Orders of the Day — Road Safety Bill

House of Commons, 11 January 2005.

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill takes forward legislation that will, I hope, help to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur every day on the roads and to improve road safety for all road users.

The UK has one of the best road safety records in the world. It is a record that most EU countries, for example, strive to match. We are better than the United States and the Australians, and on a par with Sweden and the Netherlands, yet the fact remains that 10 people are killed on our roads every day. It is against that background that I ask the House to consider the Bill.

Like successive Governments, this Government are committed to reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. That is why, in March 2000, we set out a strategy to deliver substantial reductions in road casualties. I remind the House of the targets we set: a 40 per cent. reduction in all road casualties by 2010, with a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of children who are killed or seriously injured.

Good progress has been made. For example, in 2003 we saw a 6 per cent. fall in the number of people killed or seriously injured—the biggest annual drop since the road safety strategy was launched four years ago. By 2003, the number of people killed or seriously injured had fallen by 20 per cent., which means we are about halfway towards our 40 per cent. target for 2010, and the number of children killed or seriously injured had fallen to just over 4,100, which is more than three quarters of the way towards achieving the 50 per cent. reduction target for children.

Despite that welcome progress, too many people are killed or seriously injured.

Denis Murphy (Labour, Wansbeck)

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the tragic case in my constituency in which a young child, Rebecca Sawyer, was killed and her family seriously injured by a hit and run driver. The individual responsible had 89 previous convictions, one of which was for causing death by dangerous driving. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public need to be protected from such individuals, who kill and maim? As the Bill passes through the parliamentary process, will he examine in detail the possibility of introducing a new offence of causing death by aggravated dangerous driving, which could carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

We all have the greatest sympathy for the family who were affected by that accident, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that many people are needlessly killed or seriously injured by bad driving. As a result of changes that have been made, the maximum penalty is, I think, 14 years for causing death by dangerous driving. The Home Office is considering whether a series of aggravated offences should be introduced. Such offences are not in the Bill because the issue is still being looked at and further consideration is necessary, but most hon. Members would hope that the courts take incidents that involve death or serious injury on the road very seriously indeed. Someone who kills someone else using a car is just as guilty and just as culpable as someone who uses a weapon to do so. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to what is happening.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

My right hon. Friend mentioned the ongoing Home Office review of the various offences where death is caused by bad driving. Will he prevail on the Home Office to look at an offence of causing death by careless driving? He might have already received a letter from my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Melnik, about the tragic death of their 17-year-old daughter, who was killed recently by a careless driver. As no offence of causing death by careless driving is known to English law, the driver could not be charged with any offence that marked the fact of her death at all. He could only be fined—a price paid for the loss of a life caused by criminal negligence of just £500.

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Again, I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The Home Office and my Department are looking at aggravated offences, because it is important that society can show its disapproval when someone causes death in that way. As I said just a few moments ago, killing someone with a car, where someone is culpable, needs to be dealt with. It needs to be treated by the courts with the utmost seriousness and, where necessary, exemplary sentences ought to be imposed. We should be very clear about the fact that someone who drives dangerously or carelessly and causes the death of someone who would otherwise be alive is just as guilty as if they took a weapon to them, resulting in their death.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

rose—

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I will give way; then I want to make some progress.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I am sorry to delay the Secretary of State. My constituency has a particularly bad accident record, and we are very grateful to the Government for giving the local authority £750,000 as a pilot measure. In 18 months, there have been six very tragic incidents in my constituency of death by dangerous driving, some of which I have raised on other occasions on the Floor of the House. The Home Office is reviewing the sentences for causing death by dangerous driving. I know that that is not my right hon. Friend's Department, but is he able to say when we are likely to know the outcome of the review?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise date on which the Home Office will conclude its review, but Ministers are well aware, both from their constituency experience and from what my hon. Friend and others have said in the House, that people want us to make proposals as quickly as is reasonably possible. It is important that we get such things right. Equally, as I said, despite the fact that our overall record is better than that of many other countries, today, like every other day, nine or 10 people will be killed on our roads, and many of those accidents are avoidable.

There is no single solution to reducing the number of road accidents, and the right approach relies on a number of different measures. That is what we are doing: we are continuing to implement measures—for example, more local safety schemes. We are continuing to roll out the safety camera programme. We are involved in the greater promotion of road safety under the Think! advertising campaign. Indeed, a new phase of the television advertising campaign is starting today in relation to speed.

We are also considering measures that can improve the dreadful statistics on motor cycle accidents. Although motor cyclists account for 1 per cent. of road users, they account for 20 per cent. of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. In particular, there is a need to get across to people who use motor cycles, sometimes infrequently, the fact that, used the wrong way, motor cycles can cause the death of the motor cyclist and, indeed, other road users.

Ian Liddell-Grainger (Conservative, Bridgwater)

One of the problems in the rural area that I represent is that websites are now challenging motor cyclists to compete at high speed in a circuit. We lost five motor cyclists in fatal crashes in the area last year. We have tried to get the websites shut down, with the help of the Home Secretary, but have failed. Will the Secretary of State please look to see whether we can do something about such things, which are killing people?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

We are aware of those websites, and many hon. Members will have seen them. The problem is that people are encouraged to use motor cycles—sometimes they are not used to riding powerful machines—in places where they are led to believe that they can go fast, when there is some sort of challenge, and they end up killing themselves and others. As I said, motor cyclists account for 20 per cent. of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Over the past year or so, the statistics have been going the wrong way and there has been a rise in the number of motor cyclists killed or seriously injured.

The hon. Gentleman knows that stopping people putting things on websites is easier said than done. There is sometimes a fine line between what is acceptable and unacceptable. I am aware that in constituencies such as the hon. Gentleman's and others, especially if people visit them at weekends and so on, there has been an alarming rise in motor cycle deaths. The Government take that seriously, as should society. It is not just about the individuals involved, but about others as well.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

There have been motor cycling fatalities in my constituency in recent months. Has my right hon. Friend considered the suggestion of Brake and other organisations that we should re-test born-again bikers, as they are sometimes called, who take up motor bike riding after a period of inactivity, to ensure that they have appropriate and up-to-date experience for the bike they ride? Will he also consider the role of protective clothing, which would help to reduce the number of serious injuries?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

My hon. Friend may be aware that motor cycling organisations have put a number of proposals to the Government, one of which is a further test before someone drives a larger or more powerful motor bike. When I first looked at this matter I was surprised to find that someone such as me, who has held a driving licence for 30 years and has never driven a motor bike, could buy a powerful machine and ride off on it tomorrow morning. The chances are that if I was not used to it I could get into difficulties. We want to consider that. I am bound to say to my hon. Friend, however, that I do not know how we would decide whether someone was a born-again motor cyclist as opposed to another sort of motor cyclist.

We must tread a fine line between allowing people to enjoy what can be the extremely pleasurable activity of using their motor bikes while at the same time protecting them and road users. I again remind the House that motor cyclists account for 1 per cent. of road users but 20 per cent. of deaths and serious injuries. If we are serious about making further inroads into road casualties, we need to consider that. Like everything else, none of these things is without difficulties. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those suggestions.

There are three strands to the Bill, the first of which addresses the problem of bad or irresponsible driving through better detection, better enforcement and more effective penalties. The second clamps down on motorists who break the law—for example, by driving without insurance or using cars, vans or lorries that are unroadworthy. The third, of course, raises driving standards and improves awareness through better education and training.

Gerry Steinberg (Labour, City of Durham)

I suspect that, like me, every Member of Parliament has had a constituent who was killed by someone driving dangerously. With great respect to the Secretary of State, it is all right being sympathetic but, frankly, the Government do not take notice of Back Benchers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) outlined his incident. I can give one exactly the same.

We have debated the subject in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. We have received sympathy all along the line from Home Secretaries. I have met two Home Secretaries in the past four years and still nothing is being done. Week after week, our constituents are murdered by criminals on the road. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to give us sympathy. We are not after that. We are after justice. It is about time that it was recognised that virtually every Member of Parliament wants something done about people who break the law in their cars and murder our constituents. It is like allowing them to do what they like with a gun.

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I said earlier that I find it difficult to make an intellectual differentiation between a person who sets out with a gun and shoots someone and a person who drives irresponsibly or dangerously and ends up killing someone. I said that the penalties for causing death by dangerous driving have been increased, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend that nothing has been happening. Although deaths have been increased slightly, serious injuries have fallen. We have introduced a range of measures, and there are further measures in the Bill that I hope to discuss in the not too distant future which will help. Three things are necessary—education and awareness; making sure that there is the right range of offences and penalties; and—this is not in the hands of the House and the Government—ensuring that people who administer the judicial system use the available powers so that if someone kills someone else, as my hon. Friend described, an appropriate penalty is visited on them. Road traffic offences should not be regarded as lesser offences. People are often left with the impression that although a death has been caused the perpetrator is dealt with quite differently from someone who sets out with a gun or something else.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am mindful of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and would like to make progress. I shall try, however, to let everyone who wishes to intervene do so.

The first strand in the Bill tackles bad or reckless standards of driving. Research has shown that driver behaviour is a key factor in about half of all car fatalities. Excessive speeding needs to be addressed, because over 1,000 people are killed and over 38,000 are seriously injured every year as a result of speeding. The use of safety cameras is controversial and has been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the House over the past year. However, I repeat that cameras are one way of addressing speeding and road safety, provided that they are effectively placed. The latest independent research, which I presented to the House last June, shows that there has been a 40 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious injuries at safety camera sites. Cameras are, of course, only one of a number of measures, but we are right to continue a policy introduced by the previous Government—until fairly recently, it received bipartisan support—as all the evidence shows that cameras reduce accidents.

Research suggests that the greatest reduction in road casualties would result from reducing excessive speeding. The Bill allows us to vary the system of penalty points to see what can be done further to discourage people from speeding excessively. That is controversial, so I shall I shall say a word about it. The Bill allows for a graduated structure of fixed penalty points. It does not introduce them, but it allows us, after statutory consultation, to introduce an order that would provide for a variable system of penalty points and fines. I made it clear in the preliminary discussion document that we published last September that there should be a variable system of penalty points and fines to make sure that the punishment fits the nature of the crime.

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I said that there would be interest in the matter, and I am happy to deal with all the points that my hon. Friends wish to make. However, first, I shall make two points. The Bill allows for a system of graduation, and the preliminary discussion document showed that a majority of people thought that a graduated system of penalty points was a good thing. It is fair to say that there is a division about how that graduation should work. The Bill, however, makes it possible to introduce a graduated system, which is essential. Once the Bill has become law, we will have a discussion about the nature of the scheme.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his patience. A pedestrian hit at 20 mph has a 95 per cent. chance of survival, one hit at 30 mph has a 50 per cent. chance of survival, but one hit at 40 mph has a 10 per cent. chance of survival. I support the concept of graduated fixed penalties but, under clause 16, the Secretary of State seems to be suggesting a reduction in the penalty for some speeding from three points to two points. I am bemused by that, particularly in the light of what he said this afternoon about the seriousness with which he views speeding and the death that can result. The House might send the wrong message if it dropped the penalty for speeding from three to two points.

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Last September, I made it clear that I think it important that any penalty regime distinguishes between somebody who is just over the speed limit and somebody who had driven far too fast, especially in built-up areas. The point that I made then, which I repeat today, is that if someone is not caught by a speed camera, but is instead sent to court, the court itself makes that distinction, depending on the circumstances.

It comes down to whether or not we believe that by having a two-point penalty and a £40 fine, as opposed to a three-point penalty and a £60 fine, drivers will say, "Oh, it is all right. I don't care." Most drivers start with the assumption that they do not want any penalty points or any fines. The point of the discussion document, which I introduced to find out people's views, was to see whether support exists for graduation, and the answer is yes.

Outside built-up areas, there is less of an argument, but in built-up areas people ask, "Is it right to impose a two-point penalty and a 30 to 40 mph speed limit?" Having considered that question for some weeks, the matter turns on whether people believe that a two-point penalty, as opposed to a three-point penalty, means that someone will be more likely to speed—in other words, the difference is one point. I take a different view from my hon. Friend's and happen to believe that the proposal that I introduced in September is right.

Today, we are dealing with a Bill that allows graduation. Some people—not, I think, the majority—say "no graduation at all", and their position is straightforward. After the Bill is enacted, we will be obliged to consult by statute. People must be able to see fairness and proportion in all laws, but I do not believe that the one-point difference that we are discussing, will mean that lots of people say, "Well, it is all right to break a 30 mph speed limit." I do not think that I am being inconsistent—I would say that—but I understand my hon. Friend's point.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I want to push my right hon. Friend on that point. In the context of clause 16, is he therefore saying that he is open to persuasion that the arguments set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) might be a better solution than his initial feeling that a move down is possible? Is he open to persuasion, or is he taking a fixed view at this stage?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

It will clearly be for the Secretary of State to decide the Government's final view after the Bill has been enacted. Last September, I recognised that the issue is controversial, but I thought that my proposal was fairer and more appropriate. However, it is self-evident that not only Second Reading, but Committee and the rest of the proceedings should be used to raise those issues in the House of Commons, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and others will make their views clear.

At the moment, my view remains that my proposal from last September is reasonable, but we must consult formally, and when we consult there will be a specific proposal which will allow everybody concerned, whether organisations or individuals, to come forward, and the House will form a view. Throughout the past year or so, speed cameras have been a controversial issue. People understand that a balance must be struck between being fair to all of us, including those of us who drive, and remembering the purpose of speed cameras, which is to save lives. That point underpins my whole approach. We have to be fair and take people with us, but let us not lose sight of the fact that speed cameras do save lives and reduce serious injury. It is good that since we published the figures last summer we have heard rather less of the hysterical talk about removing every speed camera wherever it is.

The Bill has other provisions on developing and using retraining courses for more serious speeding offences. They are based on the successful drink-drive rehabilitation schemes and are set out in clauses 24 and 25.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Can my right hon. Friend tell us about the Government's thinking on drink-driving, especially in relation to discussions with the Home Office about increased sentences for drink-driving and increased sanctions for uninsured or even unlicensed drivers, as in the major problem of kids taking cars and joyriding?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I will move on to insurance and roadworthy vehicles in a moment.

Drink-driving is obviously a matter of major concern, and we continue to have discussions with colleagues in the Home Office in relation to that offence. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that despite all the campaigns of the past 30 years, alcohol is a factor in nearly one in seven of all fatal crashes—that is, nearly 500 deaths a year. That must be dealt with. Up to 20 per cent. of those drink-drive convictions concern the cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) is particularly worried about, involving repeat offenders who are predominantly younger male drivers. We must not only improve education, but improve detection and increase the number of people who are caught drinking and driving.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I want to set out what we are doing, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.

The Bill provides for the introduction of roadside evidential breath-testing, which is far more efficient—it avoids the visit to the police station and saves police time—and more effective. There is a secondary power under which we intend to make repeat drink-driving offenders—for instance, someone who is automatically banned for three years after a second conviction—retake their driving tests. That is justified. We are also making provisions concerning serious offenders in relation to their medical examinations, as there is a loophole there that needs to be closed. Finally, we are allowing for the future use of alcohol ignition interlocks, which have been shown to be effective in discouraging reoffenders in other countries. Those provisions are set out in clauses 14 and 15.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I support those three measures.

In 1998, when the Department for Transport was part of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, it estimated that lowering the legal limit from 80 to 50 would save about 50 lives a year. Has my right hon. Friend's Department updated that estimate to today?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

We continually keep the level of the limit under review. Most of the people with whom we deal are way above 80. Obviously, if the limit were lowered additional people would, by definition, be caught by it. However, at the moment the Government believe that the right level is 80. We always keep such matters under review. I am very conscious of the fact that our problem in this country, sadly, is that people are often not just over the limit—there would be a stronger argument for a reduction if we were catching a lot of people on 82 or 85—but way over the limit. The people we must really have a go at are those who do not just do it once but are caught and second and a third time. The bigger problem, which I suspect would occur even were the limit dropped to, say, 50, concerns the people who believe that they can have one or two drinks and it will be all right. In some cases it is not all right.

For a long time, I thought that we were reaching a situation in which drinking and driving would become socially unacceptable—that people simply would not put up with it and peer group pressure would take effect. Sadly, however, there appears to be a trend, especially among younger people, of saying, "It doesn't matter." We need to get it across to people that drinking and driving can kill the driver, the driver's friends and others. We will keep the level under review but the Government currently believe that it is set at the right amount and have no plans to change it.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I believe that the Government are right to keep that under review and not to make a change. Since 1979, the number of deaths that have occurred when the driver or rider is above the existing legal limit has decreased from approximately 1,800 a year to around 500. Even if the lower limit would bring the drivers involved in another 50 deaths into the ambit of the law, it is far better, as the Secretary of State said, to concentrate on those who are over the current legal limit or have consumed twice that. Cultural change needs to continue so that drink driving does not go on even at its current rate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman report to the House if it transpires that countries with a lower legal limit turn out to have fewer drink driving deaths than us? While we continue to have fewer deaths than those countries, it is better to continue with an effective policy rather than do things that simply change numbers, not behaviour.

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I should certainly report to the House if such evidence emerged. However, the evidence, especially in continental Europe, does not show fewer deaths. My counterpart in France has been here to see what we do, because drinking and driving in France is a serious offence. Some countries in other parts of Europe have lower limits but no automatic disqualification. Drinking and driving is so important that it is right to signify our concern and disapproval through automatic disqualification of someone who is caught doing it. Of course, we will examine evidence not only from the rest of Europe but other parts of the world.

Two things will make a difference. The first is repeating the message that drinking and driving can kill. Secondly, if people believe that they are more likely to get caught than not, it concentrates the mind wonderfully. I therefore welcome the fact that many chief constables are turning their attention to the matter and recognising that it is a problem that needs to be tackled and regarded as seriously as other crimes.

I said that the Bill will increase penalties. The penalty for careless driving will increase from £2,500 to £5,000. Driving using a hand-held mobile phone will become an endorsable offence. We will also unify the penalties for seat-belt offences in relation to children. There is currently a lesser penalty for not wearing a seat belt in the back seat than for not wearing one in the front seat. There is no good reason for that. We will also introduce a mandatory disqualification for a second offence of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition.

We believe that those measures taken together will send a clear message to those who persist in driving recklessly or irresponsibly.

The second strand of measures clamps down on drivers who do not respect the rules of the road. Recent research has shown that unlicensed drivers are six to nine times more likely to have an accident than drivers with road tax. We need to deal more effectively with the one in 20 drivers who currently drive without insurance. We know from experience that they are high risk drivers who impose costs on the rest of us and can also cost lives. That is why the Bill includes several provisions to tighten up the regime.

The Bill will enable the police to make use of data already held by the motor insurance industry about vehicles that are not insured. Furthermore, for the first time, the police will be given the power to seize and dispose of vehicles that are uninsured, as part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which is currently in Committee.

Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool, Riverside)

Does the Secretary of State accept that, although it is important to change the law to ensure that the Data Protection Act 1998 does not impede fining people who drive unlicensed or uninsured, it is equally important that people who operate the system are aware of the law? When the Select Committee took evidence on that, we found a great deal of confusion about the state of the law.

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

There is much to be said for clarity about the law, no matter what subject we tackle, but I agree with my hon. Friend and we clearly need to attend to the problem. It is important to stress that, shortly, especially when the MOT computerisation programme is completed, the police will be able to tell whether a car has got its MOT, whether it is taxed and whether the driver is insured. That information has not hitherto been available on a database to police officers, but it will be shortly. This will cut down on evasion. It will also make it easier for the police to take action if they find someone driving without insurance, a licence or an MOT.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Will the Secretary of State consider the problem of people who seek to avoid more serious charges by failing to identify who was driving a vehicle at the time of an incident? In a recent case, a constituent of mine, Tony Davies, was the innocent victim of a road traffic accident in which the two people in the other vehicle refused to identify who had been driving and got off with a lighter charge as a result. What plans does the Secretary of State have to deal with this issue?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

The Bill contains provisions to deal with that problem. Failure to disclose who was driving will result in a penalty of six points. My hon. Friend is right; at the moment, it might be open to a serious offender to refuse to identify who had been driving because they could get off with a lesser penalty as a result.

We wish also to provide a new system of endorsement of driving licences that will allow non-Great Britain licence holders to be given fixed penalties for traffic offences. We are also seeking powers that would allow the police and other officers to take a deposit from non-GB licence holders in lieu of a fixed penalty, or pending a court hearing. This will ensure that overseas truck drivers do not escape punishment when they commit offences, as can happen too easily now. We are also seeking the power to enable the disclosure of driver and vehicle data to foreign authorities, when that would be important.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

In regard to HGV drivers coming from abroad, will there be any discussions in Europe to ensure that the requirements are equalised? I am referring in particular to the restriction on insulin-dependent diabetics.

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Yes, such discussions are continuing with a view to reaching an agreement on those issues. As traffic between this country and the rest of Europe increases, it is only sensible to try to ensure that people are treated in the same way. We particularly want to avoid a situation in which, for very good reasons, someone could be dealt with quite strictly here but could escape if they went elsewhere. This would benefit all the countries involved, and those discussions are taking place at the moment.

David Marshall (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Further to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) has just made on HGVs, the Secretary of State has not yet mentioned any measures relating to these vehicles. They are involved in a high number of accidents, especially during the night. These accidents often involve side impacts, and many of the drivers involved have said that this is because they did not see the HGV until it was too late. Has my right hon. Friend seen the evidence submitted by the organisation Reflect, which calls for ECE 104 to become mandatory in the UK? This would require retro-reflective markings to be fitted to the sides of all HGVs. Does he accept that this is a good suggestion, and that that provision should be introduced throughout the whole of the EU?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I have seen some of that evidence, and I know that it has been considered in Germany in particular. My understanding is that the evidence is still being evaluated, and that it is not overwhelming. However, the Government will look very seriously at anything that would reduce the number of accidents involving HGVs. My hon. Friend is right to say that HGVs are involved in a number of accidents, and we need to consider what we can do to reduce that number.

The Bill will give the police and other authorities greater powers to deal with problems on the roads. This is supported by a strategy published this morning by my Department and the Home Office, which reaffirms road policing as a priority area.

The last strand of the Bill contains measures to improve driving standards, which is one of the most important elements of what we are doing. It is a fact that young and newly qualified drivers have a greater likelihood of being involved in an accident in their first year of driving. Indeed, one in five accidents involve a driver who has passed their test in the preceding year. Furthermore, 17 to 21-year-olds represent about 6 per cent. of licence holders, yet they are involved in about 12 per cent. of all injury accidents.

The Bill will put in place measures to provide for higher standards for professional driving instructors and to regulate driving schools, including not only those who give instruction, but franchisees as well as employees. The aim is to ensure that drivers and riders of all types of motor vehicles are tested in accordance with the demands of today's traffic conditions.

In conclusion, the Bill will help to create a safer and fairer environment for motorists. It will provide additional protection for all road users, but especially the more vulnerable groups of pedestrians and cyclists.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I shall take one further point, and then I think that I shall stop.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

My right hon. Friend has not really mentioned the impact of motorists' road safety on pedestrians and cyclists. When cyclists are involved in road accidents, it is always up to them to prove that a motorist was the guilty party—one presumes innocence before guilt—but that can often be difficult. What additional measures will be put in place to protect cyclists and give them fair chances?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

My law might be a bit rusty because it is 18 years since I practised it, but I think that it is always necessary to prove the guilt of anyone involved in a road accident, so not only cyclists face that problem. My hon. Friend is right that we want to improve the safety of cyclists, and several measures in the Bill will help to do that, although they are not specifically aimed at cyclists. Education and other measures can help to improve cyclists' safety. The onus of proof, however, applies to all road accidents, as it does to any other crime.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I think that I had better stop, or the House, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), will get very cross.

The Bill contains many measures that will improve road safety, but I come back to a point that I made at the start of my speech: legislation is only one part of what we need to do. We must raise awareness and give courts the tools to deal with people who offend. We need to express the view that the courts will do their duty when people appear before them. The one thing that should unite us all—I was struck by this the last time we discussed railway accidents—is that 10 people will die today in road accidents, so 10 sets of families and friends will lose someone. It should weigh heavily with us that most such accidents are avoidable, so the country would expect the Government and the House to do everything possible to reduce the unacceptably large number of people who are killed every single day. I hope that everyone will support the Bill.

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

To begin on a note of consensus, let me say that the Conservative party entirely shares the concerns that the Secretary of State and other hon. Members have expressed about road safety. For that reason, I am happy to make it clear at the outset that we will not divide the House on Second Reading, although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and I will set out several changes and additions that should be made to the Bill, which we will try to achieve during its passage, especially in Committee.

Let me make some general remarks about road safety that pick up where the Secretary of State left off. We share the concerns expressed. However, despite the progress made over the years to reduce casualties in Britain and the fact that we are doing better than many European countries, we need to give the matter more attention. Although I have shadowed many briefs over the past seven years and served in several Government Departments, this is the first time that I have dealt directly with transport issues, and I am startled by our inconsistent attitude towards different types of transport.

If 300 people were killed in a railway accident there would be a huge public outcry and a major investigation, which would almost certainly be followed by policy change. If an aircraft accident caused the same number of deaths, there would be a detailed investigation, procedures would be examined and training and qualification standards would be overhauled. If a cross-channel ferry sank with the loss of 300 lives, the most detailed inquiry would be held. But when 300 people die on the roads, pretty well nothing is done, despite the fact that 300 people die on our roads every month. All we seem to do is shrug our shoulders. Perhaps that extraordinary tolerance of road casualties is partly because they happen so often. Whatever the reason, it is not in any way a rational response.

Dismissing road casualties as the inevitable consequence of driver error does not make sense. Every casualty represents a personal tragedy. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) referred earlier to the tragic case of Alexine Melnik, whose father copied the letter that he wrote to him to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. It is a moving document describing the tragic circumstances of his daughter's death and the unsatisfactory outcome of the case, with the verdict that it was an accident caused by a momentary lapse of concentration. As Mr. Melnik points out,

"Isn't a car travelling at speed a lethal weapon and in every respect to be considered the same as a loaded gun"?

If someone had been carrying a loaded gun, and had accidentally shot and killed an innocent bystander, would that person face a charge of carrying a gun without due care and attention? Would the court have accepted a claim of a momentary lapse of concentration so readily? I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will have had similar cases brought to their attention, and that we all feel as strongly as those who intervened on the Secretary of State during his speech.

The problem relates not only to drivers. The AA EuroRAP results show that driver error is not the only main factor. Some roads are much more dangerous than others. Imagine the horror that would rightly be expressed if the Strategic Rail Authority—or, soon, its successor bodies—were to publish a table showing that one was far more likely to be killed on a train travelling between Slough and Swindon than on one travelling between Milton Keynes and Rugby. That would not be tolerated for a moment. What would happen if the Civil Aviation Authority revealed data showing that some airports had consistently more aircraft crashing than others? Rightly, neither public opinion, nor the airlines, nor their customers, nor the authorities or anyone else, would accept that position. Yet that is exactly what we seem willing to accept on the roads.

Let me make it clear: the next Conservative Government will not accept that. In my first year in office, if I am Secretary of State for Transport—

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Hear, hear.

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that opinion polls are not yet making that the racing certainty to which I look forward, but we are not quite in extra time yet. If that happy eventuality comes about, however, and the British people have something to celebrate later in the year, I will require the relevant authorities, the Highways Agency and others, to assess what steps can be taken to reduce accident rates on roads classified as high risk—marked in black on the AA EuroRAP map. In the first full term of a Conservative Government, we will extend that requirement to all roads classified as medium-high risk, which are shown in red on the same map.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that overriding powers should determine speed limits—for example, on roads that cross a local government boundary, as in my constituency where the limit moves from 40 mph to 30 mph on the same road, because separate local authorities are involved? Would he suggest that there should be some overriding power above local authorities?

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I am suggesting that we have clear data showing that some roads—happily, a relatively small number—are much more dangerous than others. We need to try to analyse what steps could be taken, and the hon. Gentleman may have just suggested one of them. I do not know whether changes in speed limit, for reasons such as he has described, are a factor on those high-risk roads. Given that we know that some roads are much more high risk than others, it is worth exploring whether simple steps—such as the one that he suggests, perhaps—could be taken to reduce those risks. I am sure that we would do that with any other transport mode, and we ought to start doing it with roads. Tolerating the idea that some roads are more dangerous than others seems simply unacceptable.

Data about other fatalities also need to be addressed. Young male drivers are five times more likely to be killed than middle-aged drivers. That is a horrifying statistic, and it is probably due less to inferior driving skills than to the attitudes adopted by some young male drivers once they are behind the wheel. I recall from my student days the circumstances in which fatalities might be higher than average. Particular concern arises when young males are driving with members of their peer group as passengers. Nothing in the Bill appears to address those challenges, which is a pity. Is it not time to explore new ways of encouraging more responsible driving by young men?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely true. The Secretary of State has been dealing largely with people who are insured and qualified to drive, but many accidents are caused by people, mainly young people, who are flouting the law by driving in the first place. They are actively encouraged by magazines and websites to save the money that could be spent on insurance for souping up their cars. Not enough is being done to clamp down on alterations that are made to cars: it is apparently still legal to soup up engines with nitrous oxide. People who are simply not capable of dealing with such powerful motors go out and flout the law, and get away with it.

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

That is an important point. I am sure that the encouragement that some newly qualified young drivers may receive from a variety of sources to act in the way described by my hon. Friend is one element of the problem. Another, of course, is the fact that penalties for driving without insurance are often lower than the cost of obtaining insurance. A number of issues need to be dealt with and, as I say, the Government do not seem to be taking sufficiently urgent notice of them—in the Bill or elsewhere.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Should there not be a graduated system of driver licensing? Although the current arrangements have rightly been strengthened in recent years, they could be toughened even further by means of a two-stage approach. The first stage would restrict the size of vehicle that could be driven and the number of passengers carried; secondly, driving at night could be prohibited. One driver in 10 is under 25, and one in four who are killed is under 25. As the hon. Gentleman says, there is an important link to be investigated.

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

That is an interesting suggestion. I think that we should adopt an evidence-based approach. If data suggest that particular types of driver are particularly prone to certain accidents, we may be able to identify measures—such as graduated licensing—to tackle that. I think that the Secretary of State accepted the principle when he expressed surprise at the idea that, with his existing driving licence and many years' experience of driving a car, he could get on to a very powerful motor cycle and would not be restricted from engaging in what might be a more risky activity—although I am sure that in the Secretary of State's case, it would not be. I have observed his measured approach to these and other issues over the past nine months or so, and I am sure that if he got on to a very powerful motor cycle, it would be equally measured.

The hon. Gentleman's general point is valid. I think that the public are ready to accept such changes, and there is recognition that by adopting an evidence-based approach we could reduce the risk. Some of the points made in the Transport Committee's report "Traffic Law and its Enforcement", published last autumn, reflect his thinking.

I have touched on the twin problems of roads that are more dangerous than the average and drivers who are more accident prone than the average. If the Government are to adopt a more comprehensive strategy, and if we are to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads, they must accept that measures to tackle those problems directly will be needed.

A hollow laugh will greet the statement issued by the Secretary of State this morning—and referred to, albeit briefly, in his speech—about a new strategy for policing the roads. The Conservative party strongly supports the use of more police to tackle illegal and antisocial use of the roads, but this is the Government who have cut the number of traffic officers by 1,500 since they came to power. In 1999, traffic officers were conveniently redefined to include operational and organisational support officers, who are employed to perform functions other than being out on the streets. The actual number of operational traffic officers, mainly on motor cycles or in patrol vehicles, has dropped even further—perhaps by between a quarter and a third—since 1997.

That really is a scandal, and it is, I am afraid, one reason why the public now have such low regard for Ministers. The Secretary of State, who really should know better, is making a grossly misleading attempt to claim that he is doing something to address the problem through an initiative. Actually, the fact that there are fewer traffic officers enforcing the law and making our roads safer is entirely the result of this Government's policies.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My hon. Friend has hit on an important issue that affects rural areas in particular, where people want the security of seeing bobbies on the beat and road traffic police. Does he agree that if more road traffic police are around, fewer people will take the risk of drinking and driving?

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

That is beyond doubt. Indeed, the likelihood of being caught drink-driving—I shall deal with that issue in a moment—is one of the most effective deterrents to taking such risks.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned using the EuroRAP map, which indicates in black the roads with a higher incidence of such problems. Do he and his party support the deployment of safety cameras—they are often called speed cameras—in rural and urban areas?

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I shall come to cameras in a moment, but the simple answer is that where cameras can be sited so as to reduce accidents, we of course support their use. I wholeheartedly endorse the aim of reducing the unnecessarily high number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads, and cameras situated in the right position can contribute to that process.

The Bill contains a number of measures that are desirable in their own right, and will have our support. Overall, however, it is something of a hotch-potch of measures, rather than an absolutely coherent approach to the problem. It contains provisions directed specifically at the problem of drink-driving, and the Government are right to be concerned about that issue. The steady progress made in cutting the number of casualties resulting from drink-driving accidents seems to have halted in the past decade or so, which must be a cause for concern. I agree with the Secretary of State that more effective enforcement of existing drink-driving limits is essential if such progress is to be restarted, and we will want to explore how that can be done in more detail in Committee.

A central part of the problem is that, even according to the Government's own figures, the number of traffic police will still be lower in future than it was originally. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has just pointed out, if drivers feel that there is less chance of being caught, the likelihood of their offending, hoping that they can get away with it, is clearly greater. More will take the risk, and sadly, more casualties will occur.

Of course, "driving under the influence" does not just mean drink-driving. Drugs are also an issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will pursue later in the Bill's passage.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

What does my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech, think about increasing the powers of the police so that they can stop people randomly on the basis of suspected drink-driving? I have a reasonably open mind on the issue, but most chief constables would like greater flexibility in that regard.

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

It is clear that we must take the views of chief constables extremely seriously. I, too, have an open mind on that issue, and I am not quite sure which way the evidence points. If such powers would be one effective way of reducing the number of people who drink-drive, or of increasing the number who get caught doing so, they deserve to be supported. However, I have not seen the evidence, so I am agnostic and open to being convinced.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I hope to argue later that we should reduce the legal limit from 80 mg to 50 mg. What is the view of the hon. Gentleman and his party on that issue?

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I share the Secretary of State's view. The priority is to concentrate on people who are well above the limit, and on repeat offenders. If we are to devote more effort to this issue, I suspect that diverting some of it to stopping people whose blood alcohol level is between 50 mg and 80 mg will prove an ineffective use of resources.

If our aim, shared across both sides of the House, is to cut casualties from drink-driving and elsewhere, we have to be hard-headed about where we make the greatest effort, and I suspect that it makes more sense to focus on repeat offenders and those who are well over the limit than to opt for a slightly lower target. I believe that that is also the Secretary of State's view, and that of my hon. Friends as well. Let me emphasise that I approach the matter from a completely pragmatic point of view. I want progress to be made, and if it became clear that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was the best way to make progress, I would have no objection to it in principle.

On speeding, I am delighted that the Government have adopted some Conservative party policies. Widening the range of penalty points that can be imposed for speeding offences is a good idea, and I am glad that the Government have seen the light. I wonder whether we could persuade the Secretary of State to go one step further. His Back Benchers expressed considerable interest in the idea, and it could be dealt with most effectively if we put directly into the Bill the range of speeds leading to different penalties, and the circumstances in which differential penalty points would be imposed. That would allow Parliament to be the arbiter, and there would be no uncertainty about it. I hope to pursue that point in Committee.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

On speeding, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is going to mention clause 17, which deals with detection devices. It proposes a way to deal with the jamming of the police ability to detect whether speeding has occurred, and the ability to ascertain whether a speed detector is in the area. That is a valuable measure, but proposals advanced in legislation sometimes have unseen side-effects. Mark Cornwall, a constituent who runs Derby Car Parts Direct, told me that the firm, dealing in radar detector provision, will finish when the legislation comes into force. Yet it has developed technology that might be valuable and helpful in other respects. Perhaps the Secretary of State could help such firms to switch away from producing equipment that will become illegal, into legal products. That would be valuable.

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

That intervention seems to be directed towards the future, when I am the Secretary of State. I would be pleased to help, but at the moment it is more a matter for the present Secretary of State. I shall refer to those devices in a few moments, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on finding a good opportunity to argue a case on behalf of a firm in his constituency.

One of my concerns about our general approach to speeding is that it too often appears to be unrelated to an assessment of the risk. We have argued for lower speed limits to reduce accidents in certain areas—close to schools, for example. At the same time, in my judgment, few things do more to bring traffic laws into disrepute than rigidly enforced 24-hour limits of 50 mph on a four or six-lane dual carriageway. Given the good safety record of many motorways and trunk roads, it is surely time to consider raising the upper limit to 80 mph in certain places.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I want to return to the issue of the big reduction in the number of traffic police, which has gone largely unnoticed. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need lower speed limits, such as exist in 20 mph home zones, in school areas and residential areas with elderly people, of which there are many in my constituency—but part of the problem is that they are not enforceable. The traffic police are not there to enforce those speed limits, just as they are not there to advise on traffic safety. This is not just a question of their being there on motorbikes with speed cameras; it is also about their advising on the setting of speed limits. The traffic police are no longer there. I endorse a more flexible approach, but that can work only without such a ridiculous reliance on the broad-brush approach to speed cameras, at the expense of experienced police traffic professionals.

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a well-founded suspicion that the Government strategy hitherto has been to encourage a proliferation of speed cameras to conceal the damage inflicted by cuts of between a quarter and a third in the number of operational traffic officers. As he says, that makes it much harder to introduce the more common-sense, risk-based and flexible approach to speed limits that we believe would go a long way to promoting safety and to winning public acceptance. A more flexible policy is the key, and the changes that I have suggested should be introduced in the context of a review of all speed limits.

It is well known that we share the concerns of those people who believe that in too many areas speed cameras are being used for revenue-raising purposes, and that they are not sited to achieve the maximum reduction in accidents. Because of that, once in government we will carry out an audit of all speed cameras to make sure that they are positioned where their impact will genuinely contribute to greater safety. Meanwhile, we should like two changes to be made to the Bill.

The first change relates to clause 17, to which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred. It deals with devices that detect the presence of equipment used to assess the speed of motor vehicles, and with other devices that jam that equipment. I draw a distinction between those two types of device, and have no objection to the proposed measures against devices that jam. However, devices that detect the presence of speed equipment belong to a different category. If the Government believe their claims that speed cameras are sited so that they slow down traffic in places where accidents are likely to occur, it is clearly helpful for drivers to have advance warning of them, as they will then approach high-risk sections of road at a moderate speed. The only reason to outlaw detection devices is that the number of drivers who might get caught for speeding would be reduced, with the result that the revenue generated by speed cameras would be cut.

Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool, Riverside)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain his hostility to speed cameras? Independent evidence shows that they can reduce the number of accidents by about 40 per cent?

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

As I have said already, my proposal is that we should audit the position of speed cameras. Where they cut accidents, we are delighted about the contribution that they make, but I remain unpersuaded that every speed camera is sited in such a position. The proposal in clause 17 to outlaw devices that can detect speed cameras exposes the true intentions behind the positioning of many of them.

Another aspect of the Bill is relevant in this respect. The Bill provides opportunities to make sure that speed cameras promote safety. We could table a new clause to abolish the so-called safety camera partnerships, which serve no real purpose. If the speed cameras were operated by traffic police, it is more likely that they would be situated where they would genuinely prevent accidents. It would also mean that a higher proportion of the money paid in fines would be used by the traffic police to promote road safety in general.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Those of us who have followed these debates will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), challenged one of the predecessors of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to give examples of speed cameras being sited in places where they would raise money rather than promote road safety. I challenge the hon. Gentleman now to give the House an example of a speed camera that has been placed in a certain spot just to raise money.

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

That will be one of the purposes of an audit. As I have stressed throughout, my approach is pragmatic. I want the siting of cameras to be based on evidence. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to search the country for examples of cameras placed solely to raise money, I have no doubt that my e-mail would be jammed within 24 hours with messages from people offering such examples, and I should be happy to forward any such messages to him.

The benefits of a new approach to speed cameras would be enjoyed not just by responsible, safe drivers. The police would be pleased as well. The Police Federation has pointed out that current policy on the use of cameras has damaged relations between the police and drivers. The police would like to see a balance between automatic devices such as cameras, and properly trained police—a balance that we wholeheartedly support. They point out that speed cameras do not detect drivers who have been drinking, uninsured drivers, under-age or unlicensed drivers. If our roads are genuinely to be made safer, traffic police cannot be replaced by cameras, as the Government seem to have tried to do in the past few years.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Cameras do detect drivers who are breaking the law. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not accept that those drivers should be breaking the law.

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I am not suggesting that at all. I should like drivers to be deterred from breaking the law, not just detected when they do so. I come back to the point about clause 17. I am puzzled as to why the Government think it is a good idea to outlaw a device that might encourage a driver to obey the law.

I shall move on to the topic of mobile phones.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

No, I must make progress. I am mindful of the understandable concern expressed by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in a point of order at the start of the debate.

Clause 22 as drafted has the effect, in relation to mobile phones, of introducing a more onerous regime for motorists than for cyclists. Superficially, that may seem to be justified. A car can do a great deal more damage to pedestrians and other cars than a bicycle can, but that does not mean that cyclists do no damage at all. The growing frequency with which cyclists ignore red traffic lights or cycle along pavements means that for pedestrians, especially vulnerable pedestrians such as children, elderly people and disabled people, cyclists can be a danger. There is no logical reason why the provisions of clause 22 should not apply to cyclists as well as to motorists. It is questionable whether the clause is necessary, given that the existing law provides the opportunity to prosecute drivers who use their phones while driving.

Another aspect of this part of the Bill concerns me. No distinction seems to be drawn between using a mobile phone while driving and using a mobile phone while sitting in the driver's seat of a stationary car whose engine is switched off. I do not see why, in the latter circumstance, drivers should be exposed to the risk of prosecution. We will pursue the point in Committee.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

For the last time.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that rather than having a go at cyclists, who cause very few accidents, he would do better to consider the research that indicates that using a hands-free mobile phone can distract a driver to the point where they are driving as though they had the legal limit for alcohol in their blood? Mobile phones are an important issue, but the hon. Gentleman should address the issue of hands-free mobile phones being used by drivers while driving, rather than taking a cheap shot at cyclists, who cause very few accidents. A cyclist using a mobile phone is foolish and much more likely to damage themselves than to damage anyone else. That is not the case with a driver using a mobile phone, who is much more likely to injure someone else than themselves.

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I do not know how often the hon. Gentleman walks round London—

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I cycle.

Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk)

Fine. After the close of business in the House, I frequently walk home to my flat, which is about a mile. I do not think I ever complete that journey without being nearly knocked over by a bicycle at least two or three times. If the cyclist is using a mobile phone, they are even more likely to knock over a pedestrian. I do not believe that cyclists are universally responsible and remain off the pavement. There are about three traffic lights on that same journey, and it is unusual not to see a cyclist going through a red light. That is a danger to pedestrians. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) may say that cars are more dangerous. I acknowledged that before I made any reference to cyclists.

As I have said, the Bill contains several desirable provisions and for that reason we shall not divide the House on Second Reading. We believe that the Bill can be improved and we shall seek to make those improvements in Committee. It falls short of being a comprehensive strategy for cutting the number of casualties in road accidents but, given that we are probably at most only a dozen weeks from the start of the general election campaign, a more comprehensive strategy can be eagerly anticipated on the election of a Conservative Government—a happy day for the nation, not long delayed. In the meantime, we shall do what we can, in co-operation with the Government and other parties who are ready to adopt our pragmatic, risk-based, common-sense approach to these important issues, to restore a downward trend in the number of people killed on Britain's roads.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I remind all Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

There can be few areas of life where we confront as many risks as those faced by pedestrians, cyclists and even motorists in their day-to-day contact with traffic.

It is strange that when death comes calling in what we persist in describing as traffic accidents, it is a very lonely thing for each family involved. Although so many people are killed every day, traffic-connected deaths are, somehow or other, seen as individual incidents, and the families who suffer the trauma and agony of having to come to terms with what has happened to them frequently feel completely isolated. They cannot understand how frequent such a terrible set of circumstances is in our day-to-day life. So when the House considers road traffic legislation we must remember that it is not a small part of the daily life of our people; it is something that has an impact on children and adults across the board.

I know of no other area where we would accept the death of 10 people every day. Day after day after day, we kill 10 people on our roads—quite apart from those we seriously injure—yet there are still arguments in the House about the methods to restrict those who do not respect the necessary laws of the land, which are there to protect our people.

I welcome any Bill, such as this one, which specifically sets out things that will help us to improve the safety of our children and our people. If I criticise it and ask for more, it is not because I believe that it has been wrongly brought before the House, but because the fact that as a society we do not seem to have got our head around the enormity of what we do to our people every day concerns me so very deeply.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

My hon. Friend refers to daily occurrences. One of the most moving and traumatic telephone calls that I have received recently was from the mother of a young man who was killed a few weeks ago by an articulated lorry, in a pedestrian accident on a fast road near Ashby-de-la-Zouch. She and his family simply cannot understand the present state of the law, which allows the charge against the driver to be restricted merely to one of careless driving, with a few points on his licence and a few pounds off his bank balance. They have had a son removed from their lives for ever.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

That is exactly the sort of problem that we should be addressing urgently.

The Select Committee on Transport looked carefully at the Bill, because we thought that there were several straightforward questions that the House should ask. Is road traffic legislation correct and appropriate? Do the police have the right priorities in their attitude towards the whole question of policing traffic? Is there sufficient priority in legislation for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists? Could we do more to deal with dangerous drivers before they become lethal? Are we convinced that we need changes in responsibilities that will, almost inevitably, impinge on the way that we police our roads? Are we sure that those priorities are correct?

My Committee looked carefully across the board. We found many good things in the Bill, but we are also concerned. Inevitably, the House of Commons ought to lead on such a subject. Frequently, when we frame laws, we give a general impression to the public about how we ought to deal with death and destruction that comes in the form of a road traffic accident.

If we make it clear that we are utterly against such developments and that the decisions that we take about management tools, such as speed cameras, are meant to cut deaths and if we make it even clearer that the law ought to be enforced very strongly against those who cause death by dangerous driving, we ought to have the support of the general public.

If, however, we frame legislation that appears somehow or other to underplay the importance of deaths in road traffic accidents and if we run campaigns that, for various populist reasons, seem to say that speed cameras are not instruments of care and protection but something that ought to be destroyed, the general public will think either that we are not serious or that we do not understand the full implications of what we are doing. So my Committee was concerned about what is missing from the Bill as much as what is in it.

We have already heard from many hon. Members about death by dangerous driving. I am not a lawyer, and I am prepared to believe that there are real difficulties in framing certain charges, but the reality is that if someone has lost a member of their family because of someone driving a car, they do not believe that justice has been done if that person receives either a small fine or some kind of restriction on their licence, and there is no genuine acceptance of the fact that that death was not only unnecessary, but unwarranted and indefensible.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

My hon. Friend mentions the offence of death by dangerous driving. Is she astonished that there is not even an offence known to English law of causing death by careless or negligent driving?

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

Absolutely astonished. That was one of the things that the Committee looked at very carefully—other members of the Committee will want to make such points strongly later—but the points that I want to make are about policy direction as much as anything else.

I believe the Secretary of State to be not only highly efficient, but very caring. He has demonstrated, time and again, that his legislative priorities are exactly the right ones. I therefore hope that when I say very strongly that I believe that his colleagues in the Home Office are not behaving in the same responsible manner, he will understand that I expect of him a commitment to chase them very hard about what is happening.

My Committee was told that an overall review of road traffic law is taking place in the Home Office, that a considerable amount of work is being done and that we must wait for the extension of road traffic legislation before the Home Office can produce measured conclusions. I therefore ask the Secretary of State why we are still waiting a year after we were promised the Halliday report. Where is that report? Given the high public profile of the Home Office, which seems to concern itself with every aspect of our lives, why are we still waiting for that report to be published and brought to the House of Commons?

If we are serious about road traffic legislation, that report is one of the things that should have been produced already. If the report has not been published, why not? If the report has been published, has the Department for Transport seen it? Was it allowed to look at the complex legal issues and has its advice been sought in relation to the report's conclusions? It is extraordinary that the Home Office is not working much more closely with the lead Department on road safety because such things will make the difference.

That brings me to the specific point of enforcement. It is essential that the Home Office realises that the failure to put road traffic among the core responsibilities of chief constables has meant that its importance is unevenly stressed across the United Kingdom. Some chief constables accept that legislation is vital and that the activity has to be regarded as seriously as other forms of criminal activity. Unfortunately, chief constables in some counties do not regard that activity as having the same implications as other activities.

The Select Committee was very concerned with the evidence and the responses we received from not only Home Office Ministers, but those who felt generally that there was no clear line of responsibility and that the pressure to take the matter seriously did not exist. If individual forces do not provide the people to police our roads and do not insist on the subject being taken seriously, we will see the results in terms of accidents. It is clearly a matter of cause and effect.

We have been given a long and, if the Secretary of State will forgive me, somewhat imprecise series of answers to the questions that we posed in our report's conclusion. I am still worried. Co-operation between the two Departments has not been demonstrated and there is no clear evidence of the urgency and targeting that should concern us. It is clear from our responses that most enforcement activity is carried out in 30 mph urban areas. The "Transport Statistics Bulletin" on vehicle speeds shows that the percentage of cars exceeding the speed limit reduced from 69 per cent. to 58 per cent. in 2003. In other words, more than half of all cars in urban areas are speeding. By doing so, they are vastly increasing the risk to pedestrians and other motorists. How can we accept a statistic like that? How can we still, in 2004, be debating the same questions over and over again?

Even today, the Opposition gave us a classic example of the muddle that exists. On the one hand, we appear to be saying that we want law enforcement, but on the other we are saying that we do not want to do anything that upsets the populace or the powerful motoring lobby.

As a nation, we have to clarify what we want in our minds. While television programmes, motoring magazines and individual articles constantly emphasise that speed is clever, macho and directly connected with the male persona—only alpha males know about speed—we are inculcating in our young men, and often in our young people generally, a very dangerous thought. We should be saying, "Yes, cars are important. Yes, you need them. Yes, you can use them. But they are killing machines." The damage done by tonnes of steel and glass hitting a body does not encourage us to believe that the subject should be treated lightly.

Our report will ask for many changes. I hope that the Standing Committee accepts some of them. If the Government are serious about death and destruction, this is the moment to have targeted, tough and explicit legislation.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the connection between speed and the male persona. An interesting article in Aberdeen's The Press & Journal yesterday—a paper I doubt she would have occasion to read—had the disturbing report that female drivers are starting to outweigh their male counterparts in terms of speeding. The problem, to which she is right to draw attention, is not just relevant to one sex, but runs across the strands of young people, be they male or female.

The United Kingdom has a good road safety record. In fact, it is one of the best in the world. However, as we heard, there are still 10 deaths each day on our roads. In 2002, the last year for which figures are available, 302,605 people were injured on the roads, 3,431 were killed and 35,976 were seriously injured. As has been said, with any other mode of transport there would be a public scandal, and we can certainly do much to reduce the total. A number of measures can and should be introduced, including many in the Bill, although, as I shall explain, there are some serious omissions. My colleagues and I are happy to give the Bill our full support on Second Reading. We will give it our general and broad support in Committee, but I hope that some of my suggestions will be taken on board.

The UK generally has a good road safety record, but, interestingly, it masks areas of poor performance. For example, in 2002, 179 children were killed, 58 per cent. of whom were pedestrians, so the UK's child pedestrian record is one of the worst in western Europe. Two thirds of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured take place on roads where the speed limit is 40 mph or less. It is worth noting that 60 per cent. of accidents occur on rural roads. There are worrying signs that positive trends that have been moving downwards for a number a years, including drink-driving, are now either static or increasing. The UK's generally good record can be improved through targeted action, so the Government are right to introduce the Bill.

Clause 1 allows Ministers in England and the National Assembly for Wales to fund road safety initiatives. That is a sensible power that will do much to improve the situation, and it is already available in Scotland. A substantial contribution to road safety can be made through road engineering and safety schemes as well as enforcement measures. We therefore support the initiative.

I have considerable concerns about graduated penalties, particularly for speeding. It is a long-established principle in British justice that punishment varies with the severity of the crime, so I do not object to the principle of graduated penalties or punishment. I am, however, concerned that the structure proposed in the consultation paper published last September ignores the outcome of the offence, particularly for speeding in towns and villages. An armed burglar receives a more severe sentence than an unarmed burglar not necessarily because of what they have done but because of what might have happened if they met someone while committing the crime. Two thirds of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured take place where the speed limit is below 40 mph.

In areas with a 30 mph speed limit, the consultation proposed a lower penalty of two points and £40 for speeds of up to 39 mph. The chances of surviving the impact of a car travelling at 35 mph are half those of surviving the impact of a car travelling at 30 mph. I am therefore concerned that if the penalty were accepted for speeds between 30 and 40 mph the House would send the wrong message, suggesting that modest speeding in towns is acceptable. By contrast, the difference in outcomes when cars are travelling at 70 or 80 mph on the motorway is less stark. To a certain extent, the speed limits on motorways and dual carriageways, which are specifically engineered for faster speeds, are a compromise between our desire to travel quickly and our desire to travel safely while having regard to the environmental consequences of higher speeds. However, where there is mixed use of the road by pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and others, particularly in built-up areas, the balance must shift from the car and the driver and towards pedestrians, who the suffer the effects. Observance of the 30 mph speed limit is critical in reducing injury and death, and I hope that the Government take that point on board.

Almost every week, I travel up the A9 on several occasions. I have followed cars driven at 50 mph by respectable middle-aged people—people such as me—who do not slow down that much when they come to towns. I do 30 mph as they whizz away. Many middle-aged drivers do not understand the difference between impacts at 30 mph, 35 mph and 40 mph. They would think that one were a speeder if one passed them at 60 mph on the open road, but they happily go through towns at 35 mph or 40 mph. That point is extremely important. Although we do not oppose graduation in principle, our support in Committee will depend on the detail of the likely outcome being fleshed out—we have grave difficultly in accepting a two-point penalty for offences up to 39 mph.

I support moves to ban detection and avoidance devices. It is crazy to have a law, yet allow the use of a device to stop detection. I used to know people who fitted such devices to their cars, and they were not people who would inadvertently drive a little bit fast. They actually wanted to drive a great deal faster than the legal limit and knowingly to break the limit. I am sorry to say that they are the most likely people to buy such devices, which I have no qualms in seeing being made illegal.

Clauses 11 to 15 deal with drink-driving. We have come a long way since the introduction of the breathalyser. I obtained my licence at about the time when the first breathalysers were introduced, when, if someone was caught drink-driving, people would say, "Oh dear. You poor fellow. What bad luck."

Most sensible drivers—the vast majority of the population—now accept that drink-driving is a dangerous and serious crime. Together with sound enforcement, that change in attitude has seen a steady decline in drink-driving and drink-related accidents. However, it is worrying that that trend appears to have stopped and even to have reversed, with figures showing a rise in drink-related injuries and deaths over recent years. It has already been said that the rise has been accompanied by a fall in tests undertaken by police and the number of police who are on the road and who are available to conduct tests, although I must state that the percentage of tests failed has risen too. I cannot believe that a relationship does not exist between lower police numbers, fewer tests and higher drink-related accident rates.

This summer, I discussed drink-driving with the area commander in my constituency, who pointed out that one of the greatest worries is that many drink-drivers are not young people but middle-aged males. Again, the problem is not that those people have one drink too many, but that they consume as much as twice the limit. The trend by which people who should know better commit seriously-over-the-limit offences is very disturbing.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

To reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, may I point out that when random breath-testing was introduced in Australia, the police suddenly found that they were catching many more middle-aged people who were used to drinking and driving—the people who should have been caught but were not?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

A week ago, I had an interesting discussion with my mother. She said, "Oh darling, I am so glad—I have now been told how many glasses of wine I can drink and it's safe to drive." I said, "Mama, you cannot do it like that, because there are different percentage rates of alcohol, and glass sizes are different. If you want to be really safe, don't do it all. If you happen to be just down the road and have half a glass, that's fine, but don't go any further than that." That is the problem. Middle-aged people think that the limit equals two or three glasses of wine, a couple of pints or three whiskies, but do not realise that depending on the metabolism of the person, the percentage by volume of the alcohol and the size of the glass, one drink may put them over the limit. Really, one does not drink and drive.

Although there is considerable merit in the proposal to reduce the permitted blood-alcohol level from 80 mg to 50 mg, there remains a big problem with people who are well over the limit, and we need to target them. The measures in the Bill are clearly sensible and will definitely help. However, we need to look again at the question of enforcement, as there is no substitute for traffic police officers who are able to stop people, make random searches and o ensure that offenders are kept off the roads.

Much in the Bill is sensible and deserves our support, and I do not intend to touch on all those aspects. I have reservations about some of the details, such as the fees to be charged for recalled licences, but those can happily wait until Committee. I am more concerned about notable omissions from the Bill that I should like to be included. One partial omission relates to what can be done about uninsured drivers, who are a major danger on our roads. They cost a great deal in terms of money and lives, and create immense misery. That issue deserves to be tackled. Although clause 39 will help, the Greenaway report made several recommendations that would have been of great value had they been included in the Bill and would have received support from all over the House. I hope that during the passage of the Bill the Government, perhaps with the aid of the Select Committee on Transport, will introduce further measures to combat that particular evil.

Another omission—I will not say that it is less important, but perhaps less severe—is that of measures to make standard ECE 104 reflective tape for lorries mandatory. The Secretary of State said that he is unaware of the evidence on that, but I have compelling evidence that shows:

"The introduction of retro-reflective tape on HGVs in the USA reduced side and near impact collisions in 'dark-not-lighted' conditions by 41 per cent.

The US Federal Highways Administration found that the ratio of savings to costs is such that every £100 invested . . . results in a reduced economic cost to society of £162.

Research by The University of Darmstadt found that 37 per cent. of all side collisions with trucks at night occurred because they were seen too late."

I should like to raise that evidence in Committee, and I hope that the Government will at least consider it.

Another example is the retro-fitting of bull bars. Many Members have commented on bull bars, which are completely unnecessary in this country. I can think of no circumstances, not even on a farm—or, dare I say it, an estate—where bull bars are a necessity. The retro-fitting of bull bars greatly increases the vehicle's danger in the case of impact with a pedestrian, and I encourage the Government to insert a clause to ban it.

I have highlighted another problem, which although not grave is none the less important, to the Under-Secretary in correspondence. Several local authorities would like to be able to put up repeater signs in 30 mph limits, especially in rural areas where long distances may be travelled with some doubt about the limit. Local authorities of all hues and persuasions have asked me why they cannot erect repeater signs. According to the Under-Secretary's replies, they are not permitted to do so by law. Perhaps we could examine that.

Perhaps the most important point is framing a charge of causing death by negligent driving. An interesting debate was held in Westminster Hall at the beginning of September in which the subject was raised. Like many hon. Members, I am fully aware of the difficulty of framing such legislation but I have heard pleas for it from so many hon. Members and so many of our constituents that I believe it is incumbent on us as legislators to frame and introduce such a law. Again, I hope that the Government will be inclined to consider that.

I have a final suggestion. I doubt whether we can include it in the Bill, but I believe that it would make a difference. Several speakers have said that if the accident rate—perhaps it should be more properly called the incident rate—applied to any other industry or mode of transport, we would be up in arms. All other modes of transport have specific units that investigate accidents. We should consider establishing a dedicated road accident investigation unit so that we could understand centrally what caused each accident and learn and apply the lessons. That is probably too complicated to include in the Bill but I should like the Government at least to think about it.

The Bill contains many sound provisions. As I said, we are happy to support it on Second Reading and we shall support it in Committee, where we should like to make some changes. I believe that many of the changes that I propose would find support from hon. Members in other parties. We all ultimately have an identical concern: we want fewer people killed and safer roads.

Alice Mahon (Labour, Halifax)

As joint chair of the all-party group on road safety, I am pleased about the Bill, which contains many welcome provisions. The Government's road safety strategy over the years has been progressive. It is worth repeating the Secretary of State's opening remark that we have one of the best road safety records in the world. However, it is essential to recognise that far more can be done.

In 2003, the number of people killed and seriously injured fell to 37,215. Although I say "fell", it remains a huge number, yet it is 22 per cent. below the 1994–98 average. Nevertheless, the figure represents human beings who have been seriously damaged or are no longer with us. The number of children killed or seriously injured fell to 4,100, which is 40 per cent. below the 1994–98 average. However, the figures still mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, that 10 people, some of them children, die every day on our roads. Imagine the outcry if that happened on trains or aeroplanes. Although we have a good record and the Government's strategy has been progressive, a big problem remains.

I do not want to go into too much detail about drink-driving because many other hon. Members have spoken about that. There had been advances until recently, but we have now reached a plateau and we might even go in the other direction. We should remember that 500 people a year die because of drink-driving. That is a shocking statistic. I am pleased that the Bill will give police new powers to take drink-driving evidence at the roadside. As the Secretary of State said, that closes a loophole and we are all pleased about that.

I wish that the Government had gone a little further, however, and introduced measures to bring the UK into line with most of the rest of Europe on drink-drive limits. I disagree with the hon. Members who said that there is no need for a reduction in those limits. I agree with Brake, the road safety charity, which is arguing for the limits to be brought down to the same level as those in Sweden. That would be 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood—if we went for the European average, it would be 50 mg—and I think that that would be an acceptable level. The most up-to-date law on this is the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, which makes provision for a limit of 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood for train drivers and pilots, and I do not see the logic of its provisions not applying to road users. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter. Having said that, I congratulate them on some of the measures in the Bill.

I would like briefly to refer to Brake again, because I have been involved in its campaign, "Watch out, there's a kid about". In 2003, the number of deaths on foot of children aged between eight and 19—the age range in which children use the roads on foot without being accompanied by an adult—went up by 26 per cent. to 110, compared with 87 the previous year. We also should note that, for children aged between five and 14, road deaths are the second biggest killer after cancer, so we should take this issue seriously. Again, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich on this matter. Brake recommends speed limits of no higher than 20 mph—and, where appropriate, 10 mph—around schools and in residential and built-up areas. I do not know why the Government do not accept that recommendation. A child on foot has a 95 per cent. chance of surviving a crash in which the car is travelling at 20 mph. That chance dwindles to almost none when the speed is increased to 40 mph.

Ian Liddell-Grainger (Conservative, Bridgwater)

One measure that has been very successful in many areas is the introduction of the flashing "20 mph" signs that teachers switch on when children are coming and going around a school. Perhaps we should try to persuade the Government to introduce that system across all areas of the country.

Alice Mahon (Labour, Halifax)

Absolutely. I ask the Government to consider that, because we would all agree that the prize of fewer child deaths would be worth while.

Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, West Derbyshire)

Unfortunately, I was attending a Committee when the Secretary of State made his speech; otherwise I would have spoken in this debate. The hon. Lady and I jointly chair the all-party group on road safety, along with one of the Liberal Democrat MPs. One of the things that I have tried to impress on the Government relates to the length of time that British summer time lasts. There is an increase of child road deaths in the winter months and, if the Government will not consider abolishing turning back the hour, I would like them to consider reducing the period of time involved. At the moment, we are on winter time for four or five months, but even a reduction of that period would have significant consequences, if the Government will not go the whole way and abolish it completely.

Alice Mahon (Labour, Halifax)

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I hope that the Minister was listening to him.

The Bill contains proposals to deal with fatigue-related accidents, which account for about 20 per cent. of deaths on motorways. I have been working on this issue with a small working group involving people from both the medical side and the road transport side. I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of measures to mitigate driver fatigue through the provision of picnic sites for motorway users and the better enforcement of EU rules on drivers' hours. According to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, up to one fifth of accidents on motorways, and about 300 fatalities a year, may be caused by drivers falling asleep at the wheel. We should take that statistic very seriously.

Although the Bill includes measures to address driver fatigue, I am worried that it does nothing to tackle the serious problem of drivers with undiagnosed or untreated sleep disorders. About 770,000 people in the UK have a sleep disorder, many hundreds, if not thousands, of whom are driving on our roads today. People with untreated obstructive sleep apnoea—a prevalent sleep disorder—are up to 12 times more likely that others to have a road accident. I have tried to take that up with the Department of Health, but the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), did not seem very interested, so I hope that Transport Ministers will talk to him and perhaps get a bit further than I did.

The Royal College of Physicians has pointed out that there is an especially high incidence of sleep apnoea among professional drivers, as the condition is common in middle-aged men who are slightly overweight. A study of 35 professional drivers at one depot found that nine of them were at extreme or high risk of the condition and that four others were at risk of other sleep disorders. Although the Bill addresses sleepy, yet otherwise healthy, drivers, I am concerned that it misses an important opportunity to tackle the worrying problem of accidents caused by drivers with undiagnosed or untreated sleep disorders.

I shall cite one example. In August 2003, John Stevens died in a road accident while driving to work. He was 41, with a wife and two young sons. As a motorway roadworks technical manager, John's job involved driving long distances and he was an experienced driver. In the year leading up to the fatal accident, John had become progressively sleepier during the daytime, despite sleeping for seven hours each night. He did not think that the sleepiness could be due to a medical condition, even when he suffered a minor accident after falling asleep at the wheel. His employers eventually insisted on a medical check and he sought help.

John's general practitioner diagnosed sleep apnoea and referred him to a clinic for diagnosis and treatment. Almost all patients who need medical treatment go on a long waiting list, and three months before John's appointment, he crashed his car with fatal consequences. That demonstrates just one example of the devastating effect of the lack of awareness of sleep disorders in the UK and the importance of speedy diagnosis and treatment.

I recently met Professor John Stradling, who told me that there is a currently a seven-month waiting list for diagnosed patients to receive treatment for sleep apnoea, so at any one time hundreds of people could be waiting for treatment or diagnosis. A joined-up response from the Department for Transport and the Department of Health is required to tackle the problems caused by sleep disorders, because the number of people affected is not small. Such people are ticking time-bombs on our roads and motorways. I urge the Government to seize the opportunity to address the matter in their proposals on driver sleepiness. Edinburgh university sleep centre puts the cost of treating 500 sleep apnoea patients for five years at £400,000, yet the cost of accidents caused by the same 500 untreated patients over the same period is put at £5.3 million, so I hope that the fact that I have raised the matter will encourage the Department for Transport to examine it. Additionally, under criminal law, it is no defence that a driver had an accident while asleep. The presumption is that the driver should have known that he or she was likely to have fallen asleep and thus not have driven. That is an unfair presumption to make about people with sleep disorders who do not know that they have such a medical condition.

I thank the Government once again because the Bill contains good measures and they have a good record on road safety. Important matters have been addressed and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the suggestions that hon. Members and I raise during the debate.

David Atkinson (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

My constituents will welcome much that is proposed in the Bill. In Bournemouth, in 2003, more than 20 per cent. fewer road casualties occurred than in 2002. That is a considerable decline, which will undoubtedly be enhanced by some of the measures contained in the Bill. We have seen such declines previously, however, only to see them equally dramatically reversed a year or two later. The fact remains that the average number of serious and fatal casualties in Bournemouth has been the same over the past 10 years—103 citizens killed or seriously injured on our roads every year. That means 100 partnerships and families temporarily or permanently deprived of a loved one because of carelessness or irresponsibility on our roads. I am therefore encouraged that all parties in the House are approaching this Bill in a constructive spirit of support.

All of us have received representations from interested parties expressing concern at some of the measures in the Bill and proposing amendments to improve it. Such representations apply to the range of points and fines available through the fixed-penalty system, on which I read the article by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in The Times yesterday with great interest. I must declare an interest because of my current six penalty points for speeding, in which I suspect that I am not alone in the House. I was sorry to read that one hon. Friend has recently been banned from driving—there but for the grace of God . . .

I agree with those who say that the current penalty point system needs to be revised. Of course, I do not object to the provision of safety cameras provided that they are placed at obvious and known places of accidents caused by speeding vehicles. We have been reassured by the Government that that is the case, and I hope that the Minister will repeat that in his wind-up today. I welcome the commitment given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that the next Government will audit the current provision of safety cameras to re-justify their location.

There is no doubt that safety cameras influence most of us to keep our speed within the law. It is not so much the minimum fine of £60 but the awful prospect of being deprived of driving, and thus, in many cases, of livelihood, which concentrates the mind wonderfully. I suggest that most of us do not exceed the speed limit deliberately, and that we do so neither purposely nor excessively: for example, when temporary cameras are put in place on roads that are being repaired and that are not clearly indicated. That was the case when I incurred both my penalties. That is no excuse, but is unfortunate. I therefore agree with the proposed variable, graduated system of penalty points, which differentiates levels of speed. In addition, I suggest that the fixed minimum fine be raised from £60 to £100. That would be fairer, and also effective.

I welcome the enforcement of legislation against uninsured drivers in the Bill. The Royal Automobile Club tells us that the current average penalty for driving without insurance is £150, which is far too lenient to discourage such extremely serious and irresponsible behaviour. The current cynical perception of many uninsured drivers is that there are not enough police patrolling our roads to apprehend them, and, of course, they will avoid on-street parking where they can. Better detection, as the Bill proposes, together with higher penalties and proper enforcement would change that perception and the practice; nor should foreign drivers be exempt.

I agree completely with the provision of motorway rest areas, which will contribute greatly to the reduction in fatigue-related accidents, but surely we do not need to pilot the provision of such rest areas, because of their obvious effectiveness where they already exist. The experience of the French péage motorways and trunk roads where such rest areas are frequent is sufficient to propose to the Highways Agency that it should proceed with their introduction on our roads forthwith.

I welcome the proposed enforcement of measures against foreign drivers committing offences in the United Kingdom. Such measures should be the same throughout the European Union. While I will always support the right of a national parliament to introduce laws and standards to reflect and respond to the situation in our constituencies, the whole point of the European Community is to ensure and enforce minimum standards in every state. Such a policy need not be restricted—in the context of road safety—to the 25 European Union member states; it could apply to all 46 member states of the Council of Europe, perhaps through an appropriate convention. I look forward to an assurance from the Minister that a level playing field will be introduced throughout the EU.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he will be in favour of a reduction of the drink-driving limit to the 50 mg level that is normal in most other EU countries?

David Atkinson (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I have not mentioned that issue because I have no clear views on how the position can be improved, and I shall therefore not respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation.

I welcome clause 22, which deals with the use of hand-held mobile phones. Most of us see that totally unacceptable practice being engaged in all too frequently by drivers trying to steer through traffic. It can cause them to hit another car, or a pedestrian or cyclist. Such accidents are unavoidable, and they must not be allowed to happen. The same applies to accidents and near-misses at night involving cars and bikes without lights. It seems to me that too many cyclists nowadays do not display lights at night. They are putting themselves at needless risk, yet it remains the motorist's responsibility to avoid them. Any programme to improve road safety must include a relentless policy of zero tolerance by the police of cyclists who ride without lights at night.

Ian Liddell-Grainger (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Could that not be tightened up by means of the insurance system? If those without lights were not insured, would that not make them act?

David Atkinson (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I am not sure that many cyclists seek to insure themselves. It is an idea, but I am not certain that there is a great deal of worth in it.

In the context of road safety generally and the Bill in particular, let me stress the need for ever greater education and training, especially for young people. The encouragement of personal responsibility among primary school-age children as pedestrians, cyclists and passengers will contribute to a generational shift in attitudes to road safety as those children grow up and become car drivers themselves.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

Should not young motor cyclists be given much more training? Sadly, in the last 12 months many young people have died on our roads in Cornwall. Training of young motor cyclists, and the checking of that training, are very important.

David Atkinson (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I entirely agree. No doubt the Minister heard the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and perhaps he will respond when he winds up the debate.

A few years ago, a road safety initiative by Bournemouth university graduates, called the junior citizens programme, demonstrated that children who received the training that I have described retained more knowledge than those who did not. That led to the establishment in Wallisdown, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), of the Streetwise safety centre, sponsored by local authorities and the Dorset police. It is a life-sized indoor village where people of all ages can discuss how to stay safe and what to do in an emergency. They can learn about accident prevention in the home, at work and on the roads, and much else besides.

The centre is working directly to meet the target set by the Government's road safety strategy to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads by 2010. More than 65,000 people have visited the centre since it opened in January 1999. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West is a trustee of its partnership. I pay tribute to his personal interest in it, and especially to the excellent work of its manager, Alison Curtis. That unique centre is undertaking valuable pioneering work in education and training in road safety, which can only support and complement the Bill. I have no hesitation in drawing it to the attention of the House, and commending it as an example of best practice to be emulated by local and police authorities throughout the country.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. Let me state at the outset that I not only welcome the Bill; I believe it to be vital.

We live in a society, and an age, in love with the car. We all know how powerful the road lobby is. It can bring the country to a standstill over the price of petrol; it can fill our postbags with letters of disgust whenever someone is caught breaking the law speeding. I do not say that by way of an attack on the motorist—I am one—but in simple recognition of the way in which most of us live today. In rural areas, the car is often the only effective means of transport. For many in urban areas, it remains absolutely essential to our work. In some ways, perhaps, the car is even a badge of personal freedom. For many of our youngest drivers, for example, the car marks their coming of age—an outward sign of their adulthood. The first driving lesson might be a cherished present from mum and dad; for some, their first car might even be the reward for getting through the test. For them, the car is literally and metaphorically a rite of passage.

But along with that comes a big responsibility. A car, however beautifully designed, is not a comfortable air-conditioned extension of one's front room. For all of us, the car is a potentially lethal weapon that not only can kill but does kill. It killed my teenage cousin. It kills 10 people in this country every day, and 3,500 every year. The Bill will help to reduce that number, thereby saving lives and reducing grief. That is why I welcome it today—as we all should—and warmly.

However, I do not welcome the Bill unconditionally. Although it is good, it can be improved in several ways, one of which I wish to discuss. We need to rewrite the law concerning cases in which bad driving causes death. At the moment, a wide range of charges are available to deal with those who drive below the standard that the criminal law requires, yet at the heart of that law there is a yawning gap: the complete absence of the offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving when not under the influence of drink or drugs.

The extent of that gap is readily apparent from the sentences available for the various offences for which charges are most usually brought. For dangerous driving, the maximum penalty is two years in prison. For causing death by dangerous driving, the maximum penalty rises to 14 years in prison—a 12-year difference, to mark the gravity of life being lost. For careless driving, the maximum penalty is a fine and points on the licence. For causing death by careless driving when under the influence, the maximum penalty rises to 10 years in prison.

But what about causing death by careless driving when not under the influence of drink or drugs? That is not even an offence known to English law. The maximum penalty is exactly the same as for any other case of careless driving in which no life is lost—just a fine and points on the licence. I find that absolutely bewildering. The law has created two offences—dangerous driving and causing death by dangerous driving—with markedly different potential penalties. The reason for that can only be that the law generally regards cases where driving of the same unlawful standard causes loss of life as more serious than cases where such driving causes just a dent or a scratch to a vehicle.

Moreover, there is a good policy reason for that differentiation. It underlines in law the simple fact that cars can kill, so all of us must be especially careful when we take to the road in them. Why, then, is the same principle not consistently applied to careless driving? Where is the sense in the law considering dangerous driving, but not careless driving, as much more serious when a life is lost? There is no sense. The law contains a gaping hole—the absence of any offence of causing death by careless driving—and in one way or another it needs to be filled.

That gap needs to be filled not just for legal neatness, but to meet the concerns of those who suffer the grief of loved ones being killed by careless drivers. All Members will have recently received a letter from my constituents, Peter and Tracey Melnik, about the death last year of their daughter, Alexine. Alexine was returning home with her boyfriend and friends from a pop concert in Great Yarmouth, when the car in which she was a passenger was hit from behind and pushed into the path of oncoming traffic.

Everybody else escaped the accident uninjured, but Alexine died. She was only 17 when she was killed by a careless driver. The driver was charged, and Peter and Tracey went to court, hoping for some semblance of justice and a sense of closure. The driver was found guilty and sentenced, but because he was charged only with careless rather than dangerous driving, and because he was neither drunk nor under the influence of drugs, the fact that he killed Alexine through his unlawful careless driving—in short, his criminal negligence—simply did not matter.

No offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving is known to English law, so that driver could be charged only with careless driving, for which offence he could only be fined and have points on his licence. In the end, for killing Mr. and Mrs. Melnik's daughter through his criminal negligence, the driver received just a £500 fine and nine penalty points. The total value placed on the life of their child was £500. Furthermore, because the driver pleaded guilty, there was no need to go through in detail the nature of the careless driving that caused her death. There was no forensic examination of the evidence, no detailed consideration of the circumstances leading to the loss of Alexine's life, and no questioning of why he failed to brake in time. There was just a plea and a £500 fine.

Little wonder that Peter and Tracey Melnik left the courtroom with no sense of closure, just a burning sense of injustice to add to their agonising grief. That is why they have written to all hon. Members to suggest that the Bill should be amended to prevent anyone else having to go through that again. I pay personal tribute to them for the courage and dignity of their campaign, and I agree with them. Like Peter and Tracey, I do not believe that the existing structure of the law can possibly be justified, and I believe that this Bill can be the legislative vehicle for making the improvement that needs to be made. It can easily be amended.

Perhaps surprisingly, an alternative method could be an amendment to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. I am advised that either Bill could properly be amended to fill the gap. All we need is a simple amendment to create an additional offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving when not under the influence of drink and drugs. Then we need to legislate to create for that offence an appropriate maximum prison sentence, perhaps of seven years.

In so arguing, may I make it clear that I do not want all cases where careless driving causes death to result in custody? I am a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and spend much of my time arguing that fewer people should go to prison, not more. I believe, however, that it should be possible to sentence more seriously if the facts of any given case merit it. Legislating to create that opportunity would mean that the facts surrounding any road death caused by carelessness would have to be properly considered in court to ensure that the sentence passed was appropriate, matched the degree of carelessness, and reflected the fact that a death occurred. At the moment, as in Alexine's case, that simply does not happen. In the future, it must surely be possible.

On behalf of Alexine's parents, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider amending the Bill before it comes back to the House so that the gap in the law can be filled and what is becoming known in Wellingborough as "Alexine's law" can be enacted. If not, will my right hon. Friend prevail on the Home Secretary to amend the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill to identical effect? I am not alone in so asking, and I ask not just on behalf of Alexine's mum and dad and her immediate family, but on behalf of the overwhelming majority of my constituents.

Just a week ago, I asked my local newspaper, the Evening Telegraph, if it would run a story on Alexine and include a ballot paper asking people whether they supported a change in the law. We were inundated with responses: 650 replies in just four days. A further petition to similar effect was drawn up by Mr. Craig Coogan—a constituent of the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope)—and it was signed by some 2,000 people. All but two of the respondents wanted the law changed. Why? Because, driven carelessly, vehicles are killers, because the criminal law has to reflect that reality consistently in respect of all types of unlawful driving, and because, quite simply, £500 is too low a value to put on the life of any child killed by criminal negligence.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), who made a strong case in respect of the circumstances affecting one family in his area. I was also pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that he accepted that driving a car in such a way as to cause a death was very similar to killing a person with any weapon. He is the first person in his position to say that.

Some years ago, I gave evidence to the Law Commission and argued that there should be an offence of causing death by driving. It is absurd that cases can be brought to court yet the question of the death caused is never exposed because of technicalities such as those that we have heard about. It is absurd that the structure of our law does not consider death to be at the centre of such cases. Although such a provision may not be appropriate for this Bill, I think that the House should look for an appropriate mechanism to adapt the law so that the principle that I have outlined can be addressed.

There are exact parallels between manslaughter and causing death by driving. Investigating officers, the Crown Prosecution Service and, most importantly, the courts should be able to determine where a person's death fits in the spectrum of culpability. Courts would then be in an appropriate position to mete out an appropriate sentence. That is the way forward.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) made an important point about drawing parallels between deaths on the road and deaths in other circumstances, and referred to examples of deaths caused in accidents involving aeroplanes and trains. Society—and in particular the media—seems to adopt a different psychological attitude to rail or air tragedies from that which it takes to individual deaths on the road. It is important that the House should be seen to take a lead in the matter, and to say that the total number of deaths on our roads is far too high. The fact that those deaths are scattered around the country should not deter us from the sort of bold decisions that the public would expect us to take in response to a major incident—such as a plane falling from the sky—that causes hundreds of deaths. We need to address both sets of circumstances in the same way.

Various hon. Members have said that we need to raise public awareness about the scale of the carnage facing our society. The British record is good compared with that of some other countries, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that we must do better. The same sentiment was expressed by the spokesmen for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

We need to find practical solutions, and the Bill contains some ways to make progress in that respect. Training is important. We should consider whether drivers should be more actively encouraged to raise their skill levels—for example, by taking advantage of the help offered by the Institute of Advanced Motorists. That does not apply only to middle-age people, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) implied. It also applies to young people, and it is encouraging that in my own area there is a sprinkling of very young drivers—the number is growing all the time—who want to take advantage of the high-quality extra tuition that the IAM provides. Perhaps we can take the opportunity, not necessarily by writing it into the Bill, but by engaging in dialogue with insurance companies, for example, to create massive benefits for drivers who undergo such extra training. People who do that are made aware of the risks that they face on the road.

Because so many hon. Members want to speak, I shall keep the length of my remarks tight. A number of colleagues have spoken of overlaps with other Government Departments. I should like the Department for Transport to take a strong initiative that engages directly and openly all the other key Departments that can influence the debate. The Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the successor to the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the Department of Health are all important players. We need a joined-up approach to the problems facing us.

There are some aspects of the Bill that cause me concern. I have serious reservations not about the principle, but about the way in which the Bill deals with variable graduated points. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and I find it difficult to see why we should harmonise downwards. I can see the merits of graduation, but I believe that we should start at a higher base point. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who called for a reduction in the drink-drive limit. Real benefits would accrue from that. However, I do not disagree with the analysis of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is the extreme cases that cause problems, but we must set standards and enforce them rigidly.

Finally, I shall deal with technology issues. I am a great fan of technology, from such simple devices as speed cameras to enormously powerful technology such as the new advanced number plate recognition tools. Under no circumstances should we allow a driver to use more sophisticated technology to get round such technology. Clearly, that should be an offence. I hope that when we deal with that part of the Bill in Committee, we will look at the technical issues and set standards. We should not try to be technology-specific, as that would be dangerous, but we should set standards that embody the principle that driver aids should not include devices that enable a driver to do ridiculous things on the road that increase the risk of death and serious injury.

The Bill is a very good one, although there are some weaknesses. I hope that in Committee we can achieve unanimity to show the public that we take such matters seriously. The deaths of 3,500 people, such as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), every year are largely avoidable if we get the structure right.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I, too, welcome the Bill's provisions but, like other speakers, I want to tell the Minister that the Government should not have the mindset that the measure is set in stone. They should listen to the members of the Standing Committee. As we have already heard, there are some good ideas in the Bill, but there are also some gaps and I hope that the Government genuinely use the opportunities offered in Committee and on Report further to improve it.

I want to talk briefly about two families who were affected by fatalities. David Burrows, the son of my constituent Keith Burrows, was killed tragically only a couple of hundred yards from my home, before I became a Member of Parliament. Ever since, Mr. Burrows has worked tirelessly for road safety, and became a local councillor so that he could put road safety at the heart of local civic life. There is still a problem with that stretch of road, however. Sadly, there have been more accidents and last year there was another fatality.

One of the problems is that we seem to move so slowly when dealing with these things. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) mentioned repeater signs. There is a 30 mph limit on the stretch of road where the accidents took place, but as it is a dual carriageway no one really keeps to the limit. Over the past seven years, since I have been a Member, I have raised the problem periodically and although I can understand the Government's response, there must be some way of telling people clearly that there is a speed limit on that road and that it must be adhered to. There is a strong case for speed cameras in the area. All the local people, even those who complain when they are caught by speed cameras, would have no hesitation in saying that cameras would prevent fatalities.

The second family are the constituents of the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), but I have met them due to the problems they share with my constituents. George and Julietta Galli-Atkinson's daughter, Olivia, was killed tragically when a car mounted the pavement where she was standing. They have instituted annual Olivia awards to recognise all aspects of the work of traffic police officers—from those who counsel the bereaved to those who are out on the streets. I pay tribute to all the parents and families who have suffered traumatic loss and to those who work so hard for them.

A common theme, to which the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) referred, is the feeling that there is a lack of appropriate offences and that sentences sometimes do not reflect the gravity of the offence. I am not saying that we should impose minimum sentences; we cannot legislate for every eventuality, but the courts must be able to recognise the gravity of offences and if that needs a change in the law, the Bill offers the opportunity to introduce it and to bring in a new offence.

As the Secretary of State said, the answer is not just legislation; it is very much about education, and in that regard I want to mention a couple of the things that really irritate me when I am driving. I am sure that lots of the things I do irritate other people, but I want to get these off my chest. I do not know whether we can legislate; indeed, some things are already covered by legislation. It is one thing to introduce laws, but we should also ensure that existing laws are observed—to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and others. No matter what technology is introduced, there is no substitute for police officers.

I abhor tail-gating, especially by the cabs of heavy-goods vehicles that have released their loads. The drivers are on their way home and travel at high speeds along motorways close behind other vehicles. That is incredibly dangerous and it seems to be a common practice.

Without upsetting cyclists too much, I would echo the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). Increasingly, I see cyclists—young children—out at night without lights switched on, and we must imagine what it would be like for people if they hit those cyclists and the trauma that it would cause them and, obviously, the victims themselves.

I am sure that other hon. Members must see children sitting in the front seats of cars—they should not even be there—without wearing seat belts. I see lots of people not wearing seat belts, despite the fact that the legislation has existed for goodness knows how long. I see children climbing over from the front to the back while the cars are moving. Every day, I see people not only using mobile phones while driving, but drinking coffee and reading maps or even newspapers while doing so. All I would say is that although such legislation is welcome—I hope that improvements can be made—we must do everything to continue to educate people about the real problems of motoring.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

In view of the shortness of time, I will restrict my comments to two issues. We have heard a wide consensus indeed in the House this afternoon. I greatly welcome that and hope that it is continued throughout our consideration of this very good Bill, which I support enthusiastically. Like many of my colleagues, my misgivings about the Bill are that it does not go far enough and are not about what it contains.

While listening to the debate from the Back Bench today, I have been reflecting on the importance of road safety cases—a point that has been made already. I was formerly a solicitor in a small market town in Shropshire. During the relatively short time that I worked there—about eight years—four young people were killed in different road traffic accidents. Although I did some criminal law at about the same time, no other deaths of young people ever came across my desk during my work there. That gives some idea of impact that road safety issues have on our constituents. We have heard today, with great eloquence in a well-argued speech, from my hon. Friend—my good friend—the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), about the impact that deaths can have on all our communities.

I want to talk briefly about the graduated points system. I have a great deal of respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he lost me in his arguments this afternoon in putting the case for reducing the number of penalty points from three to two. We all know that speeding drivers are more dangerous than drivers who do not speed. We all know that the faster people drive, the more dangerous they are. In that context, I cannot for the life of me understand how it makes sense to reduce the number of penalty points imposed for a speeding offence from three to two. I have grave concerns about that. I have no difficulty with the concept of a graduated points system. If clause 16 was amended to refer to a range of three to six points, I am sure that that would carry widespread support throughout the House.

My second concern relates to an omission from the Bill. This is a road safety Bill and road traffic offences, particularly those that cause serious injury or death, are very important matters indeed in our constituencies. Our constituents find it completely frustrating that no offence can be brought before the courts that reflects the gravity of the death of an individual, when someone who is at fault causes that death while driving a vehicle. In short, our constituents cannot understand why there is no offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving.

We fail as legislators if we do not address that concern. John Halliday has been investigating that lacuna in the law since July 2003. The Home Office, to which he will report in due course, has been giving assurances to Members of Parliament and to members of the Transport Committee, on which I serve, that the issue will come to the House and be addressed, but we are still waiting for that. The Bill gives us the appropriate opportunity to address the huge gap in the law.

One of the cases with which I dealt when I was a solicitor in Oswestry involved a 19-year-old motorist who was travelling down the A5, a road that my hon. Friend the Minister knows well. Three passengers in the vehicle that he was driving were killed in a road traffic accident. For a year afterwards, the case proceeded through the courts, based on an allegation of causing death by dangerous driving. I represented the driver and at no stage was there sufficient evidence to justify such an allegation. However, I think that the effect of three deaths, and the importance of those deaths to the families concerned, caused the prosecuting authorities to decide to proceed with the allegation.

Ultimately, a year on, that case was thrown out in the Crown court. As a result, the families of the three people who were killed felt badly let down by the criminal justice system. Equally, the individual who was acquitted felt let down because he had been awaiting trial for 12 months and did not consider that the allegation was ever justified. An offence of causing death by negligent driving would have allowed the case to be dealt with quickly to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. There would have been an element of closure for the families and even for the defendant, who was devastated by the impact of the accident.

Every hon. Member has said that they believe that that offence is justified. It is incumbent on us as legislators to act now, to wait no longer and to ensure that the offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving is available to our courts so that bereaved families can have justice.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I declare my non-pecuniary interest in that I co-chair the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. The approach of PACTS is strictly non-party political. I want to praise successive Governments and Parliaments for keeping the politics out of road safety for decades. The great gain from that has been to our society as a whole, with a huge reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads over that time.

However, it is valid to make the point that last year, for the first time in a number of years, the number of fatalities in the statistics for those who were killed or seriously injured went up instead of down. We should not read too much into one year alone. Longer term, the trend in killed and seriously injured is still clearly downward, but as we have heard so movingly so many times, every loss of life on the roads is a tragedy. So I want to concentrate on ways to reduce the fatalities on our roads.

I very much support calls for a wider range of offences and tougher sentences for killing by driving, as that would meet the public desire for justice and provide an opportunity to introduce further deterrents against the careless use of dangerous vehicles on our roads. I want to focus on preventive measures but, because of the limited time left for Members who wish to speak, I shall ditch most of them and concentrate almost entirely on drink-driving. However, I urge all parliamentarians to have regard to the report by the advisory group on motorcycling, given the huge increase in motorcycle deaths last year. I urge all employers to have regard to the guidance from the Health and Safety Executive on work-related driving. I alert the world in general to the huge gains from technological solutions, including intelligent speed adaptation, which can reduce fatalities further in future.

To keep my contribution short, I shall concentrate on drink-driving. Ever since laws on drink-driving were introduced, the legal limit has been 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. That limit has served us well, and is robust and well-understood. However, because of changes in the law, the practices of modern society and the retailing and marketing of alcoholic drinks, it is time to reduce the limit from 80 to 50 mg. After significant falls, there was a plateau in the number of deaths in the 1990s. As a couple of Members have pointed out, the number of drink-driving deaths has been creeping up. Since 1998, when it was 460, it has risen by more than 20 per cent., and last year it was 560. In 2003, 19,000 casualties were caused by alcohol-related crashes. The Government consulted on whether to change the limit in 1998, and in its consultation document the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions predicted that, as a result of reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg, 50 lives a year would be saved. Using rough statistics, 97 per cent. of drivers either have no alcohol at all in their system or less than 50 mg. Those drivers are not anywhere near the present limit and most of them would not change their behaviour if it were reduced to 50 mg, as they are within that limit. Those people cause hardly any of the deaths on our roads, and their behaviour would be unlikely to change in future.

As some Members have said, about 2 per cent. of drivers have no regard at all for the legal limit and far exceed it. They are often caught two, two and a half or three times over the limit. I concede that changing the limit from 80 to 50 mg will not make much difference to their behaviour. Our priority for them must remain enforcement, tough sentences and, to some extent, education and publicity. The final 1 per cent. of drivers are close to the present legal limit, and attempt to stay within the law. They are just under, just over or at 80 mg, and are responsible for a significant number of deaths on our roads. One assumes that they would adjust their behaviour in accordance with the new limit. They may not be within it, but they would try to keep to it, and would probably be a little under, about the right level or a little bit over. The latest assessment based on the 2003 statistics on alcohol-related deaths on our roads was made by Professor Richard Allsop of the centre for transport studies, University College London, who estimated that we would save 65 lives a year if we reduced the limit from 80 to 50 mg, and if 1 per cent. of drivers changed their behaviour to the extent that I described. That gain is worth having. The target is continually to reduce casualties, and it is reasonable to expect a contribution through the reduction of fatalities caused by drink-driving, but such a contribution is not currently being made. In addition to enforcement and education, we must change the limit.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. How are the statistics relating to those motorists who are just under the limit collected? I understand how figures are available for drivers whose tests show 81, 82 or 83 mg of alcohol, but how on earth do we know whether a driver has a figure in the mid-70s? If we do not know the figures, does that not destroy the hon. Gentleman's argument? Those who break the existing law, not those who are just under the limit, are the problem.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The right hon. Gentleman has a point in the sense that we cannot tell who has been breaking the law if people are not prosecuted. If people are killed, however, an assessment is made—in assessing why they died, the alcohol content in their blood is tested for the coroner, so we have the statistics to make an assessment. The up-to-date assessment is that about 130 deaths involve the 1 per cent. of drivers who are somewhere near the legal limit.

I hesitate before introducing Europe into any debate, because I know that it has an unhealthy effect on some hon. Members, but the European Union has considered whether we should harmonise the limit across Europe. In 2001, the Commission recommended that all countries should adopt the same limit of 50 mg. That has not happened and, as hon. Members have said, some countries still have a limit of 20 mg. Three countries still have a limit of 80 mg—we are with Luxembourg and Ireland—but the centre of gravity has nevertheless moved to 50 mg, which is persuasive but not in itself convincing.

I support the three measures in the Bill on drink-driving. Evidential roadside tests and, I hasten to add, tests at hospital bedsides are significant and will benefit the police in catching more people who break the law. We can make gains by closing the loophole relating to high-risk offenders and by piloting alcolocks. However, why do the Government not view the Bill as the right time to change the limit? I know that they say that most people are familiar with the present law, that enforcement is effective, that the penalties are tough and that we do not want to distract from the present regime by changing the law as well. I say that we would still have the same rigorous enforcement if we changed the limit.

The Government spend a lot of money on publicity and education campaigns, which get ever harder hitting. Since 1998, however, they have not seen a return for their investment in a reduction in the number of fatalities. Now is the time to consider an additional element—not a substitution—in order further to reduce such deaths. Because of the pressures of time, I will stop there, but I hope that we can further pursue that matter in Committee.

Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool, Riverside)

I welcome the Bill, which is an important contribution to reducing deaths, accidents and injuries on our roads. It is unacceptable that 10 people per day die on our roads, and it is also unacceptable that 90 people per day are seriously injured on our roads. We sometimes underestimate the importance of serious injury through accidents—injuries can mean blighted lives.

Given the shortage of time, I shall concentrate my brief comments on my two areas of concern. First, although the Government are well aware that speed kills and have shown in many ways how they want to deal with the issue, it is ironic that the unintended consequence of the proposal on graduated speeding fines, as it has been introduced for consultation, is that speeding in 30 mph zones could result in a reduced penalty. It is known that a pedestrian hit at 30 mph has a 50 per cent. chance of survival, while 90 per cent. of those hit at 40 mph die. Indeed, a pedestrian hit at 35 mph is twice as likely to die as one hit at 30 mph.In view of those facts, I ask the Government to think again before the Standing Committee considers the proposal for graduated penalties. Given the severe consequences, hon. Members should have more information about the Government's intentions before they are asked to vote for that principle.

The second area to which I should like to draw attention is that of culpability for death or injury on the roads. Like other hon. Members, I ask the Minister to pursue with the Home Office the long-awaited publication of the Halliday report. All the evidence shows that death because of accidents on the roads is viewed far less seriously than death caused by any other means. That is simply unacceptable. When the Transport Committee recently took evidence, it became clear that bereaved families, among others, lack confidence in the system. There are worries about investigations at the scene of accidents and whether sufficient evidence is gathered and sufficient attention given to the possibility of culpability, and about the number of charges brought by the Crown Prosecution Service concerning careless, rather than dangerous, driving. Surely it is not right to put together and equate offences that include reading a newspaper and turning into a minor road and colliding with a pedestrian. Those two actions cannot be comparable, yet they are both classed under the heading of careless driving.

No proper statistics are kept on what happens following fatal accidents or accidents where there are serious injuries. That requires changes by the Home Office and the CPS as well as by the Department for Transport. Bereaved families and families of injured people are not kept informed about or involved in the progress of prosecutions that follow the accident. I ask the Department for Transport and the Home Office to consider the Transport Committee's recommendation of a new offence of causing death or serious injury by negligent driving. That, with other measures, would show that the Government mean what they say and that the Secretary of State for Transport follows up his words about how seriously he regards death because of accidents on the roads.

In general, this is a good Bill that will help to reduce accidents and death. However, as it passes through the House it is important that the Government reconsider the two areas of concern that I have outlined very briefly .

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Many points that I would have made have already been dealt with in the excellent speeches that have been made. I do not need to repeat them, but I hope to reinforce some of them.

Road safety measures clearly save lives. I hope that the Bill will save more lives in future, but if it were strengthened it could save even more. In the past, there has been a cultural reluctance to accept safety measures and a kind of misguided libertarianism about driving. I think that that is well in the past and I hope that it will not return. We have experimented with voluntarism, especially with seat belts; that did not work, and we now realise that compulsion is necessary in many areas. We are making progress, and it is comforting that there is consensus across the Chamber.

We have heard a lot this afternoon about the effect of different speeds on pedestrians hit by cars and their chances of survival. If we look at that in another way, we realise that between 20 mph and 30 mph one's chances of survival decrease 10 times, and that between 30 mph and 40 mph those chances decrease five times. Even between the speeds of 20 mph and 30 mph, there is a much greater chance of being killed when hit by a car. In crowded pedestrian areas in towns, it would therefore be sensible seriously to consider a default speed limit of 20 mph. The proposal has been presented by the Safer Streets Coalition in a well argued briefing that I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to read.

We have heard much debate about alcohol limits. I supported the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who tabled an amendment on Report to the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. The amendment was rejected, but the case has to be put again. I hope that the Government will be persuaded that the 50 mg limit should eventually become law. I would argue for an even lower limit. We have come to realise that we can save hundreds of lives by restricting alcohol and driving. We should go further to save lives and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made an effective speech on that.

The culture and attitudes to driving have changed. That shows that hon. Members, as legislators, have a duty to represent people at their best and most sensible, not their most spontaneous and perhaps selfish. When Barbara Castle introduced the breathalyser, I was sitting in a pub, drinking a pint of beer. I hasten to add that I was not driving and that, even then, I was careful about the amount that I drank when I was driving. A petition against the breathalyser was circulated in the pub. I was the only person there who refused to sign it because I thought that the law was sensible and would save thousands of lives, thus making us all safer. I was not popular in the pub that day but I believe that I was right and that subsequent events have proved that.

I support a general 20 mph limit in towns and a lower blood-alcohol level for drivers. Those measures would make a tremendous contribution to saving thousands more lives in future. I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider those two specific points seriously. Otherwise, I support the Bill.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I support the Bill, which contains many good provisions. I want to concentrate on aspects of it on which we can build and I hope that the Government will take some points on board either in Committee or in other ways in future.

First, I endorse the comments of many other hon. Members about the problem with the graduated penalty proposals. I am worried that the message conveyed by adopting proposals for lower penalties for lower speeding would undermine the Government's good work on road safety. It would convey a message that a little bit of speeding does not do any harm. That is a dangerous message and it would be a big mistake to send it. We should face the fact that the problem of speeding below 40 mph in a 30 mph zone is not that people receive many penalty points but that, too often, the law is not enforced.

In many parts of the country, there is no genuinely effective enforcement until people drive at 38 or 39 mph. I do not suggest that we should pursue with the full vigour of the law someone who inadvertently creeps one or two mph beyond a 30 mph limit. However, we must have much more effective enforcement of existing speed limits below the 10 mph leeway, which appears to be allowed in many parts of the country. That approach is not consistent and I would be interested to hear today or on another occasion what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary believes he can do to try to ensure a more consistent approach to enforcement of speed limits throughout the UK.

I endorse the comments made by many hon. Members on drink-driving limits. The arguments for reducing the level to 50 mg are convincing and I hope that the Government will consider them in Committee. I also endorse the view expressed by many hon. Members that, if we are to improve still further our relatively good road safety record, we need to change not only our legislation but public attitudes. The change in public attitudes can be brought about in a number of ways, and legislation will certainly play a part in that, as it will underline the message that we take seriously offences of this nature. We also need more public education, although a lot of good work has already been done in that regard. We need more public information, more road safety education of all sorts in schools, including basic education about street safety, cycle training and a wide range of other measures. We also need more driver education, and more work to be done by vehicle manufacturers.

Above all, we as public figures need to send a consistent message that cutting the toll of deaths and injuries on our roads must have a higher priority in the decisions that we take about traffic and transport. I, too, welcome the clear message given by the Secretary of State today about the way in which we should regard people who use their vehicle to drive dangerously. He drew a parallel between such people and those who create a danger by using a gun or other weapon. That was a powerful message and I endorse what he said.

We have heard today about the tragic cases that have affected many hon. Members—we all see such cases in our communities from time to time. It is also important, however, to send out the positive message that we can do things to make a difference at local level as well as at national level. In my own city of Edinburgh, the city council, the police and other agencies have worked together to make a real impact on reducing the number of deaths and injuries on the roads. Last year, for the first time since records began, some 75 years ago, not a single school-age child was killed on the roads in Lothian, the area that includes Edinburgh. That result was achieved by a road safety strategy involving a combination of engineering measures such as road humps, enforcement involving speed cameras, and education. This was not just a one-off strategy. Over the last 10 years, we have seen a reduction of 30 per cent. in the number of injuries on the roads. That consistent reduction has meant that we have had one of the highest reductions in accidents in the UK. It is time to learn from the example set by my city council, as well as by many other councils of different political colours in different parts of the country that have introduced measures to improve road safety in their communities.

The use of speed cameras and other traffic calming measures of that nature results in howls of derision from certain sections of the community and the media. However, we have to underline the fact that none of us—I am a driver myself—has the right to break the speed limit. We must reject the spurious arguments about the Government attempting to raise revenue from cameras, because it diverts us from the fact that speed kills, and we do not need the carnage on the roads that still takes place despite our relatively good record compared with most other European countries.

I welcome the fact that the Conservatives have said today that they will not vote against the Bill. This is an area in which we must try to achieve as much political consensus as possible. However, it is no use Conservative Front Benchers saying that they support the headline measures on road safety if, in the next breath, they come out with language that undermines the message being sent by those measures. I do not want to undermine the cross-party consensus that we have here today, but as we listened to the opening speech by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), we heard all the same old arguments and urban myths about speed cameras. We heard the idea slip through that the Conservatives, if they came to power, would abolish the safety camera partnerships, which have done more than anything to reduce deaths and injury by speeding. It is no good, at one level, supporting road safety, while undermining in practice, with the message that is sent out, the intent of legislation.

I say this with some hesitation but it needs to be said: when the message is sent out by some leading Conservatives—although there are some honourable exceptions in the Conservative party—that a little speeding is okay and that it does not really qualify to be in the same league as other criminal offences, that contributes to the overall climate in which speeding is okay, and contributes to the campaign in some quarters against speed cameras and against enforcing speed legislation. We hear that too often from the Conservative Benches, and it contributes to making the roads less safe, and ultimately results in people dying or being injured on our roads who would not otherwise have died or been injured.

Conservative Front Benchers must recognise that when they undermine the message of strict enforcement of speed limits, they are acting irresponsibly and encouraging some drivers to drive in a way that leads to people being killed and injured unnecessarily. With not too much expectation of a change of heart today, I urge them to act a little more responsibly in this area, and not to take an approach that leads to more people losing their lives and being injured than would otherwise be the case.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

This debate has been well attended, and the contributions have been fewer and shorter than would have been the case had the Second Reading not lost two hours and 50 minutes to the three statements and the urgent question, which was a point made very well by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Because of time constraints, I will not be able to respond to all the pertinent points that have been made. Unlike in most debates in the House, however, everyone who has spoken shares the same objective of improving road safety, and relatively small differences exist in relation to some of the means of achieving that objective.

I shall start with one area in which there is unanimity about the need for enforcement. I must emphasise the way in which the Government have failed both their supporters in the House and Opposition Members who believe that we need more police enforcement of our road traffic laws. Road traffic law enforcement is not included in the core responsibilities of chief constables, a fact which was investigated by the Select Committee in its excellent report. All that has happened is that the Government have produced a rather lame response to the Select Committee report, and have today announced that they will now get serious about enforcement of road traffic law.

Fortunately, only on 5 January I received a much delayed answer to a question that I had put to the Home Secretary on how many road traffic police officers there were in 1996, and how many there are now. It was quite a straightforward question, but it received a holding answer on 13 December, no doubt while the Government worked out how they were going to respond. The answer is rather interesting, as it shows that in the past four years 1,653 fewer police officers have been in front-line operational road policing, while the number of support staff has increased by 399, and an extra 400 have been involved in administrative support—a twentyfold increase. In 1996–97, this Government inherited 9,201 road traffic police officers, whereas now, according to the answer that I have received, there are only 6,276 operational traffic officers—a reduction of between a quarter and 30 per cent. In the meantime, there has been an enormous increase in the number of operational support officers and organisational support administrative back-up staff.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

The hon. Gentleman has given some figures. Will he tell us what has happened to the fatality rate per 1 million km driven in the United Kingdom during the same period?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I deal with miles, actually, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this Government—his Government—have tried to transfer the debate to a discussion of fatality rates per, say, 1,000 miles. When I was Roads Minister in a Conservative Government, we set a target for reducing the actual number of people killed on the roads, and we were very successful in achieving it. I do not claim all the credit myself, but during the two or three years for which I was the Minister, the annual toll of fatalities on the road fell by more than 1,000 a year. Under this Government, since 1997 the number of fatalities has reached a plateau. In fact, according to the most recent figure it rose slightly.

Not surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman and, perhaps, Ministers are falling back on the number of fatalities per 1 million miles driven. Because of the higher mileage on the roads, the number may be falling as a small proportion, but it certainly does not compare with our record in government. Indeed, we would like to see a significant further reduction in the number of fatalities. One of the key ingredients is proper enforcement, and it is one of the ingredients that have been lacking in the Government's policy. It is no good just coming out today with a lame press release suggesting that everything will be rosy in the future, when we know that the figures suggest otherwise.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) referred disparagingly to Conservative Members' comments about the need for police officers, and the fact that road safety cameras cannot be an adequate substitute. On 13 May 2004, Jan Berry, chairman of the Police Federation, said:

"I don't think you can remove the human element of policing and replace it with a camera—in some force areas if you are going 35 mph at 2 am in a 30 mph area and no other traffic it would be extremely unusual for an officer to give you a ticket—a speed camera doesn't have that discretion."

That is what worries us. In 1996 there were about 300,000 speeding fines; in 2004 there were probably 3 million, but as I have pointed out, there has been no reduction in the absolute number of fatalities. Despite that, the Government are probably raking in anything between £60 million and £100 million in extra fines. Their policy is not working, and it is alienating the travelling public and road users generally.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I will not, because unfortunately our time is limited.

The Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, said that the incidence of compliance with 30 mph limits was very small—that there was 58 per cent. non-compliance. Speed limits must be worthy of respect, or they will be ignored. It is essential for us to have a sensible regime of speed limits, and sensible enforcement. That point has been made strongly by the Institute of Advanced Motorists, of which I am privileged to be a member. It has drawn attention to

"the increasing use of non-discretionary cameras in place of police officers who are able to able to apply discretion taking account of prevailing conditions. For example, the Government position on the motorway limit included the assertion that while at 70 mph drivers would regularly travel at 80 mph, if increased to 80 mph they would travel at 90 mph. This argumentation is clearly undermined if zero-tolerance cameras substitute police enforcement."

The briefing paper continues by pointing out that

"speed limits are exactly that: limits. The IAM and other road safety organisations constantly remind drivers of this. They are the maximum speed where conditions allow and therefore, by definition, a lower speed must be appropriate where there are additional hazards e.g. traffic density, rain, fog, high pedestrian population etc . . . For their message to be credible it follows that the speed limit should be set as the maximum permitted speed where the road appears empty of moving hazards, the conditions dry and visibility clear."

That is, I am afraid, far too infrequently the situation, which is why I am pleased to be able to tell the House this evening that the next Conservative Government, which will come in later this year, will conduct a review of speed limits on all English roads to ensure that posted speed limits are appropriate to the function and characteristics of the road. We will implement a consistent signposting policy across England to inform drivers, riders and passengers of these posted speed limits. That will have a major effect on the motoring public's confidence in the fairness of the system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) made a most important speech, and I certainly endorse what he said about the Streetwise safety centre, which I also had the privilege of visiting. It has achieved an enormous amount for road safety in our area. He admitted to having been the victim of the penalty points system, and of speed cameras imposed temporarily on roads under repair. I am afraid that concern about such cameras is often expressed in the postbag by people who, when travelling along a road whose normal speed limit has been replaced by a temporary limit, find that the signposting is inadequate. As a result, they are caught out—in circumstances for which they find it very hard to accept responsibility.

My hon. Friend also made a very important point about the many cyclists on our roads who ride without lights. The Government should do something to help those who ride with lights that flash or pulsate, or which consist of light-emitting diodes, because currently they are outside the law. The chief executive of the parliamentary advisory committee on transport safety admitted to me in a conversation yesterday that he had such lights on his bike. Strictly speaking, they are outside the law, and this Bill gives the Government an opportunity to bring such cyclists within the law, and then to bear down more heavily on those who ride with no lights at all.

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am afraid that I do not have time to give way again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) raised a number of important points, but his overall theme of the importance of education is one that we should take seriously in this debate on road safety. It is apparent that the Government are putting too little emphasis on education's role in improving road safety.

Several contributors discussed the vexed issue of whether there should be a separate offence of careless driving resulting in death, and I can see the arguments for and against creating such an offence. However, I hope that, in responding to an amendment that we will table in Committee, the Government will compare that issue with what happens under the terms of section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Through it, people are prosecuted for failing in their duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety and welfare at work of an employee. The consequences of that failure bear heavily on the penalties imposed, and it is such issues that the victims of road accidents and the relatives of those involved in fatalities want the Government to address.

Let us not forget, however, that motorists are paying £8 billion more every year in vehicle excise duty and fuel duty than they were when this Government took office. What are they getting in return? They are getting precious little investment in the road infrastructure or in new engineering works, which are also very important elements of road safety. I am pleased to announce that although this Government have backed away from a commitment to improving the A3 trunk road at Hindhead, the incoming Conservative Government will bring forward that project as quickly as possible.

In conclusion, I think that the chairman of the Institute of Advanced Motorists hit the nail on the head when he spoke at the annual lunch. A member of the Government party was invited but, sadly, did not turn up: a space was left there, but I do not know the reason for the absence. The chairman said:

"Car cyclists and motorcyclists are not just part of the problem: they can be—and need to be—part of the solution. Treat them fairly and get them back on-side, and there will be a rapid pay-back"

in "road safety".

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

It is always good to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), because anyone can sound reasonable and measured after he has spoken at the Dispatch Box. I was interested to hear his comments. He says that he would spend more on roads—particularly the A3 at Hindhead, for some reason—but I do not know how that squares with the £2 billion cuts that the Conservatives have also promised. At some future time, we may hear the answer to that question.

We have had a good-tempered debate with some excellent contributions on both sides of the House, and we have seen a wide degree of consensus on both the Front and the Back Benches for many of the measures in the Bill.

Roads are key to our economic success, and vital for the movement of people and goods. Our economy is doing well. We have a successful and vital economy with more people owning cars, which is why our roads are busier than ever before. We must use those roads safely. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the first to speak from the Back Benches today, was a powerful one, which made that point eloquently. We are grateful to her Select Committee for examining the proposals before the Bill was published, and its report was extremely useful in preparing the Bill. I hope that it will be used in the forthcoming stages of the Bill, too, particularly with regard to implementing particular measures later.

I know that my hon. Friend will be disappointed that the Bill does not deal with some of the serious offences that have been under review for some years. Her views on that matter were also expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). Let me assure her and other Members that these matters are on the Home Office agenda, and consultation on them will start as soon as possible.

Safety on our roads is important to each and every one of us in representing our constituencies, and all our constituencies are affected in some way by road safety. We have heard today, as we so often do in such debates, a number of personal and harrowing stories of constituents who have either suffered injuries themselves or had friends and neighbours killed or seriously injured. We also know that vulnerable young children and the elderly are particularly affected by road safety issues. That interest has been the catalyst for the high-quality debate that we have conducted here today. The debate continues outside this Chamber. Many interest groups, some of them parliamentary, have helped to progress those issues through their discussions and lobbying.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, UK roads are some of the safest in the world, certainly in comparison with those in many other countries. That is due to action taken by successive Governments over a long period. I am not referring only to what has happened recently, but to the longer term. The vast majority of drivers in this country, young and old, are careful, considerate and law-abiding. The large quiet majority are people who wear their safety belts, do not exceed speed limits, do not use their mobile phones while driving and obey traffic laws.

However, their safety—and the safety of the rest of us—is compromised by the small minority who put other people's lives at risk. The people in that minority think that when it comes to driving, insurance is somehow an optional extra. They think that they are special, and can drink and then drive safely. They chatter on their mobile phones when they should be concentrating on the road ahead.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Certainly. I am chattering, and will give way.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I warmly welcome clause 22, which deals with mobile phones, but will the Minister look again at the evidence provided by Brake, that very effective road safety pressure group? It suggests that even hands-free mobile phones can distract drivers. Will he consider that evidence again in Committee?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Our recommendation is that people should not use a mobile phone at all when driving. However, the law must be enforceable. When we brought in the £30 fixed penalty last year, we said that we would hold a review in a year's time. The Bill contains the new measures to raise the fine and to impose the three penalty points that we promised. If necessary, we will review the law again in the future. The Bill contains a range of sensible and proportionate measures to make our roads safer.

I will not have time to respond to all the points raised in the debate, so I invite hon. Members to whom I cannot respond to correspond with me, or to raise matters in Standing Committee. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) opened the debate for the Opposition, and I am grateful to him for his shared concerns and consensual approach. He said that he would not divide the House on Second Reading, as did the Liberal Democrat spokesman. It is good to have that consensus on this important Bill, although I fully expect there to be some differences about some of the smaller matters in it, which we will debate in the usual way.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk said how differently we in this country treat deaths on the road from deaths arising from rail or air crashes, or other causes. Other hon. Members made the same point, including my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

I think that we are going through a gradual cultural change in this matter. I am glad to say that the number of people injured is falling, as is the death rate. The static figure for deaths is about 3,500 a year, and we have to tackle that. I hope that the House's consensual approach will allow us to find a way to do so.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk mentioned the EuroRAP map, and said that it showed some roads to be more dangerous than others. That is to be expected, but local authorities and the Highways Agency are devoting a lot of energy to identifying which roads and junctions are most dangerous and problematic. We are focusing our attention, and our funding, on those roads. If we are to pay for the improvements that the hon. Gentleman wants, we must put the funding in. In those circumstances, cuts would not be appropriate.

Anne Campbell (Labour, Cambridge)

My hon. Friend has said that he will be taking another look at dangerous roads, so will he look again at the A14, which runs between Cambridge and Huntingdon? A very large number of accidents happen on that road, so can anything be done to improve the situation before 2010?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We appreciate the dangers of that piece of road, and I know that my hon. Friend has lobbied consistently on the issue. Those are the sort of dangers that we want to address, but she will know that it is incumbent on us to tackle the worst first. We must deal with the greatest problems first.

The Conservative party has performed either a U-turn or a complete 360-degree turn—I am not sure which—in respect of speed cameras. The hon. Member for Christchurch did a wonderful job in 1990 when he introduced safety cameras. However, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) argued all last year that most of those cameras were in the wrong place and should be removed. I am glad that the hon. Member for South Suffolk has brought some calm common sense to the Conservative Benches, as he clearly realises that he is on a losing issue with the electorate. The vast majority of people in this country do not believe that people should be able to speed freely. They believe that their children should be able to cross the road without having speeding drivers around them. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk proposed an audit of the cameras. We have already done that. Some of his Conservative colleagues in local government have also carried out an audit. I repeat the challenge that I made to the Tory Front-Bench team 13 months ago. If the hon. Gentleman knows where there are cameras that do not meet the criteria, let him tell the House where they are. After 13 months, nobody on the Conservative Benches has come up with a single example of a camera that has been wrongly placed.

I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). He spoke about pedestrians being killed at various speeds, and the issue of variable speed limits. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, the variable penalty is only an enabling power in the Bill. The detail will come later, after careful consultation. That is an important matter, because the faster the car is going, the more likely it is that people will be killed.

Repeater signs are not dealt with in the Bill. There are difficulties associated with cost and with the clutter of street signs. The present system, whereby a built-up area where there are lights is a 30 mph zone, goes back 70-odd years. On bull bars, a subject which interests my hon. Friends, we are negotiating a new European directive to control their use. It is my view that they have no place on any vehicle on the road.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, who chairs the all-party group on road safety, contrasted our attitudes to death caused by various modes of transport. The law already empowers local authorities to reduce speed limits to 20 mph. I take her point about sleep-related issues. They are important, but in the main do not need to be dealt with in primary legislation.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke with great enthusiasm about many of the measures in the Bill, particularly those dealing with foreign lorries, equal treatment of British subjects and foreigners on our roads, rest areas and uninsured drivers. He spoke about a level playing field across Europe. I agree about common practice, enforcement and information sharing—but whether we want the same laws as other countries in the European Union, I very much doubt. We have a better record, and those countries look to our legislation as an example, rather than the other way round.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made an impassioned speech on behalf of his constituents. The penalties issue that he raised is being examined by the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has a long history of interest in road safety matters. I thank him for his support. He raised some interesting points, which the Committee may want to consider.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made a helpful speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), although he said that the Bill did not go far enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) chairs the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, so his commitment, and that of the people with whom he works, is clear.

We are concerned about the death statistics. We have been successful in reducing the number of serious injuries on the roads, and I agree that we must now turn our attention to reducing the number of deaths. Sadly, the figures rose last year, mainly because of an increase in the number of motor cyclist deaths, and we must address that issue. However, I am very much opposed to the harmonisation of penalties across Europe.

In conclusion, each crash brings human misery for those who are injured and the families of those who are killed, and a massive cost to our economy. The Bill contains a number of measures that will help to make our roads safer; it will be welcomed by all of us, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.