| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Cyclists: Highway Code
11.28 am
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a member of several cycling organisations.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will amend the proposed Highway Code so that, instead of providing that cyclists must use cycle facilities (for example, cycle lanes), it provides that they should do so where this would help with their journey.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I ought to declare an interest as an occasional cyclist. The advice on using cycling facilities in the proposed Highway Code is not a legal requirement. It does not place any compulsion on cyclists to use cycle facilities and it remains their decision whether or not they follow this advice. The distinction between legal requirements and advisory rules is made clear in the introduction to the code.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The trouble with it is that others do not seem to agree with him. Recent decisions by a court and by insurance companies would indicate that they think that the Highway Code does have a force in law. This means that in the event of an accident, if a cyclist is not using a cycle path or track, even if it is more dangerous to do so or more inconvenient, there is a chance of contributory negligence. Does my noble friend agree that the simplest way to resolve this dilemma and to clarify the situation is simply to amend the wording and not leave it to legal argument?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Highway Code makes clear in its introduction which parts of the code are a legal requirement and which are not by the simple use of the words “must” and “must not”, which are highlighted in red throughout the code. As for the controversy over the change in wording, the change that was advised—I think it was from “when practicable” to “whenever possible”—was made on the advice of lawyers who believed that the second formulation was more accurate than the first.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, how many times have cyclists been prosecuted for going through red lights, which they do very frequently?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am with the noble Baroness in this regard; as a driver, I sometimes get irritated by cyclists who do that. I do not have those statistics in front of me, but I am willing to try to research them. All road users should be obliged to stick to the Highway Code and obey the rules of the road because that is right, and by doing that we all understand exactly what we are doing on the roads.
Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while it may help cyclists with their journey to ride along the pavements, shoot the red lights and ride the wrong way up one-way streets, it does not help pedestrians? Will the Government construct more cycling facilities but at the same time strengthen the Highway Code and enforce the law much more rigorously to deal with the problem of cyclists who put pedestrians and others at risk?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. He is right and I support what he has said. Through local government, which by and large has a responsibility for cycle routes and so on, we have been investing in providing means whereby cyclists can be safely separated out from other traffic where they do not cause offence, annoyance or the potential for harm and injury to pedestrians.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a regular cyclist. Is the Minister aware that the new Highway Code proposals are in fact at odds with the advice given to cyclists under the national standard for cycle training? Do not these proposals actually make cycling even more dangerous?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think so. Very careful thought has been given to the wording used. We took this out to consultation, and there were concerns about the words used under rule 47. We reflected on that and some of that wording was changed. We continue to listen. I know that noble Lords continue to have concerns over these issues. We are talking regularly to the CTC, the cyclists’ organisation, to try to come to a reasonable accommodation on this, and we will continue to do so because it is in everyone’s interest that we should.
Lord Teverson: My Lords, I passed my driving test in 1969, which was some time ago, and I do not think I have ever looked at the Highway Code since, which is probably a great shame. How can the Government encourage long-term drivers like me to refresh their knowledge of such road skills? It also seems to me that drivers in this country are becoming less tolerant of other road users these days, particularly in terms of minor mistakes. How can we encourage greater civility on our roads? Or is it just my bad driving?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope it is not a common trait on the Liberal Democrat Benches to fail to read the Highway Code. That is not an allegation I would often make against the Liberal Democrats, but there we go. Careful reading of the code is helpful, and I am sure it would make the noble Lord and other noble Lords better drivers.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, 11,000 people have written to their MPs on this issue. Seventy per cent of those who responded to the consultation were cyclists. Surely it is the duty of the Government to try to put this right and change the wording. It must be much more sensible to do that than to have this ambiguity over the Highway Code, because there is a lot of unease about it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I fully acknowledge that there is some unease about the wording, but when one boils it down the argument is about the use of either the term “when practicable” or the term “whenever possible”. The lawyers have given clear advice to the department that “whenever possible” offers greater clarity in legal terms than “when practicable”. In the end, it is a matter of personal judgment. My own view is that the important thing is to improve road safety, and I am not exactly sure that an argument about those two forms of wording will do exactly that. As a Government we have been involving ourselves in practical measures and investing in training so that people become better cyclists and use the roads, and those cycle facilities provided to assist in that process, more safely.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend ever drive home at night and see that the prime danger from cyclists is that they do not light their bicycles properly? There is a constant danger of running into cyclists because they have no lights at the rear of their bicycles, too often their clothing is dark and they often do not wear sufficient protective clothing. Surely cyclists should be induced to save their own lives by looking after their own safety.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps cyclists in Brighton are different. I am not aware of having come across too many cyclists who have failed to indicate where they are going; indeed, they have helped me by what they are wearing and by using a helmet, so I do not entirely agree with my noble friend. We should encourage the safer use of cycles and of course people should wear high-visibility clothing and helmets so that they are better protected. But I also encourage people to think carefully about how they use their cycle and, where appropriate, to have cycling training.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of both motoring and cycling organisations. Forgetting the legal points for the moment, is the Minister really comfortable that the department for which he speaks should appear to endorse wording which virtually all the cycling organisations feel will encourage cyclists to cycle in a way that is less safe than at present? It encourages them, under all circumstances, to use cycle ways which may not be fit for purpose through poor design or poor maintenance.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the department is extremely conscious of the need to get this right. I have gone through the wording very carefully with your Lordships; if your Lordships have a better form of wording, we will listen to it. We have been consulting for a very long time on this and are determined to get it right.
