Dr.
Ladyman: It is the first I have heard of it, so if any
such commitment has been given, it was by some other
Minister. 9.30
am
Mr.
Knight: I find that partly reassuring. I hope that when
the Minister responds, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for
Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), he will throw away his civil service brief
and embrace the new clause. However, if he is not prepared to do that,
I hope that the hon. Member for Stafford will be prepared to withdraw
the motion and
new clause with a view to returning to it on Report. On this subject, he
will have friends in all parts of the
House.
Mr.
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): It may
surprise some people when I say that I also support the new clause,
although for different reasons from those outlined by the hon. Member
for Stafford. Every
year the clocks go forward, and as sure as they change, somebody in
this House or the other place introduces a private Member’s Bill
to embark on the same experiment as before—the sort that the
hon. Gentleman outlined. Journalists go to the file marked “Time
zones”, and they say, “Ah, yes. The Member for Orkney and
Shetland is bound to feel concerned about this, because he lives so far
away from the rest of us.”
Every year, as sure as the
clocks change and the private Member’s Bill is introduced, I end
up trotting down Millbank to the radio studios to explain my views on
the subject. It is not because I live closer to Norway than London.
That is where I take issue with the uncharacteristically ill-informed
view of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). There is
no north-south split; it is more east-west. I suspect that people in
south-west Cornwall feel much more strongly about this than people in
Orkney or Shetland, because no matter how extravagant the claims made
by those who seek to visit the change upon us, nothing but nothing will
make the days in Orkney and Shetland longer in the winter. I hope that
nothing will change the fact that we enjoy almost continual daylight at
the height of summer. I was going to say sunshine, but we are not
always that lucky.
From a constituency point of
view, it remains dark in Shetland in the depths of winter and does not
get properly light until 9 to 9.30 in the morning. In the afternoon, it
gets dark again by 3 to 3.30. The changes that the hon. Member for
Stafford talks about will make no difference to that
whatever. However,
there is some merit in the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, because
it states that a report should be made to Parliament about the way in
which we order our time zones, and the impact that it has on road
safety. I fear that many claims made on behalf of change are somewhat
inflated and overstated. If we had from the Minister and his Department
a proper and rigorous assessment that was open about not only its
conclusions but the modelling and methodology used to reach them, we
would enjoy a much more informed debate. It would allow the drawing of
clearer lines than those that I have witnessed over the past five
years, trotting down Millbank every spring. We might all benefit as a
result. I am
confident that my views are right. The report that would be produced as
a result of the new clause would demonstrate as much in
time.
Dr.
Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an
important issue. As he observed, his proposed new clause calls on us
neither to introduce nor reintroduce single/double summer time; it
calls on us to do a piece of research each year and to report the
findings of that research. My hon. Friend, who is a
solicitor, knows that my background is that of a scientist, so as a
Minister I am usually the first to leap at the opportunity to
commission research, because I am occasionally given the opportunity to
throw a few bob to the boys in the lab. The only reason to do research,
however, is to provide answers to questions to which we do not have the
answer, but we already have the answer to this
question. In my
written answer to my hon. Friend’s parliamentary question, I
said publicly, and I shall reiterate now, that changing to
single/double summer time would have road safety benefits. It is not in
doubt—the research has been done. It was done following the
experiment to which the hon. Member for Wimbledon referred, and we have
the report from TRL in 1998 that examined the impact of single/double
summer time more closely. We know it will have road safety
benefits—that is not in doubt, so there is no point
commissioning any more research on it. I buy the argument and I have
heard nobody either disagree with it or challenge the
data. How many lives
and injuries would the change save? Something of the order of 100
lives, and something of the order of 400 people killed or seriously
injured. One has to accept that, back in 1998, a slightly higher rate
of people were killed or seriously injured. Since then the rate has
been falling in general, so we must assume that a reduction is
occurring too in the total number of people whose lives would be saved
as a result of single/double summer time or who would not receive
serious injuries. Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept that
approximately 100 lives would be saved and approximately 400 people
killed or seriously injured would be spared that
fate. However, as hon.
Members said, it is not a matter for the Committee or the Road Safety
Bill, nor indeed it is a matter just for the Department for Transport.
It is a matter primarily for the Department of Trade and Industry,
because it has things to take into account about the economic
performance of the country. It is also a matter for the Department of
the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which represents the interests
of agriculture, although I have never quite understood why farmers are
always quoted as the reason why we cannot move the clocks forward,
because I would have thought that farmers could get up whenever they
wanted to get up, and I assume that those who deal with livestock get
up with the cows, rather than when the Government say they
should. The matters go
beyond the scope of the Department for Transport and beyond road
safety. If my hon. Friend wishes to campaign with those Departments for
a permanent change, however, he is welcome to do so. He can quote both
me and the research, and say that I entirely accept that there would be
significant road safety benefits. I hope that, having taken away my
commitment to back up his lobbying expeditions, he will then accept
that there is no point burdening us with the need to repeat and
republish the research every year, when we already accept his
argument.
Mr.
Kidney: My hon. Friend’s contribution is helpful
and I am grateful. I have one question. The TRL report that I mentioned
was from 1998, so clearly it updated its thinking, and it would be
desirable if they updated their thinking from time to time in future
too.
Will he assure us that it should do that if it were
relevant?
Dr.
Ladyman: Absolutely. If we came to the conclusion that for
some reason the research was becoming out of date, I would certainly
commission an update. I suspect that if my hon. Friend and his
colleagues were to begin to convince Ministers in other Departments
that we should change our clocks,there would be wide
consultation and all Departments would have to pitch in and explain
their attitude.I would expect, in the normal course of
events, thatwe would want to update the evidence as part of
that debate. In the meantime, we accept that there would road safety
benefits, but that road safety is not the only issue to be considered
and many other things must be taken into account. The Government must
take a wide view of the subject and consider the difference throughout
the country, north and south, east and west, as the hon. Member for
Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said. Many more issues than road
safety must be taken into account, but I accept that there would be
road safety benefits in a change to single/double summer
time.
Mr.
Kidney: The debate has been helpful and has clarified many
things. I shall accede to the request from the right hon. Member for
East Yorkshire to withdraw the motion and new clause—it is not
every day that he offers to stand with me under the red flag—and
save the argument for another
day. I agree with my
hon. Friend the Minister about the value of research. It is not only
scientists who value research; politicians also like to make
evidence-based decisions. He is right to remind us that scientists have
a role to play in providing evidence from time to
time. I am grateful to
the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who agreed with the new clause
for reasons other than the time issue. He reminded me why we should be
hesitant about a change as big as altering an entire time zone by Act
of Parliament. I shall be cautious about wanting to do
that. It seems odd
that the Conservative Front Bench does not support my wish to consider
the matter more deeply. On Tuesday, it argued for us to do more about
level crossings. If we eradicated every death on a level crossing we
might save 20 lives a year. At a previous sitting, I argued for a lower
drink-driving limit, which might save 50 or 60 lives a year. The
measure that we are discussing would save more than 100 lives a year.
Important as the other measures are, they pale into insignificance
compared with the one before
us.
Mr.
Hammond: We argued that we would not support another
report because it would involve another set of
costs.
Mr.
Kidney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support my
argument that it is helpful to keep the research up to date so that
decisions are based on evidence and fact rather than on prejudice and
opinion. I shall take
the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister and lobby other Departments
to try to obtain more general support for a change of time, which
would have the helpful by-product of saving many lives on the roads
every year. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
10Motorcycles
in bus lanes ‘All bus lanes
in the adjacent vehicle lane shall be open to use by motorcycles when
buses are moving in the same direction as traffic.'. —[Mr.
Paterson.] Brought
up, and read the First
time. Mr.
Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con): I beg to move,
That the clause be read a Second
time. It is a pleasure
to see you back in the Chair, Mrs. Anderson. Sir Nicholas was in the
Chair and bursting with testosterone after the Easter break. I hope
that you are similarly
revived. The Minister
and I attended a meeting of the all-party group on motorcycling
yesterday and there was agreement on the new clause, which simply
proposes that all bus lanes should be open to motorcycles as long as
they move in the same direction. I shall be brief because I am
conscious of the time and also of the blood pressure of the Government
Whip, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). I shall not
plough through the large report published by Transport for London on
the interim
results. The bones of
the report are that there is convincing evidence that the use of bus
lanes by motorcycles reduces the vulnerability of motorcyclists without
affecting the vulnerability of other road users, such as pedestrians
and cyclists. It is common sense to move motorcycles away from other
road vehicles such as lorries, heavy goods vehicles and so
on—not mixing traffic seems to work. Motorcyclists would be more
visible to other road users, and lack of visibility is often cited as
the cause of accidents. I can find no studies that indicate that the
risk to cyclists and pedestrians increased when motorcycles were
allowed access to bus
lanes. Motorcycles
pollute less on any given commuter journey because they do not get
stuck in traffic and sit with their engines idling. They do not
contribute to traffic congestion, as they keep moving. Allowing them
into bus lanes recognises that they are an important part of commuter
transport, which I believe reflects the Government’s motorcycle
strategy to promote them as a mainstream transport
activity. 9.45
pm It is
interesting to note that motor cycles in bus lanes do not slow up
buses. The buses set the speed, and, as a result, motor cyclists tend
not to speed. None of the local authorities that have allowed motor
cycles to use bus lanes have reported safety problems, and the evidence
in the Transport for London report is that there was an 8 per cent.
reduction in powered two-wheeler collisions on the A23 and a 31 per
cent. reduction on the A41. If we combine those figures—as
a scientist, the Minister will agree with this—that is a 19 per
cent. reduction in all PTW collisions. The reduction of such collisions
in the control areas was0 per
cent. The Minister
said on Tuesday that such a provision would be redundant because local
authorities can already allow motor bikes to use bus lanes. The problem
is that more oomph is needed to promote such change. The new clause
would provide that
oomph. Some
authorities allow motor cycles to use some bus lanes. In Bristol, the
policy is city-wide, and there have been no problems. In South
Gloucestershire, it covers the whole local authority area, and there
have been no problems. In North Somerset, the policy again covers the
whole local authority area, and there have been no problems. In
Peterborough, it relates to one bus lane, and there have been no
problems. In Hull, there is a trial involving one lane, and there have
been no problems. In Swindon, the policy covers the whole borough, and
there have been no problems so far. In Reading, all the bus lanes in
the borough are covered and the problems that were expected by cyclists
have not materialised. In Essex, the policy is county-wide, and there
have been no problems. In Derby, where the policy applies to Nottingham
and Uttoxeter New roads, there have not been any problems. In Kingston
upon Thames, half the bus lanes in the borough are covered by it, and
there have been no problems so far. In Sheffield, one bus lane is open
to motor cyclists, but there will be two next year, and there have been
no problems. In Richmond upon Thames, motor cycles are allowed to use
three bus lanes, and there have been no problems. In Westminster, motor
cycles can use eight bus lanes out of a proposed nine, and there have
been no safety problems. That brief summary indicates that the measure
does work. The
Minister will tell us that giving motor cycles access to bus lanes is
allowed by legislation and is subject to local government decision. My
contention is that this is a major safety measure. Also, it is a pity
that part of our road capacity is underused—buses do not use the
capacity the whole time. This common-sense new clause would allow all
motor cyclists to use all bus lanes immediately, rather than wait for
decision making by local governments. Until yesterday, I did not
realise that local authorities had discretion on
this. Dr.
Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): I am mandated to
speak on the new clause by my office manager. If I were not to speak on
it, I would not get the same excellent service that I have always had
from her. She is a biker, and she has lobbied me on this matter
continuously since I was elected to Parliament in
1997. The main reason
I support the new clause is that there is complete inconsistency across
the country, as exemplified by the comments by the hon. Member for
North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). We must seriously consider the use of
bus lanes. For example, there are bus lanes on two parallel arterial
roads into Bolton town centre. Motorists can travel on one of them
outside peak hours but not on the other. For a motorist entering the
town for the first time, it is complete confusion. They must read the
signs very carefully, but, frankly, that is not easy in congested
traffic.
The same argument applies to
other vehicles using bus lanes. It is necessary to review how bus lanes
are used across the country. In some authorities, taxis can use bus
lanes; in others, they cannot. I am arguing for consistency in the use
of bus lanes, which is currently confusing not only for bikers but for
other vehicle
users. With the
imposition of the congestion charge in London—it will no doubt
come in in other cities—there has been a huge increase in the
use of motor cycles, exemplified by the sales of them across the land.
I occasionally drive in London, and it is frankly terrifying to see the
way in which not only motor cyclists but cyclists zip in and out of the
traffic. That must undoubtedly lead to collisions. I do not have any
statistics and I have not studied the subject, but it is common sense
to reach that conclusion. I therefore support the idea of allowing all
motor cyclists to use bus lanes. I would go even further and impose on
them the requirement to use bus lanes, to stop them going in and out
between other vehicles, as we see in such an exaggerated way in our
capital. I hope that,
even if the Minister urges us not to support the new clause, he will
take our views back to his Department so that we can examine and
rationalise the use of bus
lanes.
| 
