| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 July 2008 : Column 72WH—continued
A couple of months ago I had lunch with the editor of the Lancashire Telegraph, and I asked him how the wasted lives campaign began. He said that—these are my words, not his—he just got sickened and appalled, and dreaded going into the office on a Monday morning knowing that the paper would have to report some terrible carnage that had occurred on the roads in east
Lancashire. It was his and his colleagues’ job to write them up. These are the kind of headlines that he was talking about: “Man, 24, dies in crash: garage worker battled to save trapped driver”, “Another Friday night, another senseless car crash”, “Not Again”, “It ruins lives”—so it goes on. It is an endless stream of horror stories.
The six MPs in east Lancashire are all signed up to the Lancashire Telegraph campaign, and have been reported and quoted in the paper as saying so. We, the Telegraph and the people of east Lancashire want graduated licences in two parts. Part one could be granted at age 17, but with restrictions, so that a 17-year-old could not drive on a motorway without an instructor, would have to adhere to a 50 mph maximum on all other roads, and could only drive cars limited to 80 bhp—brake horsepower—which I am told is something like a Ford Focus. Furthermore, crucially, these young people could not drive with passengers aged between 10 and 25 until they passed part two, which would be taken a year later at age 18. We think that the effective age at which a full driving licence can be held should be 18.
Under our proposals, drivers aged under 25 would not be able to drive between 10 pm and 6 am until they had passed the two parts of that test, unless they were supervised by a driver aged over 25. Furthermore, the probationary plates that I mentioned earlier would be mandatory. After passing part two, drivers would be restricted to a Ford Focus equivalent car and would not be allowed to carry passengers between 10 pm and 6 am for another two years. That might sound draconian, but tragedy has touched so many families in east Lancashire that we need such measures.
I conclude with this thought—never a day goes by without something happening in the road safety sphere. We found out yesterday that new sentencing guidelines are to be issued and that there will be two new offences: causing death by careless driving and causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. Those offences are long overdue, and I hope that the Government bring them in soon. We have to get real about dangerous driving and careless driving, and I very much hope that the Government will think again.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): Thank you, Mr. Prentice. I intend to give the Front Benchers ample time to speak, so I should like to begin the wind-ups by about 10.25 am.
10.1 am
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate with you in the Chair, Mr. Hancock. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing the debate. As he has said, road safety, particularly in relation to young drivers, is especially important. We have already heard many relevant statistics, but I am afraid that I shall mention a few of them again, because as the hon. Gentleman said, they bear repetition and make one think about the scale of the problem.
According to the Department for Transport, in 2006—the last year for which figures are available—2,943 people were killed on Britain’s roads, 27,777 were seriously
injured and 217,060 were slightly injured. Although I am extremely pleased that road deaths have fallen below 3,000 for the first time since 1926, there is no room for complacency. Members on both sides of the House will agree that there is still much to be done. In the last year for which statistics are available, almost 250,000 people, including more than 3,000 children, were killed or were seriously injured and had to face the trauma and consequences of road accidents.
The comments that we have heard so far show that this is not a simple issue. We do not want to demonise all young people, and they are not all the same, just as all middle-aged people are not the same—as this House can testify. The latest consultation appears to give us a way forward that is, broadly speaking, worthy of support, but there is no simple, magic solution or one, central way forward to these problems. We have to accept that some people will always drive recklessly, whatever the Government try to do, and that there will always be people who simply do not think or care about the lives of others around them. It is important to acknowledge that accidents just happen sometimes, but we live in a society in which, increasingly, someone always has to be to blame for a problem.
None of that detracts from the fact that more can and should be done to tackle this problem. The statistics that we have heard so much about show that young drivers are involved in more accidents than any other group of driver. One in eight car drivers is under 25, but one in four drivers who died on the roads in 2006 was under 25. So, although road deaths and injuries have fallen by a third since the mid-’90s, casualty rates for young drivers, particularly young male drivers, have not changed at all in that period. The numbers are not small. One in five car deaths on British roads involves newly qualified drivers and their passengers. I do not think that it has been acknowledged yet that newly qualified drivers are not always young drivers. In the spirit of not wanting to demonise all young people, let me point out that that statistic, which equates to more than 300 deaths a year, concerns all newly qualified drivers and their passengers.
There is no doubt that inexperience at any age is a big factor. According to DFT figures, 20 per cent. of all new drivers have an accident within six months of passing their driving test, but that is not to say—it is important to restate this—that all novice or young drivers are poor drivers. On the contrary, we are talking about the minority, and possibly a small minority, of young, novice drivers who take unnecessary risks.
Mrs. Ellman: We might, as the hon. Gentleman says, be talking about a minority of drivers, but the statistics show that there is a very high incidence of deaths of young male drivers—and, often, their passengers—against a background of generally falling accidents. Does not he accept the need to single out that particular phenomenon for special attention?
Mark Hunter: I certainly do not demur from what the hon. Lady says, and that point will be brought out in my comments. Part of the influence behind my comments today is the fact that, like many of us, I speak as a parent. I have a 19-year old boy who has not yet passed his test and a 21-year-old girl who has. These issues can be of great personal concern to hon. Members, as well to society as a whole.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made a magnificent 30-minute speech, but was unable to include the potential for pass plus, the agency’s suggestion for newly qualified drivers, and the possibility of using probationary or “P” plates to indicate to other road users a recently gained driving licence. Does the hon. Gentleman think that those ideas have any significant potential, or will they work only if made mandatory?
Mark Hunter: Like the hon. Member for Pendle, I am beginning to think that my speech must have been stolen in advance. I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), and I shall come to that point shortly.
As I was saying before the hon. Lady’s intervention, this issue concerns a small minority of young and novice drivers who take unnecessary risks. We should recognise that the majority of such drivers want to abide by the rules, drive safely and enjoy the freedom that comes with driving. The problem that faces young drivers is that they are often hampered by a lack of adequate training and by their own inexperience. The driving test—and, indeed, driving lessons—focuses too much on controlling and manoeuvring the vehicle, whatever it might be, and not enough on driving independently and in different hazardous conditions. We need to ensure that young drivers are taught properly and gain the experience that will allow them to enjoy the independence that driving brings. We need to help them to drive consistently and safely in all conditions—particularly, as has been discussed, at night, when driving conditions can be very different.
An overhaul of the driving test and learning system is long overdue, and the proposals in the Government’s learning to drive consultation, which aims to change the way in which young people learn and are tested, is a good start. Let me say that very clearly: it is a firm step in the right direction, but my concern is that it is does not yet go far enough. I certainly welcome the Government’s proposal to include a broader syllabus for the driving test, including a section on independent driving, but I remain concerned that, while the new syllabus includes driving at night and in unpleasant weather conditions, the consultation does not mention whether those skills will be tested in the new exam. It would be useful if the Minister clarified that point later.
Paul Flynn: The Transport Committee’s report concluded that improving skills would not result in any necessary improvement, because, often, the drivers are more skilled and their reactions are swifter than those of an older age. The heart of the problem lies in the characteristics of being an adolescent, having an audience in the car and alcohol. Improvement of skills, on which I am sure the organisations that train young drivers are very keen, does not result in reduced accidents.
Mark Hunter:
I am grateful for the intervention and I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but whatever the subject that we might discuss, and on this subject, whatever stage one is at individually, one can always improve one’s skills, and I do not see why that should apply any less to younger people than it might to people of our age group. When we get to a point in life at which we think that we can no longer improve, whether on our
reaction times or on our skills in any sense, that is a pretty poor lookout. We should still aim to improve our skills. It is not the key to, or the only part of, the problem, but it plays a part and it is worthy of attention.
Paul Flynn: It is important that we nail that particular blind alley, because it is not a solution. The Transport Committee said that
“a reformed education and training framework will instil a more responsible approach to driving”,
“there exists little evidence that this will be adequate.”
It is not the way ahead. We need some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) called reforms, which we have been crying out for over many years, not improved training, which will have very little effect.
Mark Hunter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second intervention. I did hear the point the first time. For the Minister’s benefit, I simply repeat my point that the new syllabus, which the consultation sets out, includes driving at night and in poor weather conditions, and my question to him was about whether there are proposals to incorporate those in the driving test.
Another proposed change that the consultation has not yet touched on is the student workbook, which is intended to track the progress of new drivers. It seems a good idea in theory, but the proposal is to make it entirely voluntary, so I wonder whether the Government have estimated the likelihood of students completing the book if it is introduced as a voluntary measure. If the idea is worth doing at all, we should probably regulate it and make it a compulsory part of the scheme, and again, if the Minister could refer to that in his response, I would be very interested in his answer. The workbook is a good idea. Students will have to complete certain tasks under supervision, including driving at night—a problem to which we have already referred. But should the workbook be entirely voluntary, and do we think that there will be sufficient take-up?
The available figures—many of which we have already heard about—prove that allowing drivers on the road with little or no experience of driving at night or in adverse weather conditions can be a fatal mistake, so I agree with the Transport Committee’s report, which says that for all age groups, we need a much more carefully regulated and better organised system for learning to drive. The Government should look again at introducing a minimum learning period and a minimum number of lessons with a qualified instructor, including some lessons that would take place after the driving test had been passed.
The debate has highlighted across the piece that we are striving to reach a fine balance between ensuring that young adults, specifically, young males, can drive safely and that the costs, not just financially but generally, are not too onerous. On the financial considerations, young drivers can currently spend anything up to £1,500 to obtain a full driving licence. I should put that into context by pointing out, with some feeling, that if that person is a university student, the figure represents almost half the cost of one year’s tuition. We must recognise that, for many people, the figure is prohibitively expensive, and we need to look for other ways of helping to ensure that young drivers have good driving tuition.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire mentioned the pass plus scheme, which I understand local authorities in Wales and Scotland subsidise, so will the Minister say whether there have been any discussions about extending it and encouraging local authorities in England to do the same? It would be a useful step forward in trying to combat the problem.
David Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for raising the point that I put to him a moment ago. When the Minister replies about the possibility of English local authorities acting similarly to those in Wales and Scotland, does the hon. Gentleman hope that the Minister will mention what the statistics suggest both about the scheme’s success, and about the accident rates that are associated with the young drivers who undertake the pass plus training that the hon. Gentleman and I both think is very helpful?
Mark Hunter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further intervention. I agree absolutely and encourage the Minister to spell out more precisely the Government’s attitude. There is consensus, it is a very worthwhile scheme and there is a genuine point of interest about whether it can be extended throughout England, given its success in Scotland and Wales.
I agree with many comments today in favour of the graduated licence. Although I acknowledge that there are some concerns that it might create a punitive system for all young drivers, we must face the facts that the system would protect all drivers, including young and novice drivers. In particular, I support the Transport Committee’s recommendation that novice drivers be classed as such, and the proposal that they indicate their status on their vehicle seems sensible. We already have a voluntary system, and giving surrounding drivers warning that a novice is driving the vehicle in front or behind would be helpful to everybody on the road. Have the advantages been considered of making the P-plate scheme compulsory for one year after a driving test? It is currently optional, but there is a lot of support for compulsion, and it would be a small step in the right direction, making other drivers aware that they were driving in proximity to a new or probationary driver.
We have heard that drink-driving is still a massive problem on Britain’s roads, with the latest figures showing that 17 per cent. of all road deaths occur when someone has been driving under the influence of alcohol. We all know that it is a particular problem among young drivers, and the Department for Transport says that drivers aged 17 to 19 years old are 10 times as likely to have a drink-drive crash as all other ages, but I must say—this will not go down well with every Member who has contributed to the debate—that I am not yet convinced that it means that we should lower the alcohol limit to zero for young and novice drivers.
Mark Hunter:
If the hon. Gentleman will just let me make my point, I will allow him to intervene. Although I appreciate the motivation behind that suggestion, it seems to me that there is a danger that we could criminalise young people who might have consumed just a little alcohol, perhaps with a meal, and it would be wrong for them to be criminalised or stigmatised,
just as it would be wrong to criminalise or stigmatise anybody else for doing the same thing.
Our view would be that a better idea is to call for a reduction in the drink-drive limit for all drivers, to bring it into line with most of the rest of Europe. That would be a reduction from 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood to 50 mg.
On that point, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
David Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I agree most strongly with his point that we should not make an exception for young people in relation to alcohol limits for driving, because the statistics indicate, and my own experience bears them out, that younger drivers in a generality are more likely to take a very strict attitude to alcohol before they drive; they are much more likely to do so than some males in older age groups. So we must be careful on this issue.
Mark Hunter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I am pleased to see that we are at one on that particular point.
My suggestion to reduce the drink-drive limit for everyone from 80 mg to 50 mg is backed up by independently collected statistics. Hon. Members may be aware that University college in London has done some detailed research on this issue and it estimates that the proposed reduction could prevent up to 65 deaths and 230 injuries each year. So I think that the facts speak for themselves in support of that reduction.
Finally, we should not forget the very important role that the insurance companies can play in incentivising and encouraging young drivers to get as much training and experience as possible, and rewarding them for doing so. It seems to me that, at the moment, the insurance companies charge young people, especially young male drivers, very substantial premiums; I speak with some knowledge on this subject. I would welcome details about the Government’s work, which I know is going on, to encourage insurance companies to reduce premiums for those drivers who can demonstrate that they have had more training and more development. Again, I invite the Minister to comment further on how far the Government’s discussions with insurance companies are progressing and to say when we might be likely to see such incentives come into place.
So I believe that the problem of young and novice drivers, particularly young male drivers, is a serious issue and it needs a serious solution. The consultation paper proposed by the Government is useful; it is certainly a step in the right direction and it will undoubtedly help. However, I am not entirely convinced that it goes far enough quickly enough. Frankly, we need action on this issue now, not in another five years’ time.
Mr. Hancock (in the Chair): Mr. Hunter, it is just as well that we did not have other hon. Members who wanted to speak, but it is always a pleasure to have the time filled with useful comments.
10.23 am
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |