| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Tom Brake: If the highway code were changed in that way, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there would be a risk of contributory negligence where cyclists were not using designated cycle paths?
Mr. Knight: The argument of contributory negligence could certainly be used in that example and many others, which is why it is important to send a clear message to all road users—not just motorists, but cyclists too—about what they should or should not do. I hope that the Government will give that clear message before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage.
I have some questions about the operation of clause 22 and schedule 4. I should declare an interest, as I am the owner of a number of historic and classic motor vehicles, some of which are subject to the statutory off-road notification procedure, although they are all insured, so the provisions do not affect me personally. However, there is growing concern among the classic car fraternity about the scope of the provisions, so when the Minister winds up I should like him to clarify how wide he intends them to be.
I realise that the explanatory notes do not form part of the legislation and that they are for the guidance and benefit of Members, but in paragraph 86, on page 16, the Government set out their view of the scope of the provision on insurance:
"Other exceptions may apply where the vehicle is no longer kept by the registered keeper; it is not kept for use on a road or other public place or has been stolen."
Precisely what do the Government mean by the words
Do they mean a vehicle not kept for current use on a road, or for current or future use on a road?
At present, if a classic vehicle is undergoing restoration, the owner may decide not to use it for a couple of years so they take it off the road, fill in a SORN form, which is sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and acknowledged, and are then under no further duty whatever. Although the owner of a motor vehicle, even one undergoing restoration, ought to have insurance—especially if the vehicle is valuable—at present there is no requirement to insure that vehicle. Will that situation change, and if so, will it change both for vehicles subject to SORN and for those that are exempt? As I understand the DVLA rules, a vehicle that has been off the road since 31 January 1998 is exempt
8 Mar 2006 : Column 870
from the SORN procedure. Let us suppose that a family has an heirloom—perhaps a vintage Bentley—the wheels have been removed, the engine is seized and the vehicle is in a garage, but at some point members of the family hope to put it back on the road. Under the new provisions, will they be required to take out insurance?
Mr. Knight: If the Minister wants to answer me now, I shall be delighted to give way.
Dr. Ladyman: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me advance notice that he was thinking of raising that point, which I know he wants to explore further in Committee. The answer to his question is no; the intention is that it will not be necessary for such vehicles to be insured. Either they will be SORNed, in which case there will be no need for insurance, or there will have been no licensing activity since 1998, so a SORN will not be necessary.
Mr. Knight: I am most grateful to the Minister. His intervention will have put many minds at rest.
I have one more question about this part of the Bill. Where a vehicle has been seized but the owner produces documents and pays any dues, the explanatory notes say:
"If the vehicle has already been disposed of, the regulations may provide for a sum to be paid to the vehicle's owner provided the claim is made within a prescribed period."
That sounds reasonable. Presumably, the sum to be paid will actually be a proper recompense for the seizure and crushing of the vehicle and not a paltry amount that reflects only 10 or 20 per cent. of the vehicle's value. I am assuming from the wording that there is good will behind the provision, and that the Minister intends the regulation to recompense the owner properly. He is nodding, so I am obliged to him for that assurance.
Clause 45 refers to the range of particulars to be included in the vehicle's register. We all understand why it is desirable to include mileage, to stop clocking—the unlawful practice, mainly but not exclusively, of some second-hand car dealers, who realise that if they wind back the odometer they can vastly increase the vehicle's value on the second-hand market. I welcome that aspect of the provisions, but I hope that they will not be used for an identity card-like collation of personal information. I hope that we do not reach the point where, for example, the vehicle keeper has to give his passport number or date of birth. I realise that the form already includes a space for the date of birth, but the information is voluntary, not compulsory. If the Minister intends to broaden the provisions to make vehicle keepers give far more personal information, I hope that he will tell the House so on Second Reading, rather than let that intention emerge in Committee.
I intervened earlier to ask the Secretary of State about clause 50, which I consider very important. I am pleased that Ministers are thinking about ways of addressing this problem, although they may not feel that clause 50 is the answer. The clause provides for a specific offence when a motorist deliberately seeks to drive across a railway level crossing when warning signs are
8 Mar 2006 : Column 871
flashing to indicate that he should not do so. It provides for a period of imprisonment, a fine and up to six points on the licence.
I rather agree with my colleagues on the Front Bench. I hope that whatever the formulation to which we return, Ministers will consider whether it might be more appropriate to provide for a compulsory period of disqualification. I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell that the period should be 12 months, as it is for drink-driving, but it could certainly be argued that even in the most marginal cases a motorist should be deprived of his licence—if only for a month or two—so that the dangerous circumstances that he has created can be brought home to him.
When I was in Leicester the other day visiting friends, I happened to pick up a copy of the excellent local paper, the Leicester Mercury. On page 8, a report headed "Drivers risk death in level-crossing dashes" said:
"Nearly 30 motorists risked their lives last year by dashing across level crossings in front of oncoming trains.
British Transport Police say 27 drivers in the county had ignored flashing lights and descending barriers.
That is what was happening in just one county. The problem is still with us. None of us wants to see a repeat of the horrific accidents that have occurred in the recent past, and I hope that when the Secretary of State crystallises his thoughts he will bear in mind what has been said here today.
I am disappointed that the Bill does not deal with a number of other issues, which I hope we shall have time to debate during the remainder of its passage. One is the question of flexible speed limits, which are in force on the M25 to improve road safety and traffic flow. I think that they have largely been a success, and that there is an overwhelming case for trialling them on other roads, not necessarily just in a downward direction. I know that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is a little agitated at the thought of 80 mph speed limits on motorways, although that is the speed in France and, where a speed limit operates, in Germany; but I think we should consider trialling flexible speed limits on motorways where, on a clear day with light traffic flows, overhead signs could indicate that motorists were allowed to travel at 80 mph.
Tom Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a third time. What does he think would be the average speed of drivers on motorways if the speed limit were increased to 80 mph?
Mr. Knight: There is no doubt that during the period of flexibility many motorists would exceed 80 mph, just as many exceed the limit now. It must be accepted that some motorists would drive at 85 or 86 mph.
Mr. Tom Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a single country in the world that has raised its national speed limit and experienced a consequent reduction in the number of casualties caused by road accidents?
Mr. Knight:
I am talking about flexible speed limits, not a permanent increase in the speed limit. I use the
8 Mar 2006 : Column 872
word "flexible" in the sense that most people would recognise; it is possible to flex downwards as well as upwards. There are occasions—when it is foggy or there is snow on the ground—on which the speed limit on a motorway should be reduced to below 70 mph. I think that we should trial the system of flexible limits to see where it takes us. I do not believe that it would lead to the consequences envisaged by the hon. Gentleman if it were applied when traffic flows were light and road conditions good.
I also think that we should consider introducing flexible speed limits in the vicinity of schools. I know that a certain organisation has conducted a letter-writing campaign asking all Members to support blanket speed limits in villages and blanket 20 mph speed limits near schools. I think that it has something of a case, but I do not support the one-size-fits-all suggestion. There a number of villages in my constituency in which I would not want a 30 mph speed limit to be introduced, because the roads passing through them can safely carry traffic at a higher speed.
However, I think that we should consider using flexibility, particularly with the advent of electronic speed signs and flashing warning signs, which are now available to us but were not a few years ago, and at trialling 20 mph zones outside schools, although not during the school holidays, because an inappropriate speed limit will be disobeyed by motorists. If they feel that the speed limit is not just they will ignore it, but we could try it an hour or so before school commences, or 15 minutes before schoolchildren come out and for an hour after the school day has finished. That is what I would like to see. Let us try flexible and temporary speed limits where appropriate. They will signify to the responsible driver, when he sees the flashing "20" sign, that school children are about to be in the vicinity. I think that most drivers would respond to that positively.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |