| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Jun 2009 : Column 155WH—continued
We are proposing that an independent panel looks at the data—I can tell from the hon. Gentleman’s body language that he is not entirely convinced. Neither am I. I do not think that we necessarily have this absolutely right, but we are proposing a national body to advise on make-up, what should be done and so on. We will also
still have an advisory board. I am not sure that we will need that as well as an independent panel. Combining the two might create something more elaborate.
An annual report will be produced that we can debate, probably in this Chamber. Given the number of our constituents who are involved—we are talking about 3,000 people killed and 30,000 seriously injured each year—perhaps we should say that the debate is a more important issue for Parliament, and therefore make a bid for a full debate on the Floor of the main Chamber. I do not wish to detract from the importance of Westminster Hall in any way, Mr. Benton, but perhaps we should collectively lobby our parties for such a debate. It would raise the profile of road safety, and I am sure that more colleagues would be interested in contributing if we got time in the Chamber.
The annual report would at least give us a document. The independent panel would give us advice and recommendations on what we are doing right, what we are not doing right and where we should go, and then we could debate independent advice, Government policies and suggestions from outside and from campaign groups. We are moving into a different era. There will be a different dimension and different analysis in the years after 2010, which will be useful in promoting road safety and helping us to get casualty numbers down even further.
The hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby and for Cheadle raised the issue of drink-driving. They perfectly and eloquently explained different views as to whether we should maintain or reduce the level. Our position is that we are genuinely open. We are looking at the submissions that we receive. We have alluded to the fact that we do not think that the evidence is there yet, but if we get evidence during the consultation period, obviously we would need to publish it and say whether we support a change.
However, as colleagues will know, we have already taken action. We have spent £4 million equipping all the police forces in England and Wales with the new digital breathalysers, which are evidentially approved. That means that we can cut out a loophole. When somebody is stopped and a blood or urine test is demanded, they are taken back to a police station. At the moment, if things are delayed for as long as possible—two or three hours—the person comes in under the radar when the test is finally done. The new digital breathalysers will close that loophole.
Currently, the evidence is that the number of people killed or seriously injured by people who have been drinking and who test between 50 to 80 mg is only 2 per cent. Should we change the law for 2 per cent., with all that that would involve in terms of calibration, legislation, police forces, social and cultural attitudes, the impact on rural communities and the licensed trade and so on, even though we are talking lives, which are absolutely important? Perhaps we should be going after those who kill or seriously injure the other 98 per cent.—the people who are over 80, 100, 150 mg—with better enforcement.
The new breathalysers will at least give us better data, and will do so in a short period of time. We do not have the data at present, but we will have better scientific evidence soon, and we will keep the matter under review. I am not saying that we will not change the level. Drink-driving and the level of alcohol in the system is
never a closed issue. It is constantly under review. We are constantly under pressure from ACPO and from campaign groups, and I know that the issue will not go away in Parliament either. As I said, our minds are open on the matter, and we will look at the evidence that comes in.
The hon. Member for Cheadle mentioned the cost of driving lessons, which was certainly an issue for us when we looked at driving training and testing and how to improve the situation. That it cost so much was a bit of a surprise at the time, but when we looked into the matter further and at the fact that only 44 per cent. of people pass their test each year—fewer pass their test first time—we found that it is the additional lessons that people have to take continuously that create the average fee of £1,500. It is our strongly held view that if we improve training to an appropriate level, more people will pass more quickly, which ought to save money in the long term; but again, the matter will continue to be examined.
The hon. Gentleman will know that measures have been introduced to tackle uninsured driving, including police powers to seize vehicles used on the road by uninsured drivers. Police powers have been improved to access information contained on the Motor Insurers Bureau database. In 2008, police seized about 185,000 vehicles. The seizure programme has contributed to improved compliance. From 2006 to 2008, police forces carried out spot checks on vehicles and found that the level of uninsured drivers fell by half in two years. The proportion of uninsured drivers fell to 1.2 per cent. from 1.9 per cent. The number of vehicles stopped that were without a current MOT fell from 4.2 to 1.5 per cent.; the proportion of drivers stopped who did not have a valid vehicle tax licence fell from 2 to 1 per cent.; and the level of drivers committing a serious offence, such as having no insurance or driving while disqualified, fell to 3.4 per cent. from 7.5 per cent.
That there is a cut of almost 50 per cent. across the board is simply because of technology such as computers and automatic number plate recognition cameras. The police are using the technology far more effectively. When we have continuous insurance enforcement, as we will relatively soon, we will be able to use that information as we use the TV licence-checking system at the moment. We will not need to check people on the road, just as we do not need vans going around detecting whether people have a TV receiver in their home. We will know where they live. They can be written to and, if they cannot explain why the vehicle is not taxed or insured, or has no MOT, they will be open to penalties. We will be bearing down much more strongly on such matters. The hon. Gentleman asked about the level of fines. From memory, I think that I have written to the Ministry of Justice on the matter, but I shall check and let him know. If I have not, I shall do so because it is a fair point. However, I am pretty confident that I have.
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby voiced concerns about the drink-driving level. As I said, that is a live issue and will continue to be so. He also raised the question, as did other colleagues, of the attitude of young men. The foundations of a pre-driving qualification course for 14 to 16-year-olds in schools and colleges are proving very popular, because people feel that they will
get a credit towards their theory test and that that will make the driving test easier for them. The course also informs them about how to behave in the back of a car—about belting up and not winding up the driver, which is one of the things that motivates young drivers to go faster. All the evidence shows that if one person belts up in a car, everybody else does so automatically, but getting that one person to belt up is the focus.
Motorcycle testing is being monitored to ensure that the risk is appropriate, balanced against the need to show competence. The distance that has to be travelled is an issue, but we are getting that down because the number of testing venues is increasing all the time. I have had several meetings with parliamentary colleagues and their constituents, and we have been able to resolve some of these issues. That puts pressure on the DSA to do its best. It is doing its best, and it is still bearing down on the question of ensuring that as many centres are available as possible. It has also been changing how driving tests are booked, because that has been a factor in reducing the availability of some test centres. Professional instructors are block-booking and then cancelling within three days. They do not get a penalty because they are cancelling within the appropriate time, but no one else can take the bookings because their use has not been planned. We are looking at all such issues.
I have seen the suggestion for cyclists from the Mayor. As a cyclist, I am interested, and as a Minister, I and my colleagues look at all the submissions that come in during a consultation. We shall come forward with responses in due course. Transport for London is trialling motorcycles in bus lanes for 18 months, in line with what many other local authorities have done. We shall look at the evidence with interest in due course. I was comfortable with getting TfL into line—the Mayor made the right decision there—and that is the advice we have been giving London for some time.
Finally, I turn to intelligent speed adaptation—another issue on which we run a big risk of being attacked by the lobby that thinks the Government are anti-motoring. We are not, and the other main parties are not anti-motoring. We are pro-road safety, and if we can improve road safety through different initiatives, we would do that. If a tiny minority of people in the motoring community or fraternity—whom I would loosely call the “petrolheads”—accuse us of being anti-motoring, I would accuse them of being anti-road safety. Intelligent speed adaptation could be a powerful tool. I have been in a TfL car and seen ISA working, on a voluntary and on a compulsory basis. The voluntary ISA looks simple and useful as a tool for giving people information. It can use the global positioning system to determine the speed limit in a given area, and a warning device says whether people are going over the speed limit. It will be a tool that those who sell cars can use, just as they are starting to get to grips with other safety devices. They can use them to sell to car buyers, particularly parents buying a first car for a young son or daughter who has just passed their test. The latest technology such as stability control and ABS costs no more than £500. A parent will spend that in order to know that their child, who does not have a lot of experience behind the wheel, has all the technological advances to help keep that car on the road if they have to brake fiercely and need protection.
The technology is improving and motor manufacturers and traders are learning more and starting to promote safe cars, just as they are learning about environmental issues and promoting green cars. They will use ISA to sell vehicles, particularly to parents. The top end of the market now automatically carries such features, which will move down through the rest of the market. European legislation will force manufacturers and traders to do that by the middle of the next decade in any case, so why should they not jump ahead of the game and introduce them earlier?
As I said at the outset of the debate and in beginning my closing remarks, in my view the issue is not party political, but there are disagreements and differences of
opinion about how we can improve the situation. We have all contributed, along with all the people on the front line out there, who are doing the real, hard work of making sure that people are protected as best as possible. We shall continue to debate the issues and to come up with the best possible solutions.
4.9 pm
| Index | Home Page |