the vehicle used meet certain basic standards. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make representations, of course he can, but the objective of the provision is to try to ensure that we can balance individuals' needs with the requirements of the general public, so that they can be satisfied about standards generally.

On the Network Rail point, we will seek to remove the six new clauses introduced in another place, because they would not achieve what their movers wanted them to achieve, but we will introduce an alternative proposal that, I hope, will deal with that problem. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) asked in
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 841
 
particular about the penalties for people who ignore the lights and cross the railway. The fine for doing that was increased to £5,000 in another place. A lower fine was proposed originally. I am concerned that there have been several incidents in the past year where people have clearly decided to take a gamble and tried to get through the barriers, thus putting at risk not just their own lives, but those of the people on the oncoming train.

Of course, we will not be able to deal with suicide cases that way—the fine would not make much difference—but I will reflect on such fines, endorsements or disqualifications to determine how we deal with such things. Several incidents in the past year or so, particularly on the east coast line and the lines off it, have caused me concern, and I want to think about how we should deal with them in the light of what has been said in the other place.

Mr. Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he clarify his new ideas and thoughts on the issue? Does he envisage letting the House know what he is thinking during the passage of the Bill, or at some time in the future?

Mr. Darling: The appropriate time to consider the issue would be during the debates in Committee, which will probably take place in a couple of weeks' time, although I am not sure when we will reach that part of the Bill. Such a time scale would allow a proper debate to take place in Committee, and the House could then deal with the issue on Report if necessary. That is probably the best thing to do.

Just before I sit down, it is worth returning to the overall point. The road safety record in this country is good, but it obviously needs to get better. I am glad that the number of traffic police on the roads has increased in the past couple of years or so. I remind the House that the traffic officers for which the Highways Agency is responsible are now on most parts of the network, and almost 1,000 of them will be fully operational by the summer. They are already proving their worth, by helping to clear up after accidents, removing debris from the roads and attending to people whose vehicles have broken down. That also helps to improve road safety.

I am sure that the Bill contains measures that will make a difference. No doubt, further representations on further necessary measures will be made, and the Government will, of course, listen to them. Anything that we can do to improve road safety and the quality of driving on our roads must be supported, and on that basis I commend the Bill to the House.

1.35 pm

---