Business
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, immediately after the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, a Statement on Post Offices will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Truscott.
Business of the House: Science and Heritage (S&T Report)
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Science and Heritage (9th Report, Session 2005—06, HL Paper 256) be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Pensions Bill
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Pensions Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Schedule 2,Clauses 12 and 13,Schedule 3,Schedule 1,Clauses 14 and 15,Schedule 4,Clauses 16 and 17,Schedule 5,Clauses 18 and 19,Schedule 6,Clauses 20 to 25,Schedule 7,Clauses 26 to 30.—(Baroness Morgan of Drefelin.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
Cluster Munitions
11.37 am
Lord Elton rose to call attention to the proceedings of the Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions on 22 and 23 February; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Oslo conference was on cluster munitions. During the few moments that it will take the Chamber to empty of those who do not share our aims and ambitions, I will read to your Lordships an eyewitness account of a raid using cluster munitions:
“As they descended, the outer casings were released allowing a number of small anti-personnel bombs to be scattered over a large area .... Some exploded on impact with the ground, some landed in the trees and were suspended by their ‘wings’ on the branches of trees, others caught on guttering, telephone wires, chimney stacks ... The public was asked to report any sighting but under no circumstance attempt to move them ... There was complete terror among the population of the town for many months”.
That town was Grimsby in the United Kingdom. The raid took place in 1943—this is not a new phenomenon. Some of your Lordships will remember, as I do, the leaflets that were stuck up in the streets and handed round in the schools telling one what these things looked like and not to touch them. They will also remember, if they were my curious age at the time, how keen they were to discover one for themselves. Since then, both we and these weapons have grown up.
For the sake of those reading this debate, I should say a little about what modern cluster munitions are. They can be launched by aircraft, rocket or artillery. They contain large numbers of submunitions, or bomblets, which are released over a target area within which enemy soldiers or equipment are thought to be. The submunitions carry a shaped charge of high explosive, intended to explode on impact, driving a bolt of molten metal through whatever it hits, whether it is a tank, a bus, a person or simply a house or field. The field can be the size of a football pitch if an air-launched weapon is used, carrying anything from 147 to 650 submunitions. A single strike by a multi-launch rocket system would saturate all the ground between Vauxhall Bridge and the Oval with thousands of them.
These submunitions are lethal when they detonate. They are more lethal when they do not, because they are apt to go off if disturbed. Our troops do not like them because, if they have to move across the ground on which they have been used, they are in fact walking into an unmarked minefield. Civilians do not like them because many of those killed or maimed after a war are civilians. There are up to 100 civilian casualties every year in Vietnam from a war that finished more than 30 years ago. Handicap International keeps a fully authenticated register of injuries from cluster weapons, which, as of last week, amounted to 11,044. The organisation accepts that only a fraction of such injuries are recorded in this way and believes the total to be nearer 30,000 civilian casualties.
Your Lordships will therefore join me in warmly congratulating the Government on withdrawing two of the three types of weapons that we hold. However, there is a third still in service and ready to use— the M85 155 millimetre artillery shell containing 49 submunitions, which it spreads over an area of roughly 50 metres square. I fear that the Minister holds the view, imparted to him by his advisers, that this is an acceptable weapon because it has a self-destruct mechanism designed to destroy it 15 seconds after impact if it has not already gone off. The manufacturer, Israel Military Industries Ltd, has published claims about this weapon that the Minister may well have read. The company states:
“Our M85 devices are the most environmentally friendly in the world because they leave no environmental hazards behind and only minute numbers of hazardous duds”.
I have seen a video of a 50 metre-square field in the Lebanon with 20 unexploded submunitions of exactly that type in it. If only two rounds were fired at the same spot, very wastefully, that is a failure rate of over 20 per cent. The probability is nearer 40 per cent.
Noble Lords do not have to trust me about that; they may trust instead the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Centre in south Lebanon. Of the use of the same munitions there, the centre says:
“We can state categorically that we are finding large numbers of unexploded M85 submunitions that have failed to detonate as designed and failed to self-destruct afterwards. In effect these submunitions have failed twice. These M85 submunitions are even more dangerous than other types because the self-destruct mechanism makes them more problematic to deal with”.
Those who want to continue using those weapons say that most of these duds are “non-hazardous”. There is no such thing as a non-hazardous dud. The bomblet is designed to explode when a metal striker hits a fulminate of mercury cap inside the weapon. In transit, a metal bar separates the two so that nothing can happen. When the vicious little thing leaves its pod, it begins to spin because of the ribbon on its back. The spin withdraws the bar arming the main detonator by flicking that bar away. The same movement causes a small mechanism to ignite a fuse made of old-fashioned gunpowder and timed to reach the same detonator 15 seconds later.
If the striker has not fired the detonator, the fuse will—so long as the gunpowder has not got damp. If the bomb has armed correctly but the striker has malfunctioned and the powder trail has got damp, you have a bomb waiting for a sufficient jolt to bring the striker down on the cap and blow it up when it is kicked—for instance, by a schoolboy. It is striking that by far the largest number of casualties are boys of an inquisitive age. It may be, of course, that the bomb is blown out of a tree or is run over by a lorry. If, on the other hand, the bomb has not armed because, say, it did not spin when released, what you have is a pretty little toy with a ribbon on the end—a little yellow toy with a little beige ribbon—just the nice sort of thing to whirl round your head if you are a child, and by far the greatest number of casualties are children. That, of course, is spinning it; it is arming the machine. Then, in just 15 seconds, both the bomb and your head will go off.
Such weapons are an affront to humanity and are properly the subject of United Nations interest. The arm of the UN known as the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons was set up to establish international agreement on the use of such weapons. These weapons first came before it in 2001. It has met twice a year since and has made absolutely no progress towards any limitation of the use of these weapons. The Norwegians in particular became exasperated by this lack of progress and on this, their national day—I declare an interest as the son of a Norwegian mother—I am glad to congratulate them on inviting to Oslo any countries prepared to commit to signing an international treaty to limit the use of these weapons by an agreed date.
Forty-nine countries, including the United Kingdom, went to Oslo. It was fascinating and depressing to listen to the discussions and to talk to our delegation until almost the last moment when, gloriously, the United Kingdom joined 45 other countries in committing to a treaty by 2008. That was a wonderful surprise and I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, for his part in securing it, which I believe has been considerable behind the scenes.
What the Government signed up to commits the participating states—I abbreviate the following—to conclude by 2008 a legally binding international instrument that will prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. It goes on about dealing with the aftermath. I worry about the phrase “cause unacceptable harm to civilians”, because that is a huge area for debate. I suspect that the MoD would like us to think that its B45 falls outside that definition. Can we please assure it that we do not? I have read out the manufacturer’s blurb and the United Nations’ damning contradiction of it. Can we therefore please impress on the Minister, as a matter not just of common humanity but of practical politics, the need to get rid of this weapon? We should use what diplomatic wiles we can to get there.
Let me add a few words, as I think that I have inadvertently turned over two pages and have more time than I thought. I pause to commend the Government for the way in which they have committed themselves to clearing mines. On 16 April, the Secretary of State for International Development announced at col. 3WS of Commons Hansard that £6.5 million has been spent on demining in Afghanistan, halving—please note that—but not concluding the continuing rate of civilian casualties. I do not think that we can have used mines in Afghanistan. Did we not sign the Ottawa convention banning them before we invaded? Are we to take it then that this money has been spent on destroying failed British cluster munitions? If so, how many did we fire?
I apologise for not giving the noble Lord notice of this question. He may want to fill out whatever he has to say here on paper. For instance, did we fire on the scale that we did in the first Gulf War, where we fired 3,516—think how many submunitions there were in those—or in Kosovo, where we fired 2,168? How much more land remains to be decontaminated and why are we surprised if the farmers of those fields do not regard us as their saviours and friends?
What matters these days is not what wars you fight, but how you fight them. These weapons make enemies of the very people whom we most need as friends. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall—Field Marshall Lord Bramall—said:
“If you liberally employ munitions that were designed for entirely different circumstances but which under modern conditions of conflict are more notable for the appalling and abiding legacy of death and mutilation that they provide for our own follow-up troops and even more the countless innocent civilians in the area, you would be making substantial inroads into any moral high ground and greatly weaken the chances of achieving your all-important political aim”.
That says it all. We are using weapons that create more enemies than they kill. I ask your Lordships to send to the conference next week at Lima, to which I shall go, a firm message embracing whatever the noble Lord says at the end of this debate, because this is a human catastrophe that we can avoid. I beg to move for Papers.
11.51 am
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for this opportunity to continue the debate that took place on the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Dubs on 15 December, and in particular to indicate our support for what I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us will be the Government’s message to the world at Lima. I congratulate my noble friend on the work that he has done in these negotiations already.
In the limited time available to us, I beg your Lordships’ indulgence to deal with one issue that arose out of that debate. Of course we would all like to see Lima lead to a convention, but in the December debate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised the question of whether cluster bombs are unlawful already. In that debate, the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Coventry and the Bishop of Salisbury pointed out that, even if the use of cluster bombs is said to be lawful, it does not follow that to use them is morally right. When I was young—long, long ago—we often heard the expression, “They can’t touch you for it”. It became a one-liner that was used by comedians again and again. It exposed the excuse that, provided that an action was not unlawful, it did not matter that it was dishonest, selfish or cruel. The lawfulness or otherwise of using cluster bombs does not foreclose the debate.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |