| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paterson: The amendment that we tabled in the Lords applies to new trucks and rigs. However, the Minister commented that the provision might be contrary to European law. Can he elaborate on that?
Dr. Ladyman: I do not mean that the provision is contrary to European law. My understanding is that this will eventually be mandated by European law. Therefore, if we wait for that to take place there will not be an additional burden on our haulage industry compared with the rest of Europe. We will all be on a competitive, level playing field. However, it may be 2010 before the provision comes in, and that is the issue on which we need to agree.
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire raised a number of points, including a plea for sympathy for the owners of heritage Bentleys—of which there are not many in the estates of Ramsgate, but I am sure that those of my constituents who have a heritage Bentley tucked away somewhere will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He also referred to British summer time, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), and one or two other Members. I was surprised to hear so many Scots Members saying that they would be keen to see change in one form or another. We have been quite open about the research that we produced and there is no question but that a change would be of significant road safety benefit, but that is not the only issue to be taken into consideration. There would be difficulties for people in the north and for industry, agriculture and others. We have to be careful about leaping into that morass.
Mr. Greg Knight: May I put two points to the Minister? First, my comments about historic vehicles apply just as much to Morris Minors as to vintage Bentleys. Secondly, on British summer time, will the Minister reflect on whether the Government would be prepared to provide the House with an opportunity on Report for a free vote on the issue?
Dr. Ladyman:
No, I cannot promise that. I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about heritage Morris Minors, but equally that the appropriate example from his constituents' point of view was a Bentley.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 913
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned alcohol levels. He is a long-term campaigner on road safety and he made a powerful case, but I am not persuaded that the time is right for a 50 mg limit, because we are not yet enforcing the 80 mg limit properly. The police need to be able to target their fire on serious offenders at the 80 mg limit. Once the enforcement rate is high at that level, there may be an argument for a future Government to reduce the limit to 50 mg, but that time has not yet arrived.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean spoke about young drivers. I am looking into the matter and just this week held a meeting with the Driving Standards Agency to discuss our programme. A few years ago, we consulted widely about young drivers—whether we wanted provisional licensing, or P plates—and the feeling was very much that that was not the way to go. In this country, our strategy has always been that a person should be a fully competent driver to pass the test and obtain their licence. Staged or progressive licensing is not appropriate. Before someone goes on the road, they should be a competent driver and pass the test.
The pass plus programme is a slightly different issue and we need to consider how to incentivise people to participate. We are talking to insurance companies, but even if they gave discounts I am not sure how much that would help, as many young people go on the road for the first time on mum and dad's insurance—the kid will not have an incentive to do pass plus unless they are paying for their insurance from their own pocket. A broader campaign of education, targeting resources on younger drivers, looking into training for younger drivers and working with approved driving instructors to provide young drivers with the necessary experience might be more fruitful lines to explore, and I am talking to the DSA about those ideas.
Hon. Members raised a number of other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned road humps. However, I have to say that if somebody drives so fast over a road hump that they are injured, I have not the slightest bit of sympathy for them. The road hump would be doing its job by slowing them down. Road humps are always installed in consultation with the emergency services and various designs are available to meet different needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan) spoke about sleep disorders such as tiredness and sleep apnoea. One aspect of being moved from Department to Department is that Ministers' crimes tend to follow them around. When I was a health Minister, my hon. Friend's predecessor initiated a debate on sleep apnoea to which I responded, so I am well aware of the issue. Primary care trusts are responsible for ensuring that services are available for the care of people with sleep disorders. We have launched a prominent campaign, advising all drivers to take at least 10 to 15 minutes' rest every two hours. Only last week I made a pitch to an informal council of transport Ministers in Austria, suggesting that we launch a trans-European campaign on driver tiredness. I think that that would be an appropriate campaign for Europe to focus on.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 914
Both the hon. Member for North Shropshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South mentioned speed cameras. My hon. Friend wants the cameras to be hidden—painted black—while the hon. Gentleman wants a better partnership with the motorist.
As I told my hon. Friend earlier, the road camera programme is aimed at areas where there is overt enforcement. We want people to know that there is enforcement in those areas, because we want them to control their behaviour at known blackspots. In addition, the police retain all the powers that they have always had to carry out covert enforcement. We encourage them to use those powers. We certainly do not want to legalise devices that would let people know where the police are covertly enforcing speed limits. We do not want radar detectors to be legalised, for example.
Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Ladyman: I will give way briefly, but I want to end my speech after that.
Mr. Paterson: If overt enforcement is intended, would it not be better for the cameras to be painted bright yellow?
Dr. Ladyman: Absolutely—and they are. Not only are they painted bright yellow; we insist that they are placed where people can see them. Not long ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement about the way in which we would change the use of cameras and the use of money. That is relevant to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that money raised by the cameras should be spent on road safety and similar initiatives.
We have made it quite clear that people should know where the cameras are, and should be able to see them. We will change the way in which speed limits are indicated where enforcement takes place, so that people are clear about the speed at which they ought to be driving.
Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Devine: The police in my area advertise in the local paper where the speed cameras and speed traps will be. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a good idea?
Dr. Ladyman: I am happy for my hon. Friend's local paper to advertise the location of the speed cameras and the areas of enforcement. What I do not think it will have advertised is where the police are undertaking covert surveillance, because the police will not have told the paper where that is happening.
We are not in the business of trapping motorists. We are in the business of trying to create a partnership in which motorists understand that we are serious about enforcement and about their observing speed limits, but equally serious about the need for the limits to be practical. They must understand that we are serious about road safety, and that we are not just after their money.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 915
I believe that my right hon. Friend's statement represented a significant step towards that understanding. I also believe that all road users—whether they are pedestrians, cyclists or motorists; whether they are driving to work or driving for pleasure—will see real benefits in the Bill. As it makes its sedate way towards its Committee stage, I commend it to the House.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
ROAD SAFETY BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
Proceedings in Standing Committee
2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 20th April 2006.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |