| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I join everybody in the House in welcoming the very good figures on road casualties that came out last week; 408 people are alive in this country today who would not have been alive had it not been for the reduction. I hope that this country is clawing its way back to the top of the European safety record. I believe that only Holland remains ahead of us and I look forward to the years ahead, when we may well make further improvements. I think that tribute has been paid to a lot of different factors—among others, the actions of successive Governments and vehicle design. May I pay tribute to Britain’s drivers, because these improvements are largely due to the sensible attitude of the majority of Britain’s drivers?
I do not wish to rain on the Minister’s parade, but there is one proviso in those figures. The whole of the European Union experienced, on average, a 15 per cent. reduction in casualties last year. That was caused by a number of factors, the first of which has been mentioned: the fact that there was a noticeable reduction in speed on our roads last year when the price of petrol and diesel reached the dizzy heights that it did. We also saw, for the first time since the 1970s, a reduction in traffic on our roads. Last year, there was a 0.8 per cent. reduction because of the recessionary pressures in the economy.
Although I have seen the figures on motorcycle casualties, which showed a slight increase, I wonder how much worse the figures would have been had we had a warm, decent summer. Many of those casualties are the born-again bikers—the people who passed their test on a Triumph Bonneville and now go out and buy a Ducati or a Fireblade and find that although the engine size is about the same the bike has tremendously more performance. Sadly, all too often on BBC Radio York on a Sunday afternoon I hear of yet another casualty on the rural roads of north Yorkshire. If we get more weather like this, I fear that we might well see more of that type of accident. Of course, although motorcycles make up only 1 per cent. of road traffic, they contribute to nearly a fifth of deaths on our roads.
There are a couple of areas where the Government could, perhaps, be doing a little better. In saying that, I would not want to detract from the real progress that has been made in a number of areas. My first area of concern, however, is the motorcycle driving test. As the Minister will know, when the new manoeuvres aspect of the test came in, Ministers or officials failed to notice that the swerve and stop test had to be carried out at 50 kph. As we know, that is 31 mph—more than the speed limit on urban roads, which meant that the Government had to institute a programme of setting up large multipurpose test centres around the country.
That has had two results. First, motorcyclists have to drive far greater distances to access a test. The nearest test centre to my constituency is Hull, which means more than an hour’s journey. If it is winter and a young rider is on a moped or a small capacity motorcycle, it is rather a daunting journey. A number of people have been put off taking their test because of the larger distance involved. Secondly, and perhaps more worryingly, there have been a number of incidents, some of which have resulted in injury, during the controversial swerve and stop test, which must be carried out, as I mentioned, at 50 kph. In fact, in the first three weeks there were 14 incidents, I think, three of which resulted in injuries so serious that the person had to go to hospital.
Before today’s debate, most of the reports of concerns about this matter have been largely hearsay. I have a couple of letters that I have received, however. One is from a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). She says:
“I am a teacher...We are desperately saving for a mortgage and to start a family, but needed transport to get to work...I am too scared to take the test. I have already heard of 2 accidents in the first few days, including a broken arm due to the new manoeuvres that you are required to take. Riding instructors have been speaking out against it, but the current government’s agencies have been ignoring expert advice.”
I have another e-mail that I received only last week from a lady called Jean Galvin, who says:
“I am an older female motorcyclist who is returning to motorcycling after a number of years. I attempted to take the new module 1 test on 28th May and failed. I have no issue with the majority of the test and applaud the testing of slow manoeuvring and clutch control, but I was horrified at the swerve test.
I took this on a 125 which I had to violently accelerate around a curve in order to reach the speed of 50 kph. I was required to do this despite approaching a hazard. On my first attempt, I reached a speed of 49 kph and felt sure that if I had attempted to swerve in the required manner I would crash (as have many others). I used my best judgment and avoided the hazard in a safe way i.e. without the swerve.
All of my instincts tell me not to accelerate toward a hazard—how can this be expected of any motorcyclist. It is now my intention to continue retaking my CBT”—
that is, her compulsory basic training—
“and to ride my 125 until such a time as the”
“comes to its senses and changes this situation. My heart goes out to the family of the person who will become the first fatality.”
Riders are being deterred from taking training and from taking the test. Having taken the compulsory basic training, which is basically like riding round cones in a car park—actually, it is better than that, but it is very basic initial training—riders realise that they can ride for two years without taking a test. I am concerned that many riders will continue to ride for two years, take the CBT and ride for two years again. That will result in less well trained motorcycle riders on our roads.
The second point that I want to raise is the issue of drink and drug-driving. The Opposition do not intend to reduce the drink-drive limit, for the very reasons that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) stated. Many other EU countries have lower limits, but they do not have the gold standard ban. As we have seen with speeding, giving people points on their licence and fines does not deter them.
We feel that retaining the ban is very important, and for that reason we will not follow the example of other EU countries. However, I applaud the campaigns carried out by Ministers during the summer and at Christmas to raise awareness of drink-driving. If we get directly elected police commissioners in this country, they might want to put prioritising the enforcement of drink-driving in their election manifestos.
Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the double approach of a lower drink-drive limit and the threat of disqualification is more likely to ensure that people are less inclined to drink-drive than what he is proposing?
Mr. Goodwill: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but feel that his proposal may be seen as too draconian. All too often when we read of an accident in the newspapers, it involves a person who is twice or three times over the limit. We need to make sure that we are policing the existing limit before we move further.
I turn now to the issue of drug-driving, in respect of which the UK is lagging behind many other countries in the world. We still rely on the field impairment test, which was used for drink-driving before Barbara Castle introduced the breathalyser. Drivers suspected of being under the influence of drugs are expected to walk down a white line at the side of the road.
It is 2009. Countries such as France, Germany, Belgium, Romania—for goodness’ sake!—Croatia, Italy, Australia, Spain, Switzerland, Finland, Iceland, the Czech Republic and Luxembourg all have roadside drug-testing equipment that is deployed and used by police. Why is the UK lagging behind?
I have seen the tests demonstrated. Using a saliva test at the roadside, they test for up to two drugs, although a new generation of equipment will soon test simultaneously for six different drugs.
Norman Baker: I promise not to report the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the Romanian ambassador, but does he agree that the problem does not involve illegal drugs only and that it is important that any test should take account of prescribed drugs as well?
Mr. Goodwill: That is true, but GPs also have a responsibility. I tabled a parliamentary question recently to ask how many GPs, having prescribed a drug for which driving was forbidden after use, then reported to the driving licence authorities that the patient involved should not continue to drive while taking that drug. In many cases, GPs may be reluctant to put their relationship with patients at risk by grassing them up, so to speak, to Swansea.
We need a debate on how we should treat drug-driving in the courts if we had drug-testing equipment out in the field. It would be difficult to set a safe limit for the drugs that we are talking about because they are illegal, and that is not the case with alcohol. I have not discussed this matter at any length with my colleagues who shadow the Justice Department or the Home Office but, although we could make it an offence for a person to have any drug at all in his system, I suspect that the Crown Prosecution Service might have to issue guidelines about the level of intoxication at which a prosecution could be brought.
There is a precedent with speeding, for which the guidelines laid down by the Association of Chief Police Officers make it clear that a prosecution may be brought if a driver does 10 per cent. over the limit, plus 2 mph. Another example might involve theft: if, God forbid, I stole an orange from a stall in Pimlico market I may be let off with a warning, but if I hijacked a 38-tonner full of oranges I would be for the high jump. We need a genuine debate about how we police drug-driving, once the equipment is being used and deployed. I think that all parties would like to work constructively together to try to reach a solution to that vexing problem.
Young drivers have been mentioned, and we have certainly looked carefully at ideas such as raising the driving age to 18 and limiting the number of young
people to two in a car. We are giving conflicting advice: we are saying that, if young people go out together, they should nominate a driver; but surely, in those circumstances, it is a good idea to have four or five people in the car if the driver has not been drinking. We have rejected the idea of a curfew, but we are very well aware of the risk to young drivers—it is the single biggest killer of 15 to 24-year-olds in the OECD countries, and the death rate among under-25s is double the normal death rate.
Mr. Martlew: To clarify, the Opposition’s position is to do nothing. Is that correct?
Mr. Goodwill: The Opposition’s position is to look at how the driving test can be made more appropriate and to make the driving test better but not necessarily harder. I have discussed with the Minister’s predecessor the young men who pass their tests with flying colours, but the rather nervous drivers who perhaps scrape through the test are often the ones who are killed in accidents or incidents. So we need to make the test more appropriate to the conditions that young drivers face.
During the consultation that, I think, has recently closed, we suggested taking the manoeuvres out of the driving test—the three-point turn, parallel parking and reversing around a corner—to buy an additional 15 or 20 minutes during the test when other driving skills, such as perhaps driving at higher speeds, could be examined to try to determine which young drivers are likely to be at risk.
Rogue drivers have been mentioned. As the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said, the fines that have been levied for having no insurance policy are often much less than the premiums paid by 17-year-olds. I do not know whether many hon. Members saw the “Top Gear” programme a couple of weeks ago, when Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond posed as 17-year-olds when trying to insure their cars. I must add that, of course, they did so over the telephone. I am sure that Mr. Hammond might just have been able to carry it off, but the other two would have certainly failed miserably. They were quoted punitive premiums, so it is no wonder that many young people decide to become rogue drivers.
Sadly, these days, it is very easy to be a rogue driver, given the ease of cloning vehicles. Police around the country are deploying many more automatic number plate detection systems, which are very good at picking up cars that are not insured or MOT-ed, or those that have been flagged up on the police national computer as being of interest, but it is very easy to steal a number plate from another identical car or even to go on to the internet to buy a so-called show plate that can be placed on a car and used to clone another one.
Two years ago, I went on to one of those show plate sites on the internet and managed to buy number plates identical to those on the Prime Minister’s Jaguar XJ6. Surely, if I can clone the Prime Minister’s car, any car in the country could be cloned. I hasten to add that I did not put the plates on to my car, so congestion charge notices have not been arriving at No. 10 Downing street. However, the Government thought that they had ticked the box and come up with a solution because one
had to show photographic proof of identity, along with the car’s log book, when presenting oneself at a garage to buy number plates.
Sadly, one can go to a variety of internet sites that advertise show plates, and although there is a warning at the bottom of the website saying that the plate must not be used on vehicles on the road, the plates are identical to the ones provided legitimately and can be used very easily to clone vehicles. Similarly, when plates are attached to a car, they can be removed and placed on another car. I suggest that simple, basic technology—the word “technology” does not even describe it—such as tamper-proof number plates that are broken if removed, could prevent such cloning from going on and mean fewer rogue drivers on our roads. All too often, it is the rogue drivers, who are not insured, who may be disqualified and whose cars might not be roadworthy who are involved in accidents on our roads.
On speed enforcement, in some ways the Government could be accused of being a one-club golfer, given their reliance on fixed-speed cameras. As we see from the large number of people who have been fined because of those cameras, they are not even effective at stopping people speeding in areas where there are cameras, never mind where there are no cameras. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned reactive signs. A reactive sign costs only £7,000, whereas a fixed-speed camera is £40,000. We look with interest at the experiment in Swindon, where the Conservative-controlled council has withdrawn from the safety partnership and is deploying the money in other ways to try to improve safety on its roads. My constituency is in north Yorkshire, where we do not have any fixed-speed cameras, and it is interesting that it has never been drawn to my attention that improvements in road safety are any lesser in north Yorkshire than anywhere else in the country.
Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the view of Her Majesty’s official Opposition that breaking the law should not be condoned?
Mr. Goodwill: Certainly, we absolutely condemn anyone breaking the speed limits. I am talking about how we can effectively police those speed limits. I went to Bradford recently—I am not used to driving there—and saw a lot of cars slowing down to go past the cameras, but speeding up afterwards. Local people know where the cameras are. Hundreds of thousands of people have been caught by the cameras. We need a more intelligent approach to the issue, and we need to look carefully at where cameras are located.
I am a big fan of time-over-distance, or average, cameras. Where they have been used in Scotland, they have been very effective. I say that because they have caught so few people, and surely that is the test of whether a camera system is effective. It is effective if it does not catch people speeding because it deters them from speeding. When such cameras are used on contraflows where there are motorway roadworks, they have worked very well at keeping speed down. Interestingly, on motorways where there are no roadworks, where time-over-distance cameras have been deployed, journey times have improved. If a person speeds down the fast lane of a motorway, causing other people to pull in, it often increases the journey time for many other people on the road.
We have rejected the suggestions that Ministers made earlier in the year that there should be a blanket 50 mph speed limit on rural roads. Where lower speed limits are appropriate, they should be introduced. Similarly, 20 mph speed limits should be introduced where they are appropriate, but there should not necessarily be a blanket introduction over an area. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Colchester talk about the warning signs that he had seen in Derbyshire outside a school. That system is used widely in New Zealand; head teachers can deploy signs that light up at important times of day, such as when children are arriving or leaving.
We are looking closely at the system in Spain—I do not know whether the Minister has heard of it—where a reactive sign is placed just before a light-controlled pedestrian crossing. If a motorist triggers that sign, it deploys the red light on the pelican crossing, so that he has a “time out” there. Not only is he given the inconvenience of having to wait, but drivers in the cars behind him—and, more importantly, drivers coming in the other direction, who have eye contact with him—can show their disapproval.
I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, again for presenting her report. There is much in it that is worthy of further action. Although I have been a little critical of the Government in one or two areas, the vast majority of what they are doing takes us in the right direction. If it was not, the figures would not be so good. However, I would like the Minister to look closely at the issues of the motorcycle test, better roadside drug-testing equipment and how we can clamp down on rogue drivers by cutting out all the bogus, counterfeit number plates around the country. One police officer told me that it was estimated that there were 20,000 cloned vehicles on our road.
5.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Clark): We have had an interesting, if short, debate on a fundamentally important issue, and I am delighted to respond to it. At the outset, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) for her work in chairing the Select Committee, and for presenting us with an important report on an issue that affects so many of us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), among others, has often said that the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads, compared to those involving other modes of transport, is appalling. Before I turn to the clearly heartening statistics that were released last week, let me say that I agree that even one death is one too many. Members from all parts of the House strive to reduce the numbers, and although there should never be any cosy relationship between the Government and the Select Committee—or, indeed, the Opposition—we share that goal of reducing road casualties. Collaborative work and ideas will help us to achieve what many of us want, which is zero deaths.
Last week’s published statistics for 2008 showed excellent progress on reducing the toll of injury and, particularly, death on British roads. Several Members have referred to the 14 per cent. reduction in deaths since 2007, and that occurred across all transport modes: pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, and occupants of cars, buses, coaches and goods vehicles.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |