Road Safety Bill

Public Bill Committee, 3 February 2005.

Standing Committee A

Road Safety Bill

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I start the proceedings, may I point out that we have got quite a lot of new clauses today? All of them should be reached, but that is in the hands of the Committee. Both this morning and this afternoon's sittings are time limited. There is no flexibility on that whatever.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. In the course of our debate on driving instruction on Tuesday 1 February, I responded, in column 255 of Hansard, to a request from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) regarding possible loopholes relating to paid instruction. I would like to clarify that point.

Subsection (5) of the new section 123 contained in schedule 4 provides a definition of paid instruction, which covers payment other than in money and is largely based on some of the wording used in the existing section 123 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. We understand that some instructors have concerns about people offering driver training as part of selling other services such as car sales. I have no evidence of the scale of the problem, but the existing provisions in section 123(3) of the 1988 Act seek to prevent such a loophole. We have strengthened those provisions.

The provision in proposed new section 123(6) of schedule 4 allows for regulations to prescribe the circumstances in which instructions provided free of charge may be deemed to be paid instruction. That replaces the existing section 123 with a clearer provision and provides a mechanism to close any loopholes that may emerge.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That was not really a point of order, but it was important to correct the record, so I accept it.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point and putting it on the record.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Thank you.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I was surprised and rather alarmed to notice on page 110 on Ceefax, the BBC teletext service, a page under the heading ''The Government is planning to create tougher punishments for people who cause death by driving''. The page went on to say:

''The new proposals follow a review of the current laws.''

You know, Mr. Pike, that Mr. Speaker has deprecated Ministers issuing press releases before statements are made to the House. To make matters worse, this news item has been spun by someone in the Government at a time when the House has set up a Committee—this Committee—specifically to look at those issues. Day after day we have had the opportunity to question the Minister, who has said not a word about the proposed new law. Is this not an insult to the House and a greater insult to the Committee, and should the Minister not be invited to apologise to us and make a full statement to explain precisely what on earth is going on?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Mr. Speaker has made his views on these issues known to the House and I endorse his view. I cannot comment on the particular point to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but the Minister heard what he said.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. Any press release that may have been made has certainly not come from me or my Department. As we have explained during the Committee's proceedings, the Home Office has undertaken a review and is putting out a consultation paper on offences. I flagged that up and said last week that it would arrive during the next few days.

Perhaps the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has seen reference to a consultation paper that is due to be published today by the Home Office, and I hope that we shall have copies of it in the Committee shortly. It relates not to the Bill in any way, but to entirely separate issues that I flagged up previously, which are being dealt with by the Home Office.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. This is intolerable. When we discussed the amendment that I tabled on the penalties for careless driving, and the results of careless driving leading to death, the Minister said that the matter was being dealt with by the Halliday review. I asked him when the Halliday review was going to report. He said that he did not know and that I should table a parliamentary question. I did so, and on 1 February I received a holding reply from a Minister in the Home Office, thereby implying that she did not know when the Halliday report was going to be published. However, obviously it was known. So I was fobbed off, despite the fact that that was a material issue for the consideration of the Committee.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That is not a matter for the Committee. The hon. Gentleman has made a point and the Minister has responded. Any other matters relating to that are for the Floor of the House. We are even talking about a different Department. My responsibility is to see that the Bill makes progress.

New Clause 1 - Alcohol-prescribed limits

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

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

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Driving under the influence of illegal drugs—

'A person who when driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place found to have traces of an illegal drug in his body shall be guilty of an offence.'.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The new clause would lower the legal limit in relation to alcohol in one's blood, breath or urine for drinking and driving. All the relevant levels are referred to in the new clause. I want to concentrate on the 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood, which the new clause would reduce to 50 mg.

I accept that since the 1970s there has been a big reduction in those killed or seriously injured by people who have consumed too much alcohol. In 1979, more than 1,600 people were killed in incidents relating to drink driving. By the mid-1980s, that had been reduced to about 1,000 a year. A decade later, we had halved that figure. The law in this country is settled. There is a culture in which drinking and driving is socially unacceptable and we have been cutting the number of deaths. However, my argument is against complacency. A number of recent factors, taken together, show that we have come to the end of a phase and that it is time for a new one.

After that laudable reduction in deaths over two decades, the number of deaths is rising. In 1998, there were 460 deaths on our roads due to drinking and driving. By 2003, there were 560. That is 21 per cent. more. As that rise occurred over five years, it is trend, not a blip.

Adrian Flook (Conservative, Taunton)

The hon. Gentleman is quoting the figures as they appear. Will he put them in the context of the number of motorists who were on the road over that time?

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Yes, of course. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the increase in the number of vehicles on our roads. That is quite right. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has 60 million vehicles registered. That is a big increase since the 1970s. I do not deny that in the slightest. However, we take pride in reducing deaths and serious injuries from all causes. The figures have reduced year on year, and the Minister can tell us of the success of the present road safety strategy later. That is continuous, but here is one instance, amid all the reductions, in which the trend is going in the wrong direction. We all need to take account of that alarm bell. So the increase in deaths over the past five years is one factor.

The second factor is the practices in the drinks industry. There are new kinds of drinks, such as alcopops, and there are higher strengths of beers and wines. When we set the limit, a mainstream beer was typically about 4 per cent. Today it is often 5 per cent. Wines were about 8.5 per cent. by volume strength. Today they are typically 12 to 14 per cent. A significant development is that people buy wine in all sorts of sizes of glasses. A typical measure used to be a 125 ml glass. Now there are 175 ml and even 250 ml glasses.

Ideas about the legal limit which have been established over 20 years, in particular the number of drinks that we can consume and still safely drive, are simply myths and are wrong. Many people have too great an ignorance of what is a safe measure. I have some sympathy with the argument made by some, including the British Medical Association, that a new level of 50 mg would give people the message that if they drink and drive, the only thing of which they can be sure is that one unit of alcohol is definitely within the limit. That is a clear message for everybody to grasp.

Bearing in mind that the Minister's response will be, in part, that we have a settled law and that it is important to have known harsh penalties, strict enforcement and so on, the third factor relates to a briefing from a company called TTC 2000. It claims to be the

''largest provider of the Department for Transport drink drive rehabilitation course''.

We mentioned that course on Tuesday. In the course of its briefing to me, TTC 2000 said:

''It is amazing how many drink drivers that we see who were surprised to find that there was an automatic minimum disqualification of 12 months.''

That is a significant factor because the Minister assumes that everybody knows that we have one of the harshest penalties in Europe and that that penalty is a great deterrent. However, if people have lost that message, they do not know about the harshness of the penalty and it is not a deterrent. So complacency is setting in.

Lastly, in January we received the results of the breath tests that the police carried out in the two-week Christmas period. It is a tradition to have a crackdown during Christmas and new year. The police produce figures that tell us how that crackdown went in the following January. As part of its report, the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland produced a news release on 6 January, in which it said that, despite the successes of this year's campaign,

''a worrying proportion of those involved in collisions are still driving having consumed excess alcohol. The trend has been increasing since 1999 and . . . the current rate of 8.75 per cent.,''—

of positive tests—

''although less than last year, has, for the second year running, virtually reached the 1997 baseline of 9.11 per cent.''

So the police report a worrying trend of increasing positive results. Richard Brunstrom, the well known chief constable of North Wales police who leads for ACPO on such issues, says in the same news release:

''I again reiterate my strong belief that it is time the Government followed the European Commission Recommendation that the blood alcohol limit be lowered from 80 mg to 50 mg.''

He strongly supports the case that I am making.

Are the four factors that I mentioned simply straws in the wind or signs of something more serious? I answered that by saying that alarm bells are ringing and it is time for us to take notice of them. I accept that we do not really know how many people drive with excess alcohol in their blood, except for those indicators that I pointed to—rising deaths and a rising number of positive breath tests after accidents at Christmas.

However, in 1990 we did know, because the Department paid for roadside surveys to find out what the general level of drink-driving was in this country. In a six-month period, officials from the Department for Transport stopped 14,500 drivers and asked them to take part in the survey. Slightly less than 1 per cent. refused, which is an interesting factor. Of those who agreed to be tested, 3 per cent. were found to have in their blood between half the legal limit and the legal limit of alcohol, and 1 per cent. were found to be driving with excess alcohol in their blood. That was 15 years ago. I suggest to the Minister that more people are now driving with excess alcohol in their blood. If he cannot agree to the new clause, will he agree to repeat his Department's survey to find out whether I am right and, therefore, agree that more action needs to be taken?

The new clause has a lot of support. I mentioned the chief spokesperson for ACPO. I also mentioned the British Medical Association, which is well placed to have a view on the subject, bearing in mind that doctors understand the effect of alcohol on people's behaviour, have to treat those who are mangled in car crashes caused by drink-driving and manage to save some lives but fail to save others and, sadly, see people die. Road safety groups such as Brake and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety also support the new clause. As I mentioned, I co-chair PACTS so do not give much weight to its support, but it is the pre-eminent organisation that gives advice to the House based on evidence and research, rather than opinions about what should be done.

The best advice to any driver is, ''Never drink and drive''. I fully support all the money that the Department for Transport spends on its hard-hitting advertisements and on education to persuade people to be responsible, but we must accept that, human nature being what it is, some people will drive with some alcohol in their blood. We must also accept that some medical treatments, and the natural reactions in some people's bodies, mean that it is not possible for everyone to have zero alcohol in their bloodstream. There is also the difficult question of the time it takes for alcohol to leave the bloodstream after it is consumed.

A limit of 50 mg is more reasonable. I have explained the BMA's ''simplicity of understanding'' argument. I will focus on the argument that such a limit would save lives. The explanation for that lies in the calculations of Professor Richard Allsop, of the Centre for Transport Studies at University college London. He breaks down drivers into three groups. Some 97 per cent. of all drivers, by far the biggest group, never drive with an alcohol level over 50 mg. One per cent. drive with an alcohol level far over 80 mg. They are the most dangerous drivers, and he estimates that they cause more than 400 deaths every year. They completely ignore the law and we are not going to persuade them to accept my limit of 50 mg. For them, detection and severe penalties are always going to be the answer.

That leaves the 2 per cent. who drive at somewhere around the present legal limit of 50 mg to 110 mg and who cause about 130 deaths a year. Professor Allsop calculates that if they modified their behaviour and drove somewhere around the limit of 50 mg, 65 lives a year would be saved and 230 serious injuries prevented. An alcohol level of 50 mg is dangerous enough. We all understand that the risk of death increases with the increase in alcohol consumption. According to Professor Allsop's calculations, the risk increases by five times at a limit of 50 mg, but at 110 mg it increases by 34 times.

I had a go at drawing together all the legal limits in different countries. There was some controversy over whether Luxembourg's limit is 80 mg or 50 mg. In the whole of Europe, both inside and outside the European Union, there is a zero limit in Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Lithuania. There is a limit of 20 mg in Poland, Sweden and Norway. A 50 mg limit applies in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Austria, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Macedonia, Croatia and Yugoslavia. That leaves us on 80 mg with Ireland and Switzerland. Clearly, the mainstream has moved on, and we have not moved on with it. It is time we did.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I shall initially address my remarks to new clause 2, which is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It deals with a gap in the law that has been highlighted by the soaring increase in the use of illegal drugs and the large number of people who drive with such drugs in their bodies. Often, the drugs are mixed with alcohol, creating an even more dangerous condition in the driver.

It may be helpful if I quote briefly from a British Medical Association briefing, which states:

''The negative influence of alcohol on the ability to drive safely is proven. National campaigns educating the public of the risks posed by drink driving are generally accepted as being successful. The BMA recognises that a similar problem now exists in relation to drug driving . . .

The use of illegal drugs by the younger generation has been found to be frequent and increasing. Nearly half of 16 to 24 year olds in England and Wales are reported as using cannabis . . . Furthermore, 39 per cent. reported having taken hallucinogens, with other drugs being taken by fewer 16 to 24 year olds.''

Most stunningly, a report headed ''Recreational drugs and driving: a qualitative study'', which was published in 2000 by the Scottish Executive central research unit, stated that 69 per cent. of club goers in Scotland had taken cannabis and 85 per cent. had at some time driven after using illegal drugs. Those statistics are staggering.

The wider implications of such behaviour are now beginning to emerge. Recent research indicates an increasing incidence of road traffic accidents in which people have tested positive for drugs; that is, drugs may have been a contributory factor to the cause of the crash. The Transport Research Laboratory carried out tests to detect alcohol and drug levels in people involved in fatal collisions between 1985 and 1987 and then again between 1996 and 1999. The results show a sixfold increase in the percentage of people testing positive for illegal drugs, with detection of cannabis increasing from 2.6 per cent. to 11.9 per cent. Over the same period, the incidence of use of medicinal drugs and alcohol had not changed much at all. Overall, it meant that drug taking increased by a factor of three, and the proportion of those testing positive for multiple drugs increased dramatically.

''The known effects of cannabis are that it can impair co-ordination, visual perception, tracking and vigilance. Impairment is also shown when subjects are tested under simulated driving conditions. Studies report that the majority of fatal cases with detected levels of cannabis are compounded by alcohol. Alcohol alone or in combination with cannabis, increases impairment, accident rate and accident responsibility. Therefore, the consequences of mixing alcohol with drugs must also be explored as the side effects of each substance are often exaggerated.''

The BMA realises that there is a serious problem.

The Government have introduced roadside testing to ascertain whether there is evidence of impairment of driving caused by drugs , but those tests are far from easy to administer. Bearing it in mind that we are dealing with illegal substances, the use of which is criminal, we do not need to have tests similar to those for alcohol, because alcohol is a lawful substance, although it is unlawful to have it in one's body beyond a particular extent when driving. It is unlawful to have unlawful drugs in one's body at any time, and it should be a specific offence to have those drugs in the body while driving, because there is substantial evidence that people who are driving with drugs in their body, with or without alcohol in addition, are a menace to themselves and others.

Regrettably, an increasing number of fatalities are being recorded as a result of the unlawful use of drugs. There was a tragic case in my constituency where a person on his first day at Bournemouth university was killed by a driver who fell asleep at the wheel as a result of taking amphetamines. We know that people use amphetamines to keep themselves awake and to stimulate themselves, but once the effect wears off, the result can be an almost immediate lapse into sleep. That is what happened in this tragic case, and it resulted in the waste of a young life and an able student.

We must send out a strong message to people. They should not be taking illegal drugs in the first instance, but if they do take an illegal substance, get behind the wheel of a car and are then found to have that substance in their body, they should, irrespective of the level, make themselves liable to a substantial penalty. In new clause 2, I have not spelled out what the penalty should be, because I want to see whether the Government will accept the principle of the new clause, and I thought it would be easier to accept if it did not specify a penalty. However, mandatory penalty points would be needed. There is a question mark over mandatory disqualification, but it should be subject to discussion by those involved. I hope that the Government will accept the principle enunciated in the new clause.

In so far as new clause 1 is concerned, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has answered his own question. The problem is that 1 per cent. of people are over the existing limit, and they are causing 400 deaths a year. The reason the number of people over the limit is rising is lack of enforcement. We should be reducing that percentage to nil, rather than complicating the matter by trying to introduce into the realms of criminality a group of people who are at the moment driving lawfully. It may well be that those people are unwise to drive with as much alcohol in their blood as they have, and I do not dispute that some fatalities result from it. However, the Government have reduced by about 30 per cent. the number of traffic police on the roads; surely we should bring them back and carry out much stronger enforcement of the existing law. If we did that, we would be able to reduce significantly the figure of 400 deaths a year caused by those driving with excess alcohol in their blood.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but does it really need to be a question of one or the other action being taken? We should have both: better enforcement and a law that makes sense in today's world.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am not saying that it has to be one or the other; the issue is one of priorities. We know that a large proportion, almost half, of those who are driving over the 80 mg limit are not just over the limit but twice over it. There are some real menaces out there on the roads, and I would prefer the Government and the police to concentrate on bringing those people to justice—getting them disqualified from driving and being deterred from driving with excess alcohol—rather than complicating the matter by criminalising many others who are not yet criminalised, so this is an issue of priorities. I certainly believe we should be increasing the number of road traffic police, and trying to deter and detect those who are substantially over the existing limits.

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

I support new clause 1 and congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford on speaking to it in an extremely serious and important debate. It certainly deserves to be discussed. My party's position is straightforward; it is in total agreement with him and would like to see the relevant limit brought down to 50 mg. I recall how my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pushed the matter to a vote in the House. I must tell the Committee that in that vote I was not in the Lobby with him; I was in the other Lobby, as I hold a different, personal, view, which I would like to express this morning. I am, however, open to persuasion on the arguments. My decisions at present are finely balanced.

What the hon. Member for Stafford said is absolutely right; there is a problem, and it is a growing one. There is a trend of greater drink-driving. I make it my business, as I am sure other hon. Members do, to talk to various area commanders in my half of Scotland. During the summer I had an interesting discussion with the area commander for Ross-shire, where, as I may have mentioned on Second Reading, the concern was the rise in the number of people drink-driving and the fact that many were middle-aged men, not young people. These were not people who were a little bit over the limit, having thought that they could have three drinks but then miscalculated, but people who were seriously over the limit and had clearly set out to drink and drive. There is absolutely no excuse for that, and as the hon. Member for Stafford said, the best advice to anybody is simply, ''Don't''.

There is a great deal of common ground between us. A further point made by the hon. Gentleman with which I would concur concerns the lack of understanding. I made a great mistake on Second Reading, in response to an invitation, in describing a conversation between my mother and myself. She had clearly not quite taken on board the fact that three drinks was a rough approximation, not something that was allowed—and that people should aim to have nothing if they are going out. That was duly reported in the diary section of The Press and Journal, and I have to say it caused me some problems when I went home that weekend.

The point that I was trying to make is that there are many people out there who wish to be law-abiding and think they are law-abiding, yet they have this mythological understanding that they can have three drinks. However, they have no understanding of the differences of percentage by volume of alcohol, of the rate at which different metabolisms absorb it into the body, or of the fact that a regular drinker who is around six foot tall and a bit overweight can probably take on a bit more than an extremely slim and good-looking lady who is 5 ft 2 in. There are also considerable differences in the rate at which alcohol metabolises out of the body.

Any false formula that people might like to adopt is damaging and unhelpful. We need to discourage the idea that there is some level of drinking that can be done. However, I am not yet persuaded of the case for an actual reduction in the legal limit, partly because I am not sure that I would want to see an automatic ban of 12 months for a level of 50 mg. It is important that there be a relationship between the severity of the punishment and the level at which the punishment is imposed.

The hon. Gentleman helpfully pointed out the table drawn from his research on European countries. I do not know—perhaps he can help me—whether he has researched the corresponding punishments that are offered. If someone in a zero-rate country is caught with an alcohol level of 15 mg, are they banned for 12 months or is there a gradated system? My opinion would swing towards that of the hon. Gentleman were there a lesser punishment for 50 to 80 mg while the strict ban at 80 mg was maintained. I might well be persuaded in that direction, but my principal concern is that simply to lower our very strong penalties and bring the level down to 50 mg would not necessarily address the target that we ought to aim at, which is people who set out on the roads with an alcohol level in excess of 80 mg, often well in excess of that, who are absolutely lethal. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments and I hope that he understands from my remarks that I am open to persuasion, but I am not yet persuaded.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

On the earlier points of order, the Home Office review of road traffic offences involving bad driving is now available in Committee. Although it does not appertain directly to the Bill, I thought that it would be helpful if copies were made available to members of the Committee.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I wonder whether you would care to reflect on what was said earlier about that being a Home Office document, as distinct from a Home Office review. I notice from the back of it that the Department for Transport is a party to it. I wonder whether the Minister would like to reflect on the information that he gave us to the effect that it had nothing to do with his Department.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The only person who seems not to have seen the document now is the Chairman. In all seriousness, I do not think that I can add to what I said. We must make progress on the issues that we are debating. Perhaps hon. Members will want to pursue the matter later today: there are business questions in the House.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Thank you for the helpful information that you gave us earlier, Mr. Pike. The reason I left the Room was to ensure that Mr. Speaker is aware that we will indeed raise the matter.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Thank you for making us aware of that, Mr. Wilshire.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Indeed, the Chamber is the proper place in which to raise such a matter. Although we have fed into the document, its publication is not in my gift, but in the gift of the Home Office.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has raised extremely important issues through new clause 1, and I want to deal with some of them. He proposes that we lower the legal limits for alcohol in breath, blood and urine. Nearly 40 years after the introduction of legal limits and police breath testing, drink-driving remains a problem on our roads. Although the annual toll of casualties from drink-related accidents is, thankfully, only a fraction of what it was 30 years ago, we still have a problem. Rather worryingly, in the past year or so, there has been a plateau and probably a slight increase in the number of incidents involving people who have been drinking and driving. What we have to consider, and what has been exercising my mind in the past three or four years in which I have had responsibility for this issue, is the question of the solution to the problem. We must ensure that we take proportionate and sensible measures to find a solution.

Most countries with a lower legal limit impose only minor penalties at the lower alcohol levels, and imprisonment and licence removal are not generally available for alcohol levels below 100 mg. Germany, France and the Netherlands all have a 50 mg limit. In Germany, the punishment is a fine equivalent to £66 and two points on the licence, which is very slight. In France, the punishment is a fine of anything up to £500, three points on the licence and a three-day, not 12-month, ban. In the Netherlands, there is a fine of up to £175, no points on the licence and no ban.

The difficulty of reducing limits is that it could lead to two separate arguments. First, people might say that if we lower the limit, we should lower the punishment. I do not want to do that. We rightly have a harsh level of punishment for 80 mg, but I do not want people to say that at 50 mg there should be either a shorter ban or no ban, and a smaller fine. If we enter that debate, we would be saying that there are different levels of acceptability of taking alcohol, whereas our message should be unequivocally that there is only one acceptable level of alcohol in the blood when driving: zero.

Andy Reed (Labour/Co-operative, Loughborough)

I entirely agree with the Minister and do not want any reduction in the penalty because the signal sent out on drink-driving is most important. However, as he said, the figures are plateauing out. Has the Department researched the reasons that people caught with that level of alcohol feel that they can still drink and drive, despite the enormous social pressure and general public acceptance that drink-driving is totally unacceptable? Is there any research to suggest that people think that they will get away with it, or that there is misunderstanding of the current levels?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We have found that the group most likely to break the law are men aged 20 to 30, but I emphasise that we are talking about a tiny minority of that group. Attitude surveys show that drivers under 35 are extremely vigilant: they often do not drink and drive, and they are more responsible than their parents were. However, there is a small minority of mainly younger men and, increasingly, women, who not only have a drink or two and have levels of between 50 mg and 80 mg, but, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said, go out, flagrantly ignore the law and get drunk. They are not in the lower bands; they are well over the 80 mg limit.

In response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), the greatest deterrent is the fear of getting caught. We have focused much of our recent advertising specifically at younger men. Two years ago, we undertook advertising in publications such as Loaded and FHM. I do not know whether my hon. Friend still reads those publications; he may feel that he is now outside that age group. I still have them available in my house because there are young men, my sons, living in my house who take them.

Hon. Members may have seen a recent television advertisement in which two men are in a pub; the table becomes the car, and a young woman is then hit. Again, that is very much focused on the younger age group. It makes the point that someone becomes a drunk driver not in their car but in the pub.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I do not wish to quiz the Minister on his fantasies about his youthfulness in reading Loaded and FHM; I want to return him to the main thrust of his argument. I was sympathetic to the robust case that he made for zero tolerance—that what is acceptable is no alcohol in the bloodstream. I agree with him that that would be a simpler and clearer law. It is also in tune with how all of us behave.

Several years ago, once I became impressed by the then Government's campaigns against drink-driving, I went through a period of trying to drink very little when driving—perhaps one glass of wine. However, I found that that did not work, and that the only way to ensure that one was not driving with alcohol was to have nothing if one was going to drive—not a single drink. The Minister seemed to be making that case robustly.

Surely the logic of the case is that that should be the legal limit. Once one starts saying that we will allow the public some degree of alcohol it is then fair to say that there should be some gradation of penalty—the two are consistent and logical. If we do not want gradations of penalty, the logic inexorably leads us to saying that there should be no alcohol in a person's blood if they are driving a car.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I shall make two points in response to my hon. Friend's comments. Some people have small amounts of alcohol in their blood almost permanently, either due to medical conditions or to medicinal lotions that they are taking. Those people are generally not a risk, and so there could be a problem with testing if one set the blood limit to zero.

I remember when the drink-driving laws were introduced in the UK, back in the 1960s, many of the newspapers said that it was an affront to civil liberty to stop people having a few pints and then getting in their car and killing people. Now, I find those arguments extraordinary; we would not have such arguments now. However, it was decided that there was a limit, which I believe was well researched at the time, at which the level of impairment reached a point where people became a danger on the road.

My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Christchurch made the point that enforcement is very important. In recent years, the police in most areas have been targeting the people who they think will be of concern. Earlier in the Committee's proceedings, we had a brief discussion about random testing. We do not want to inconvenience the vast majority of good and sensible motorists who do not drink and drive. However, we want to be sure that we seriously inconvenience those people who do drink and drive.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I understand that case. The Minister made a good and interesting reply. However, let me turn the argument the other way round. If there is a limit of a certain amount of alcohol below which one is safe, then it would be logical to say that, if one were just over that limit, one would be only slightly dangerous. One would be, for example, much less dangerous than someone who was three times over the limit. Surely, therefore, there should be gradations of penalty.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Indeed, there are gradations of penalty beyond the 80 mg limit. For example, if someone is found to be three times over the limit, they often face a prison sentence or an extremely long ban rather than a fine. People have been banned for up to 10 years, even if there has been no casualty, just for being well over the limit. The gradations are severe. If one is found to be drink-driving and causing death or serious injury, other offences kick in that can lead to 14 years in prison. I am satisfied that the penalties are very high.

If we adopt the 50 mg level, should we have a lower fine? In relation to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, I do not want people asking, ''How much can I drink so that I am at 50 mg or 80 mg? Can I have one glass or two?'' We should not encourage that debate. The answer is that if someone is driving, there should be no drink. Zero drinking is the general message that the Department has put out consistently and over a long period. For the reasons I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), it does not mean absolute zero in the blood, but zero drinking if one is going to drive.

One campaign that we ran—very successfully—was the ''I'll be Des'' campaign, referring to a designated driver. It said, ''Go out, have some fun, but have one person in the group who stays sober and can drive the car home.''

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

At this time, of all times, when we are liberalising the licensing laws to encourage responsible rather than binge drinking, would it be appropriate to support a new clause, such as the one under discussion, while consistently arguing that when one drinks one has to be responsible, and that part of that responsibility is never to drive afterwards?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

There are two issues to consider. The first is the responsible use of alcohol. I have no problem with people going out, having a drink and being responsible. The other measures that we have introduced are to do with people who act irresponsibly on the streets when they are not intending to drive, which is about people drinking excessively. The second is that my Department is dealing specifically with the idea that wherever and whenever one drinks, be it at home or out and about, if someone intends to drive, he should not drink in the period leading up to it. That is the important point. There are other minority issues to do with general drinking, but they have been addressed outwith the Committee.

On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, we are considering the research possibilities for obtaining new information. The roadside survey was very expensive. It is intrusive to the vast majority who are found to be negative—all those sensible people who drive carefully. We are examining the possibility of the police obtaining intoxication levels at the scene of accidents. We have not previously had that information, and I think we will build up some good information from the police. I will consider the issue about research evidence and see if we can provide better research.

New clause 2 deals with drug-driving, which, as the hon. Member for Christchurch says, is important. It is increasingly worrying because of the number of people who are taking what are often known as recreational drugs while driving. I find it difficult to understand why, as a recreation, one would put strange substances into one's body, but that is what they are called. We do not have any evidence about the total impact of drugs on people while driving; nor do we have the equipment to measure either drug levels or the impairment levels of a particular drug. From many years of experience we know that certain levels of alcohol in the blood have a certain effect on people's capacity to drive and act responsibly. We do not have the same detail about the effects of a variety of other drugs. As I said in an earlier debate, the complication is that many people who take drugs take not just one but a combination, and often alcohol is involved, too.

The new clause is important. What we want to detect is impairment, not necessarily the presence of a particular drug. That is the problem. It is true that cannabis can have an effect on a person for a period of time, but it remains in the bloodstream for long after it has ceased to have an effect.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I accept that that argument can be advanced, but does the Minister agree that train drivers are not allowed to drive a train with the evidence of any illegal substance in their blood? Someone who tries to drive a train with evidence of having taken cannabis, whether it was last week or last month, is immediately dismissed. Surely the same principle should apply to people who get behind the wheel of a car.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We discussed people who drive trains and fly aeroplanes when we debated the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, and there was some opposition to breathalysing pilots, which I found remarkable. We thought that even stricter laws should apply to those who had the responsibility for a very large number of people.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if people are going to drive, they should not take any drug that could impair them. That applies to some prescription drugs, which people take for medical conditions, that can lead to a driver being impaired. For example, large quantities of cough medicine can elevate the presence of alcohol and other drugs in the blood. We have talked to the Department of Health about the issue because we want better labelling on drugs to ensure that when people take a prescription drug, doctors and pharmacists draw their attention to the possible effects of driving or operating machinery, or of doing anything that might endanger them.

Schedule 7 to the 2003 Act made important amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988, including replacing section 6 with new sections 6 to 6E, which provided the police with new powers to assist with the roadside screening of suspect drivers. They included a power to require suspects to undertake a preliminary impairment test and a preliminary drug test. In practice, those allow for the use of what has become known as the field impairment test and the drug screening test. The hon. Gentleman may have seen our recent guidance to the police on using the field impairment test, which is used especially to detect people who are impaired by taking drugs. The results of such tests would give the police more confidence in judging whether a driver is impaired and whether that is due to drugs.

However, it is worth emphasising that in the absence of the type of evidence that will enable us to define statutory limits for driving under the influence of drugs, the road traffic issue must remain focused on the impairment of driving. If an officer remains suspicious after using a breathalyser to eliminate the use of alcohol, the new powers provided by the 2003 Act will enable him to require a specimen, such as saliva, using a roadside screening device, when such devices are available.

In December, we issued guidance to chief constables on the conduct of preliminary impairment tests. Training of officers in the techniques has increased. The Home Office is continuing to develop a type-approval specification for a drug screening device that would help police at the roadside to detect the presence of a drug. One factor that makes the drugs issue so different from that of alcohol is that there are probably at least five or six different illegal substances in use, and the impairment that they cause may be due to their use in combination with each other or with alcohol. I have great sympathy with the general thrust of new clause 2, but laws are already in place for the police to take action. What we need is equipment, which we are working on producing, to collect evidence that will stand up in court.

I am not convinced that just reducing the limits and opening up a debate about penalties and how much one can drink would take us any further forward in reducing the number of casualties. Nevertheless, the debate has been helpful and has aired some extremely important issues.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I certainly agree with the Minister's last statement. I still think that he has failed to address the issue of demonstrating the impairment of people who have illegal drugs in their system while driving. The old law in respect of the lawful drug of alcohol was that impairment had to demonstrated. Parliament decided that it was not necessary to demonstrate impairment but simply an excess amount of alcohol in the person's system, and that is for a legal drug.

New clause 2 deals with illegal drugs. It is already illegal to have such a drug in one's system, and it would be helpful to send out a strong message to people that they are guilty of an offence beyond that which is now on the statute book if they have illegal drugs in their system and get behind the wheel of a car, whether or not there is any evidence that their driving is impaired. The Minister has not addressed that.

Having said all that, I shall not divide the Committee on new clause 2 because I wish to study in detail the extraordinary document that has been sent out today. It is extraordinary in the sense that it has been produced at so late a stage that it was impossible for anyone to table a new clause reflecting the contents of it for discussion in Committee. I suspect that that was not by accident but by design. I hope that on Report we will have an opportunity to return to the matter of driving with illegal drugs in the body.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

My sole motive in tabling new clause 1 was a desire to improve road safety. Perhaps I meet more than my fair share of relatives who are bereaved because of a road traffic accident, but every life lost on the road through drink-driving is a tragedy to the whole of the person's family. Delightful, talented personalities are lost, often in such random ways. Because someone has the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, a life is taken by some idiot who has been drinking all night and then gets behind the wheel of a motor car. My sole motivation was to save lives on our roads, and I believe that I have produced evidence that this measure would do so.

It is true that Europe has lower legal limits, but the penalties are often lower too. The Minister was right to quote those that he did. There is a three-day ban in France and some countries have a two-week ban. Only Denmark goes beyond the limits of the severity of our punishments. I do not want in any way to undermine the certainty of those sentences, but we feel, as lawmakers, a sense of opprobrium about them, as any reasonable person in this country would. I am not in any way proposing that we change the limit.

I should like now to address the points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch. It is a shame that I do not have even the support of the Opposition for this change in the law. I fully concur with everything that the hon. Gentleman says about enforcement. The 1 per cent. of people who cause some 400 deaths a year should be caught and taken off our roads. However, I do not agree with him that although we are focusing on the misbehaviour of that 1 per cent., we should ignore the evidence that the time has come to change the law for the other 99 per cent. of road users. I often think of John Maynard Keynes who, when somebody accused him of changing his mind, said, ''When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?'' The evidence to support a change is now building up so compellingly that it is time that we made it.

I shall not press for a vote because there seems little prospect of my winning it, but I will work on the hon. Member for South Suffolk. In an answer to me in the debate on 11 January, he said that

''if it became clear that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion''—

my proposal to reduce the limit from 80 mg to 50 mg—

''was the best way to make progress, I would have no objection to it in principle.''—[Official Report, 11 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 229.]

I shall therefore work on the evidence to ensure that it is clear enough for the official Opposition to support the proposal.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I understand why my hon. Friend is not going to press his new clause to a vote, but I feel that there is a general acceptance in the Committee that he has made a powerful case for a change in the law. If the Minister has to resist the measure today—because of his brief, and his beliefs—I do not think that that will be the end of the argument. My hon. Friend has made huge progress in winning support that will be reflected generally in the House, if it considers the matter independently. I am certain that he reflects sentiment in the country. I hope that the Minister, although he may congratulate himself on resisting the new clause, will reflect on it, as the time for change has come.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am grateful for that support. I heard expressions of a lack of sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments in some quarters of the Committee. When the hon. Member for Christchurch intervened on the Minister in support of his new clause 2, on the subject of drugs, he referred to the practice of train drivers and called for consistency. I point out again that there is, of course, a much lower alcohol limit for train drivers. I made that point to the hon. Member for South Suffolk. Let us have some consistency from Her Majesty's official Opposition.

Finally, I thank the Minister for what he said about giving some thought to collecting up-to-date information about the incidence of drinking and driving in this country. I should like to meet him, if I may, after today to discuss proposals that he made to me about the police collecting evidence. I am concerned that we will have to wait for the crashes to collect the evidence. I thank him for the encouraging point that he made to me, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3 - Cycle lights

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

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

The new clause is strongly supported by the Cyclists' Touring Club and other cyclists. It displays common sense and recognises reality. At the moment, under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, a cycle fitted with a pulsating or flashing light is not lawfully lit. We know that an enormous number of cycles—far too many—used during the hours of darkness or twilight have no lights at all, and as with so much else in road traffic law there is inadequate enforcement.

Many cyclists recognise the importance of making themselves visible to other motorists and road users, and many purchase flashing or pulsating lights, or lights that are comprised of light-emitting diodes. Many of them purchase that equipment in cycle shops, not realising that, technically speaking, if they use it their cycle will not be properly lit for the purposes of the 1989 regulations, unless the lights are used in addition to other fixed lights. It may be that the police do not enforce this law very much because they recognise that it is better to have a cycle with a pulsating or flashing light, albeit an illegal one, than one with no lighting at all.

The significance of the existing ambiguity in the law is found in the civil courts because, if a cyclist is involved in an accident, civil liability is based on whether they were complying with the road traffic laws. If the cyclist has a pulsating or flashing light, but no other illumination, it is possible—indeed this happens—that they will be regarded as having breached the law on lighting requirements, reducing their chances of receiving damages and perhaps raising the issue of contributory negligence. That is a significant issue for cyclists and road safety.

Many years ago, when I was the Minister responsible for road safety, the police and Department officials ran a campaign to ensure that pulsating lights were not used by cyclists, and flashing lights were outlawed because they caused confusion. Whatever the intent might have been at that stage, in reality, cyclists have used their judgment and reached the conclusion, which many road users share, that a cycle with a flashing or pulsating light is probably more visible than one without. The need for technical consistency to prevent any flashing or pulsating lights being used on the highway other than by emergency vehicles has been eroded by the effluxion of time and the behaviour by cyclists on our streets. I tabled some parliamentary questions on the matter late last year, and I was told by the Minister that the issue was under consideration. The Department has been thinking about it for far too long, and the new clause gives the Minister an opportunity to reach a conclusion.

There is a good deal of suspicion that the Department has suppressed information in this context. About five years ago, using taxpayers' money, the Department commissioned a report on this very subject from the institute of contemporary ergonomics at Loughborough university, which the hon. Member for Loughborough knows to be a fine institution. That report has never been published or revealed to people like us, which makes us suspicious. Today is an opportunity for the Minister to say that he will publish the report and introduce this common-sense change to our law.

Adrian Flook (Conservative, Taunton)

I rise briefly to support the new clause. First, I must declare an interest to the Committee. I own both a pulsating front light for my bicycle and a red pulsating light for the rear. Purely from the point of view of being a motorist and a pedestrian—not really thinking as a cyclist—when I needed to purchase some lights for my rather old-fashioned bicycle I thought that that would be a sensible choice. The Minister seems surprised that I mention that my bicycle is old-fashioned. The point is that it did not have lights attached to it; I had to purchase them separately.

Like most people looking to purchase lights, I was given a choice. I thought about what I had observed as a motorist and a pedestrian: it is important that we make the point that pedestrians need to be able to see cyclists. It is evident to someone such as me, who does not need to wear glasses all the time, but who cannot see details far off in the distance, that a pulsating light makes the presence of a cyclist stand out far more than a steady light that could seem to be further away. The pulsating light highlights the fact that it is a cyclist on the road and not necessarily a vehicle much further away.

The change would be helpful to all those who cycle, certainly those who do so at night. Pulsating lights would be effective and would help immensely in improving safety, not just for motorists who are trying to watch out for bicycle riders, but for pedestrians. I hope that the Minister will see that this is a sensible and well meant suggestion, and that he will support it.

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

When I first looked into the issue, I was surprised to discover that flashing lights on bicycles were not considered to be legal, because so many people use them. From my own experience, they look immensely sensible. I am therefore minded to support the new clause, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say about it.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I welcome this debate, which is why I put my name to the new clause. I support most of what my two hon. Friends have said, although, on reflection, I think that the drafting of the new clause may be defective. It seems to me that, as it is drafted, it would probably be lawful to have a flashing orange or green beacon. That is not what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to have a debate and to get the Minister to focus on the issue.

On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) about the police, I really do think that there is a problem. The police seem to be totally unwilling to bring pedal cyclists to heel when they are clearly breaking the law. In all my years on the road as a keen motorist, I have never once seen a cyclist pulled over by the police for breaking the law. I encounter many cyclists, some of them dressed in dark clothing, late at night, with no lights at all on their bike. Others sail through traffic lights and others, as we heard earlier, are not properly in control of their cycle because they are using a mobile phone while riding. If the Minister does anything, it should be to tell his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that we want more police action against cyclists who break the law and put their own lives at risk.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I, too, enthusiastically support the new clause in principle. I understand my right hon. Friend's point about the drafting. One difficulty of opposition is that we do not have vast numbers of civil servants to ensure that we do not make mistakes. However, it is the principle that matters, and if we can persuade the Government that we are on to something sensible, they will no doubt get their experts to turn their minds to wording that would work in the courts.

In considering road safety and highway matters, one of my concerns is the growing menace of some cyclists. I stress that I in no way mean to suggest that every cyclist comes into this category, but there are some and their numbers are increasing. The reason why the new clause is important is that anything that persuades a few or a lot more cyclists to have lights of some sort is good. The current restriction on the lights that they can have is an encouragement not to bother.

I increasingly encounter two sorts of cyclists who annoy me. First, there are those who are utterly selfish and who, with or without flashing or other lights, cycle up and down pavements. On the occasions that I challenge them, they say that it is safer for them on the pavements than on the roads, so stuff the pedestrians whom they may inconvenience or knock over, particularly when they do not have lights. Secondly, there are the arrogant ones: those who do not think that the law applies to them. Red lights matter to motorists, but not to them, as they gaily cross them. They travel around with dark clothes and no lights, and if anybody bumps into them, it is someone else's fault.

My view is that if someone owns a bicycle and wants to commit suicide, they should jump off a cliff and get it over with, rather than go out on the roads in the dark without lights and have an innocent person kill them. Several times I have thanked my lucky stars that at the last minute I have seen a dark figure on the road in front of me who turns out to be someone on a bicycle. The number is not huge but every time that it happens, it frightens the life out of me. I could easily have knocked that person over because, with all the good will in the world, I did not see them until the very last minute. If those people want to get themselves injured, could they not do it in a way that does not make other people feel guilty or involve them in something that is not their fault?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

This has been a short but useful debate, and I agree with almost everything that has been said. I fully understand hon. Members' desire to get peddle cyclists to use flashing lights. There is a lot of interest in this area, but my lawyers inform me that the finer points of cycle lighting are regulated under secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Taunton asked why we had not put a clause in this Bill about that. We did not because primary legislation is not needed to take the action that we want to take.

The Committee will be pleased to hear that the Department undertook a public consultation exercise, to which the hon. Member for Christchurch referred, to amend the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 to permit the use of flashing lights on bicycles, as part of a package of amendments. Some years ago we carried out research into flashing lights and compared them with steady lights. It concluded that flashing lights neither improve conspicuity nor impair it. The result was neutral. What a wonderful piece of research to find out that they make no difference at all.

The response of consultees to the proposal was generally favourable. Two Members alluded to other sorts of flashing lights such as amber and blue. That is a far more controversial and complicated area, which we are unravelling at present. It caused quite a lot of difference of opinion in the consultation. There has been some delay, but we hope to bring forward an amendment to the lighting regulations before the summer.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made the point more robustly than I would, but it is true that cyclists should protect themselves by being properly lit at night. A fluorescent jacket or whatever is helpful in the day, but for cyclists at night reflective strips either on their person or on their bikes are certainly a useful addition to lights.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for responding so comprehensively to this debate. Is he willing to share with the Committee the scope and nature of the general consultation on lighting? If he cannot respond now, perhaps he could drop me a line. Is he also consulting on the use by many motorists of hazard warning lights when vehicles are in motion, which is strictly against the law? Many motorists do so to warn others behind them of an impending traffic jam. I do not want to drag the Minister off the new clause, but it would be useful to know the scope of the consultation on lights.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I can drop a note to the right hon. Gentleman on that. As the Government have brought in a Freedom of Information Act, information about all these consultations could be made available. It sometimes seems as if the freedom of information was invented by the press, but it was the Government who brought in the legislation. Yes, the results will be available.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister. Could he ensure that the report, in its present form, is placed in the Library as soon as possible?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Yes, we wanted to ensure that it was up to publication standard. We can make the information available to the hon. Gentleman. We felt that it was not terribly helpful in its present form. Under the Freedom of Information Act people can access it; it is not a secret report. We try to publish things that are helpful to the general public and to the debate.

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

Will the Minister expand on that a little? Is he saying that the Government are minded to implement the substance of the new clause irrespective of what happens in Committee? Is the issue still under active consideration?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I thought that I had made myself clear, but obviously there was a deficiency in what I said. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. There was strong support for the measure in the consultation. Many other issues, not to do with cycling but to do with flashing lights, must be resolved. We want to implement the whole package. I hope that we will have it in place by the summer. The important thing is to protect cyclists and, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said, other road users. So, we are sympathetic to the new clause, but we do not need it because what it seeks to do can be done readily by secondary legislation.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The debate has been productive. One wonders how much longer the Government would have spent wondering whether to act were it not for the debate. I shall not quibble with the Minister's timing. If the new clause were incorporated into the Bill by the time of its Royal Assent, the change would occur at about the same time as the Minister suggested it will occur through regulation. I hope that he and his Department will get on with bringing forward regulations as quickly as possible.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am sure that my hon. Friend has thought this through. Either the Minister will implement the proposal before 5 May, or my hon. Friend will have a chance to do so on 6 May.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Where there is consensus on an issue, I do not think that we need to be fussed—the change will happen anyway. Perhaps it would even happen if there were a Scottish Nationalist party Government.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to withdraw the motion?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I withdraw that last remark first. Having done so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4 - Causing death or serious injury by negligent driving

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

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

The new clause stands in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). I am delighted to inform the Minister and the Whips Office that I am no longer a disloyal rebel but a proud proponent of Government policy. I am delighted to be the first MP to be able to put on the record the fact that the Government have concluded that there should be a new offence of causing death by careless driving, for which a prison sentence of up to five years should be available, although that sentence should not be used in every case.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Let me be the first to congratulate my hon. Friend on the pressure that he has brought to bear. It has finally led to the Government's policy in response to the Halliday report coming to light.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

I thank my hon. Friend for those kind words. The purpose and effect of new clause 4 is almost identical to Government policy. The only difference is that the new clause would implement a slightly different maximum potential prison sentence. However, the general purpose is identical: to introduce into the law of the United Kingdom for the first time the offence of causing death by careless driving.

The reason why it is important in policy terms to introduce such an offence is that cars kill. If I am careless with a cup of tea in my kitchen, the worst that I might do is burn myself and cause a mess, but if I am careless with a car that weighs 3.5 tonnes and travels at 60 mph, the worst that I might do is kill someone. Indeed, if, through my carelessness, I hit someone at just 40 mph, in nine times out of 10 that person will die. Every year, 3,500 people die on our roads. That is 10 people every day. A large number of those people are children. Roads are the second biggest killer of children after cancer.

I attended the funeral of my second cousin 15 years ago. She was a teenager. The whole school walked through the village of Wotton-under-Edge to go to the funeral. I can remember that harrowing moment. We should mark, in the law, the respect that we owe to all who grieve and have lost loved ones.

Enough children die on our roads every year to fill a school, but that is not reflected in the law. The law is asymmetric and inconsistent. We mark the gravity of the offence of culpable driving, when it causes a life to be lost, and is dangerous driving, through the application of a second offence, with a markedly different penalty. If it is just dangerous driving, someone might be put in prison for two years, but if someone is killed as a result of dangerous driving, the driver might be put in prison for 14 years. Yet we do not mark at all whether culpable driving is criminal negligence. There is no offence known to English law of killing someone by careless driving. So someone can only be charged with careless driving and he can only be fined.

On the gradations of carelessness, there is a huge continuum of careless acts when someone is driving. Someone could be killed by mere inattention, very careless driving or dangerous driving. On the threshold known to law between carelessness and dangerousness, when someone is just below or just above dangerous driving, there is a huge gap in the law. The prosecutor or jury have to decide whether someone was killed by dangerous driving, in which case they can send someone to prison for 14 years, or by extremely careless driving, which was not dangerous, in which case they can only fine. That huge hole needs to be filled because it causes injustice, not just in how we mark our moral disapproval of that behaviour.

I want to pay particular tribute to the family of Alexine Melnik, two of whom are in the room today. Alexine Melnik was a 17-year-old constituent of mine. She was being driven home from a pop concert in Great Yarmouth last year. The car behind hers did not brake in time and drove into her car, which was forced into the oncoming lane. There was a collision and she died.

The driver admitted culpability by driving unlawfully to a level of negligence that was criminal. He pleaded guilty and received a £500 fine for killing Alexine. As he pleaded guilty, the trial did not even consider the circumstances that lead to that death. As he could only be fined, questioning him forensically as to why he did not brake in time did not matter. When Peter and Tracy Melnik left that court they did not know what acts of carelessness caused the loss of their daughter's life. That adds a deep sense of injustice to a burning sense of grief. That is why I have tabled the new clause to fill that gap.

Vikky Bailey—24 years old—was filling her car at a petrol station in Little Irchester in my constituency, just off the A45. A car came off the road at 60 mph. That car hit her car, her car hit her, and she lost her foot, her job and her home. If that accident was caused by carelessness, the gravity of the offence should reflect the severity of her injury.

In arguing for the clause, I already have the support of the 82 Members of Parliament who have signed my early-day motion 541, of PACTS, and, now, of the Home Office. I also have the support of the British public. Four weeks ago I launched a campaign in my constituency, with the assistance of Peter and Tracy Melnik and the Evening Telegraph. We invited the paper's readership and my constituents to say whether they supported the new clause. I have the responses here. There are more than 2,500 of them, of which only seven disagree. All the others agree. They are not just from my constituency, or from those of Labour Members of Parliament. They come from across the political divide and from a number of areas across the country, as well as more locally. There is a huge weight of public opinion in support of the proposal. Indeed, if the Home Office is asking for there to be consultation, they will receive these responses in a parcel as consultation replies.

I make a special appeal to Opposition Members. I would hope that this new clause, or a similar one that reflected more closely the Government's concluded view, had the support of every party in the House, but at the moment it does not have the support of the Conservatives. Only one brave Member of that party has signed my early-day motion, and we know, because I read it into the record last week, that the shadow Attorney-General thinks the proposal is profoundly wrong. Last week I asked the Conservative Front Bench spokesmen nine times whether they would disagree with the shadow Attorney-General's view. I do not want to embarrass the Opposition. I want, instead, to beg them to support the campaign by lending their names and, in due course, their votes to it so that we bring about a change in the law, fill the existing gap and mark, albeit inadequately, the deaths of so many people, including Alexine Melnik.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We live in interesting times, Mr. Pike. I suggested that we should have a differential penalty for careless driving that related to the consequences of that driving, and that we might debate that alongside new clause 4. I now understand exactly why the Government did not want that to happen—although, in my naivety and ignorance, I did not want it to happen either. They knew jolly well that they had cooked up an announcement, to be made at a time when it would be too late for Members of the Committee to table new clauses, and to debate and consider that announcement. That has come forward today—

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Not at the moment.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) said the paper in question was a White Paper, but it is nothing like one. It is a consultation document. If it were a White Paper, it would be subject to a full statement in the House today, as the Speaker has said so many times. Then we could have had a discussion about it.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Not at the moment.

The way in which the Government have dealt with Committee Opposition Members on this serious issue is frankly despicable. Having mouthed about the need for consultation, and, as far as possible, for getting consensus on these issues, they have deliberately kept us in the dark by behaving in the way that they have.

I asked the Minister when we would be getting the report from the Halliday review. I said it was regrettable that the report had not been produced in advance of consideration of the Bill. The Minister said, as I recall, that he did not know when we would be getting the Halliday report and suggested that I put down a parliamentary question to find out. I duly out down a parliamentary question. That question was due for answer on 1 February—the day before yesterday—and on that day the Minister responsible at the Home Office sent me a holding reply. That is not open government. That is government designed—

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

In a moment.

That is government designed to prevent proper and open debate, because we could have had that information earlier. The Minister said, in the context of our debate on cycling, that there was a document which was not in perfect form for distribution. Yet the document that we have received today obviously went to the printers before Tuesday. It must have been known that it was going to be produced today and the Government decided that, rather than allow it to be made available to us earlier, they would delay it until the very end of the Committee proceedings.

I am not as gullible as the hon. Member for Wellingborough about this because, in the short time we have had to look at the document this morning, I have looked at the costs. I notice that chapter 5 says:

''The Government believes that the proposals canvassed in this paper would improve the quality of justice dispensed through the courts in road traffic cases, and increase public confidence in the criminal justice system, including its contribution to road safety. Government Departments have done some preliminary work on the possible costs of the proposals, including their impact on the size of the prison population. This preliminary work suggests that the proposals in respect of offences of bad driving could create an additional demand for about 800 prison places. The great bulk of these would result from increasing the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from 2 to 5 years' imprisonment, to which the Government is already committed, when resources are available. The proposed new offence of causing death by careless driving would probably also create additional demand, although much would depend on how it was used by prosecutors and courts''.

I suspect that, all along, the Government have been seeking to use the delaying factor to prevent putting on to the statute book a law such as the one canvassed in that consultation paper today, in support of which the hon. Member for Wellingborough has spoken. We know that the previous Home Secretary said he thought that our prisons were too full of people who have been convicted of motoring offences. I suspect that the Government are not really committed to doing what the public wants, which is to stamp down really hard on bad drivers and put them, if need be, behind bars.

I do not see the new clause as being the answer that the hon. Member for Wellingborough thinks it is because if it was, the Government could have legislated for it in the Bill. They could have introduced their proposals when it was published before Christmas, and then we could have had consultation about this in the intervening period, followed by resolution. The new offences could have been incorporated into the Bill if thought appropriate and put on the statute book to come into operation in the summer. Instead, we have a consultation paper, with a closing date of 6 May, when there will be a change of Government. This is an issue, therefore, that we will have to take forward as a Conservative Government. It could have been addressed, nevertheless, by this Bill, but the Government have deliberately decided not to, leaving us in the dark.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his extremely gracious response to the new clause. When such a measure appears in a Bill, will he support it?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We do not yet know whether the Government themselves are going to support it. This is a consultation document.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

What about the hon. Gentleman?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I have had less than an hour and a half to look at this, and the hon. Gentleman will know that I will not assert that I am going to support everything in this document when I know jolly well that it needs to be the subject of consultation with a much wider range of people than were involved when it was prepared. For example, the Institute of Advanced Motorists was not among those consulted. Why was the RAC Foundation not consulted? We have not even got, as far as I can make out, the full review in front of us. All we have is a summary. I hope the Minister will confirm that the whole document is going to be placed in the Library and will be subject to consultation.

Labour Members are suggesting that it is unreasonable of the official Opposition not to have a definitive answer to all the points in this document today. One thing I do have a definitive answer to is that I think that the proposal on penalties is, as the hon. Gentleman has accepted, inappropriate. He is suggesting that the maximum penalty for causing serious injury through dangerous driving would be no less than a 14-year imprisonment. That is far in excess of the present offence of careless driving, which has a maximum of a level 4 fine. Indeed, the Government, in this Home Office review, seem to be of the mind that that level of maximum penalty would be grossly disproportionate.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

Is the hon. Gentleman not being a trifle disingenuous when he says that this document, and more particularly the issue it addresses, comes as a complete surprise to him and that he has not had time to consider it? My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has been campaigning very publicly, and, we now see, successfully and skilfully, for a great deal of time on this issue. The early-day motion shows the width of support he has. For the hon. Member for Christchurch to say ''I cannot possibly comment on this. I have only seen it for a few hours'', is a fairly ludicrous position. Nobody is asking him to give his endorsement to the exact wording.

Does the hon. Gentleman support the thrust of the new clause? I would have thought that it would help the Committee to know. It would be a strange position if he could look the Committee in the face and say, ''We do not support it.'' So if he does support it, is he not being a trifle heavy-handed and heavy-footed? Would it not be rather more gracious to say that he, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and many others, feels that this is right, and welcomes the fact that the Government agree?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention was such that I cannot answer all his detailed points. He is accusing me of being disingenuous. All I can say is that I plead guilty to being naive in thinking that the reason why I had received a holding reply from a Home Office Minister, in answer to my question of when the Halliday report would be published, was because she did not know the answer. Now I realise that she knew the answer but declined to tell me because she wanted to obtain a party political advantage.

I was naive about that, but the hon. Gentleman described me as disingenuous. He knows jolly well that the document is primarily a Home Office document. Indeed, that was the Minister's defence—namely, that we were talking about a Home Office matter and that he was really an also-ran as a Minister at the Department for Transport, even though all Departments were responsible for publication. For the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central to suggest that I should announce a definitive Opposition policy on the document when I have not even had the chance of discussing its contents with anyone from our shadow Home Office team, is—to use his term—to show a high degree of disingenuity. He is a Minister—

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

He was.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

He was a Minister. He knows that we operate on the basis of preparing for joined-up government on 6 May. In doing so, I shall certainly consult with our Home Office team about the document. We shall read it and take account of its results. However, we shall not be bounced into an instant response when the Government have deliberately delayed publication for as long as possible in order to prevent the contents from being included in the Bill.

I am disappointed at the way in which the Government have treated the Committee. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Wellingborough thinks that he has won the day, even though he has not read the small print and seen that the Home Office attitude is exactly the same as it was under the previous Home Secretary—namely, not really thinking it in the public interest to lock up more people who are guilty of road traffic offences. That is the Government's Achilles heel, which is why they have not been prepared to legislate.

Several hon. Members rose—

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I give way.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Who is the hon. Gentleman giving way to?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The hon. Member for Wellingborough.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I call the hon. Member for Wellingborough, I should make it clear that although I accept that the consultation document is relevant—I would not have allowed the debate to go on otherwise—at the end of the day we are debating the new clause and have been for some considerable time.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

The hon. Member for Christchurch is suggesting that we have cooked something up for party political advantage. Would he care to confirm that every Conservative Member received a letter from Peter and Tracey Melnik, which I posted in advance of Second Reading, and that the hon. Member for South Suffolk, who led in that debate, even quoted from it, thus giving every Conservative Member an opportunity to support the new clause and the early-day motion?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I certainly accept that the letter from the hon. Gentleman's constituent was sent to me, that I saw it and that I drew it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, who led for us on Second Reading. We were aware of the contents of that letter in good time and my hon. Friend responded to it, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As for the new clause, the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he will withdraw it in preference to—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee A

New clause 4 - CAUSING DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY BY NEGLIGENT DRIVING

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I call Mr. Chope to resume his speech, I note that several people have indicated that they want to speak on the new clause. I accept that it is important—there is no dispute about that whatever. However, looking at the Order Paper, I see that we are likely to be interrupted by Divisions in the House. If there are Divisions, the 5.30 finish time will not be extended; there is no injury time. We will finish at 5.30, and any new clause that we have not reached will automatically fall. There is one Government amendment, which will be moved formally if we reach that point. Of course, having said that, we may move along at a fairly speedy pace, but I indicate that to the Committee so that Members know the exact position right from the start.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

That just emphasises the inflexibility of the Government guillotine. We could have had more time to discuss these matters if the scheduling had been dealt with more flexibly. For those members of the Committee who were not present in the Chamber, I put on record the fact that I raised a point of order about the shenanigans of this morning, and, as a result, the Deputy Speaker reprimanded the Government for their behaviour. I have said enough about that.

We know that the Government produced the document for consultation and that they are not proposing to include legislation on it in the Bill. We know that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), who moved the new clause, will withdraw it. Bearing in mind that there are many other new clauses to be debated and that our time will be eaten into by Divisions, I hope that we will be able to curtail the debate on this new clause. I have said all that I need to say on it.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough on introducing the new clause and also on his long-running campaign. I confess that I failed to sign his early-day motion. That was a sin of omission on my part, as I had indicated to my colleagues that they should sign it. I most certainly would have signed it if I had not missed it.

I shall confine my remarks simply to saying unequivocally and straightforwardly that the principle of the new clause is right and that the Liberal Democrats will support it. More detail may come out in the consultation, but I am happy to place on the record my support for the principle. There is wide consensus on the issue. It is right that the hon. Gentleman's campaign has succeeded and that the Government have recognised it. There is support from all parts of the House—even the odd Conservative, I believe—and we look forward to the new clause becoming law.

Before I sit down, I would like to make a brief comment about the remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). He may well have a bone to pick with the Home Office. The timing is less than convenient, and it is probably right that the Deputy Speaker issued a reprimand. Perhaps the Government have been clumsy, even ham-fisted—who knows? It would not be the first time that that has happened in government. However, I simply do not buy the conspiracy theory. I would have thought, given the hon. Gentleman's long experience as a Minister, that he would be well aware that the vast majority of such things can be ascribed to the cock-up, rather than the conspiracy, theory. His lack of support for the measure is surprising, and, considering who was present, somewhat distasteful. His remarks about 6 May would be funny if they were not so sadly delusional.

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). This is not a new debate. Indeed, my first debate in Westminster Hall after I was elected was on road safety. Many of these issues were raised as long ago as last September, and it was clear to me then that the matter had been debated for some time and that there was an emerging consensus on it. I, too, was surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for Christchurch, because he had an opportunity to discuss such matters then, yet Hansard shows that he did not do so.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough that the new clause has the support of many people not only in his constituency but in mine. I was proud to sign his early-day motion. The proposal has the support also of readers of the Birmingham Evening Mail and wide support across the city of Birmingham. My introduction to this debate was hard. A month after my election, Josh Berill was hit and killed on Burney lane in Washwood Heath. He was two years old, the same age as my middle boy. He was hit by a car that accelerated when it hit him, and he was dragged 200 yd down the road before the car stopped. It shocked not only the constituency that I represent, but people across Birmingham.

After the shock came the anger, because Josh Berill was not the first child to be killed on Burney lane; he was the second. It was not the first accident but the seventh in five years. It was no longer a quiet residential road; it had become a race track. As I spent more and more time on the case, my admiration, like that of many others in the city, grew for Josh's family, Nona Robinson and Thomas Gordon. They had three simple questions for me. How do we make sure that it never happens again? How do we make sure that justice is done? How do we guarantee that from Josh's death—from that tragedy—some good comes?

It is vital to recognise credit where credit is due. I pay credit to the Minister, who has contributed so much to the cause of road safety not just throughout the country but in Birmingham. The number of deaths and serious injuries each year on the roads in Birmingham has fallen from 775 to 525. That is a full 30 per cent. decrease. The number of children hurt or killed has fallen from 151 to 83. That is already a fall of 45 per cent.—much better than the reduction of one third recorded nationally. That substantial progress is in no small part down to the investment that this Bill will make more possible. The Minister has been instrumental in ensuring that that investment arrives in Hodge Hill. He inaugurated the inner-city road safety demonstration project, which is worth £6 million. It cut road deaths in Gloucester by 38 per cent., and we look forward to similar results in Birmingham.

Although we have closed the investment gap, we have not yet closed the justice gap, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made clear. It still looms large. When we debated the issue last summer in the House, I was shocked as a new MP to hear example after example of drivers who had killed innocent people walking off with no more severe a penalty than six points on their licence and a £150 to £300 fine. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who does not serve on this Committee, said that the burden of proving that driving is dangerous is so heavy that all too often careless driving is the charge that is pressed, and it is pressed not in a Crown court but in a magistrates court. As a community, we are forced to stand by and watch the indignity of those courts handing down completely inadequate sentences.

When the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross spoke in the debate last September, he made a powerful point. He said that the number of deaths and serious injuries was

''equivalent to a Hatfield and Potters Bar''—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, Tuesday 7 September 2004; Vol. 12, c. 3WH.]

rail crash every single day.

The most dangerous drivers are serial potential killers. Some 46 per cent. of those convicted of dangerous driving have been convicted on not one, not two, but three previous occasions. Some 56 per cent. of offenders with three or more offences go on to commit a fourth. It is that justice gap that is greatest of all, and it is a justice gap that is worst in our poorest communities. The fact is that a child from a less privileged community is five times more likely to be hit and hurt by a car. In a city such as Birmingham, that means a child every week. People in my constituency want their neighbourhoods back, and we want that justice gap closed. The truth is that crime hits hardest the young and the old. The seven accidents on Burney lane have involved either toddlers, teenagers or pensioners—often the most valuable and the most vulnerable in society.

Everything that we have achieved as a country has one simple root: the idea that nobody is above the law. Today, justice is not being done; supporting the principle of the new clause is our opportunity to take a step forward. I promised Josh's family that I would do everything in my power to see that justice is done for them, and so I look to the Minister to accept this vital step forward or to give us the assurance that we need that, if not in this Bill, in another soon to arrive, we will end this scandal and give our communities the laws that they deserve.

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

The new clause was tabled to ensure that loss of life and serious injury on the roads are treated with the same concern that is shown for loss of life and serious injury inflicted by other means. It is a major issue and a human one. It is filled with anguish. As we all know, every day about 10 people die on our roads and about 90 are seriously injured. In the wake of those incidents are left ruined lives as a result of bereavement or serious injury.

As several hon. Members have said, the issues have been long running. The Select Committee on Transport considered the matter in its report ''Traffic Law and its Enforcement'', published on 13 October 2004. The Select Committee took evidence from a number of individuals and organisations, including RoadPeace, which spoke for the bereaved and those affected tragically by death and accidents on the roads. We also spoke to the police, who gave evidence too. We accepted that there were undoubtedly instances in which death and injury were caused by tragic momentary errors. However, there were many other cases where the system let down the bereaved and their families.

The issues that arose and that were drawn to our attention covered a range of matters. The specific sentencing issue that the new clause addresses is related to the question of assessing and gathering evidence at the scene of an accident. Concern was expressed that sometimes there is an overriding wish to get the traffic moving again, rather than to collect the necessary forensic evidence to enable a proper charge to be brought. Concerns were expressed about the inadequacy of the charges brought—about the Crown Prosecution Service's bringing charges of careless driving when more serious charges should be brought in the circumstances.

There are problems relating to the inadequacy of the records kept on what happens to cases in which people have been killed or seriously injured on the roads. We are talking about three sets of statistics: collision statistics, court statistics and information from the CPS. Even now, those figures and that information are not properly collated. There are derisory sentences, to which reference has already been made by my hon. Friends, and sometimes there is a lack of proper concern for bereaved families and inadequate contact with them.

On the question of sentencing, I can do no more than quote the evidence given to the Select Committee, not by members of a bereaved family but by the police, and in particular by Sergeant Pattison of Northumbria police, who stated:

''The obscenity of the present restriction is that if one driver punched the other and caused, say a broken nose (assault occasioning actually bodily harm), the offender could be sentenced to five years imprisonment or, if the driver deliberately or recklessly damaged the other driver's motor vehicle and was charged with criminal damage, a maximum of ten years imprisonment could be imposed, or where life was endangered, life imprisonment. Yet when guilty of dangerous driving and grievous life threatening injuries are concerned, the maximum available to the Judge, is two years imprisonment.''

That statement from the police is just one indication of the grave injustice that has been done for so long.

The Select Committee called for a new offence to be created: that of causing death or serious injury by negligent driving. It also called for the Halliday report to be published. I am delighted that today we have the consultation document arising from the review of the situation. Unlike Opposition Members, I am pleased that it has been published now; it is extremely timely.

I was particularly pleased to see that there are two major measures proposed in the report that go a long way towards meeting the concerns of the Transport Committee, and they are reflected in the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. The proposal for a maximum custodial penalty of five years for the new offence of causing death by careless driving would clearly not be imposed in every case, or even most cases, but the new clause would make that maximum penalty available. In addition, the consultation document suggested that the court should be required to take account when sentencing of the consequences of bad driving offences, including the inflicting of injuries. Those two proposals address the main concerns of the Committee.

I am pleased that the Government are responding to those concerns. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the timely action that he has taken in pursuing the matter in the way that he has. He has focused the minds of Ministers on an issue that has been of long-term concern. Through his diligence and in trying to bring some kind of justice to the family of Alexine Melnik, he has been able to bring about the publication of the document containing the proposals for a change in sentencing.

I hope that the Minister will assure us that, although the document has come from the Home Office, he will be able to support the general trend of the proposals, so that at long last sentencing recognises the impact of death on the roads and the serious injuries inflicted.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough on bringing the matter before the Committee, and on the consistent and persistent way he has advanced the issues and created debate inside and outside this House in pursuit of the interests of his constituents. It is a model of how a good constituency Member of Parliament can advance such issues on behalf of their constituents.

My hon. Friend referred to the number of casualties on our roads, as have a number of Members. I have said it before but I shall say it again that the record of this country bears good comparison with any other in the world. We have one of the best records in this area. None the less, it is a fact that 270 children—the number of pupils in a medium-sized primary school—and about 3,500 people altogether are killed each year on our roads. The good news is that the number of serious injuries on our roads, particularly of children, is falling very rapidly owing to an accumulation of measures taken over the past 30 years by Governments who have taken such issues very seriously.

Before I come to the substance of an otherwise good and constructive debate, I want to say that it was completely sullied by the speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch. At the beginning of his contribution, he talked about having some consensus on these matters, but he went on to make the most non-consensual speech that I have heard in a long time, complaining about something that does not directly concern the Committee: a Home Office document that came out today.

Last week, the hon. Gentleman asked when the report was coming out, and I told him that I did not know. That was the truth; I did not know. He and other Committee members must know me well enough by now. Had I known, I would have told him. I had no reason to say otherwise. I did not know that the document was coming out until yesterday morning, and I did not see a copy of it until this morning. My Department had been consulted about it, but I had not seen the final document.

There are two things going on here. My Department is responsible for road safety policy; offences are a matter for the Home Office. Over the past four years, since I have been doing my job, my officials and I, along with many others in the House, such as PACTS, which has been very good, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who has helped, have been putting together a number of issues that we thought would be good candidates for a road safety Bill. That Bill is now in front of us. We have here many measures that I think we agree across the Committee are good measures. We have put the measures together, we have put them in a Bill, we have put them to the House, and I think that we agree on the vast majority of them.

At the same time, because of other campaigning, some people felt that we did not necessarily need new offences, but that we needed to adjust the penalty for the existing ones. So the work in my Department on the Bill was in parallel with a review of the offences. The Home Office employed Mr. Halliday to look at the offences and to collect opinions and views for an internal report, which has today been put into a consultation paper. That process has been going on for two and a half years. Work on this Bill has been going on for four years. Coincidentally, the two things have come together.

The consultation document does not affect anything that we are doing in the Bill. The hon. Member for Christchurch said, ''Well, if we had known this earlier in the week, we would have tabled some amendments.'' How ridiculous. It will be several weeks before we receive people's views on the consultation paper, and then a Bill will come not through my Department but through the Home Office. To say that after 48 hours we should pre-empt responses to the consultation document and table an amendment is quite ludicrous. On mature reflection, the hon. Gentleman will realise that.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister has just put on the record that he did not see the paper until yesterday. Will he clarify whether he means that he did not see a version of the printed copy until yesterday, or whether he had not seen the contents presented in some other form? The approval of his Department is on the back of the document. If the Minister did not agree the contents on behalf of his Department, who did?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I did not see the final version until yesterday. Our Department will have been aware of the contents, as we and the Department for Constitutional Affairs have been working together and talking to each other about the contents. However, I had not seen the paper until yesterday morning.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I will, although I want to make some progress. We have wasted enough time on this matter already.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

This is not a waste of time; there is a matter of principle about Government responsibility for their own publications. Will the Minister tell us whether the document was issued with the approval of a Minister in his Department?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I was aware of the document, and we wrote internally to the Domestic Affairs Committee to say that we were content with what was in it.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I do not know if we want to pursue this any further. The question asked by the hon. Member for Christchurch was whether I was aware of the date that the document was to be published. No I was not, because it was not in my gift to publish it. That was in the gift of the Home Office. I will give way once more.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister has said that ''we'' were aware. I will press him again: will he please clarify what he means by ''we''? Was the document seen and approved by a Minister, or is he using the word collectively to mean that approval was given by some official?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

As a Department, ministerial clearance was given for our approval of the document.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

By whom?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

By the Secretary of State. The final version of the paper is in front of us, but that is a separate matter. Over coming weeks there will be careful consultation over the paper's contents, but that will not in any way affect the Bill before us. There will be a separate Bill, dealing with entirely different matters. We are dealing almost entirely with the penalties, not with the offences. The consultation paper deals with the offences and not the penalties.

Turning to the serious issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, I am only too aware, from my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, from the correspondence that the Department receives, and from the representations that we receive from hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and others, how desperately angry many people feel when they have lost a member of their family or a cherished friend in a road accident, or even when such a person has been seriously injured. It is a painful and hurtful experience and it lasts for a long time.

The family's grief is often made worse because they feel that the court has not treated the offence with the seriousness that it should have done, that the penalty that was handed out was not sufficiently serious or, if the person feels guilty and there was no hearing, because they feel angry that the witnesses did not have their chance to say their bit in court to ventilate some of the issues. They feel that there has been no place in which to hear the issues and they feel aggrieved by that. I understand that feeling. That is why the report tackles many of the issues to do with the penalties attracted by certain offences. It is imperative that the criminal law is fully effective in dealing with and addressing all forms of bad driving that have the all too appalling consequences that several Members have mentioned.

However, this is a sensitive area of law that involves difficult issues. Therefore, it is essential—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I call the Minister, I want to make a ruling. Because I have responsibility to see this agenda through, any further reference to the consultation document must be directly relevant to the new clause that we are debating. I am not saying that it is not related, but it must be raised only on issues related directly to what we are debating in the new clause.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Thank you for that, Mr. Pike. As I was saying, this is a sensitive area of the law that involves some difficult issues, so it is essential that the introduction of the offences set out in the document, as proposed, is considered against the full background of a wider framework of offences and penalties in the criminal law. The issues raised in the new clause are adequately covered in the document—which I think Committee members have now seen—as are many other offences. The Home Office is developing new offences, rather than new penalties. It is right and proper for that now to take its course, and for the Home Office to take appropriate action.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Liam Byrne)—who, during his short time in this House, has been proving himself to be a quiet but highly effective and determined Member of Parliament—has already raised a number of constituency issues relating to the penalties imposed on people for these offences. I congratulate him on the work that he has done. He also referred to the inner-city road safety project. I visited his constituents to launch that project before he was a Member of Parliament, and picked up on the concerns from parents there about the level of penalties that people were getting for certain offences. I wish my hon. Friend well in his endeavours in his constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has a long-standing interest in these issues, and I am well aware of the excellent contribution that she has made through the Select Committee on Transport, which, quite rightly, had a lot to say about these issues.

We are deeply sympathetic to the new clause, but the time is not far away when the Government as a whole, through the Home Office, can deal with some of these issues. There is now a serious intent to do that, and I hope the motion will be withdrawn, so that we may come back and tackle the matters with a vengeance sometime in the next few months.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

With one notable exception, it has been a very good and positive debate. I wish to put on record my thanks for the support that I have received from Liberal Democrat Members, from Labour Back Benchers and from the Minister. I can also record that we have received yet more public support. The postman arrived while we were here this morning—and I have another 200 positive responses in support of this new clause. I dare say that those 200 people will feel insulted by the comments made by the hon. Member for Christchurch.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

Yes.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Perhaps I am looking too far into the future. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that legislation by reflection is better than legislation by postcard? In the consultation process that is taking place, we need to reflect on the views of the experts and those who are looking at the wider framework of penalties, not just on the views of those who are angry and emotional.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

Of course we need to legislate with mature reflection. The issue has been debated on numerous occasions and considered by many people, not least by the Transport Committee. I believe that the Committee's report was unanimously agreed to. At any rate, it was agreed to by Conservative Members.

I thought that the contribution of the hon. Member for Christchurch not only demonstrated a lack of grace, but was a disgrace. He effectively accused my constituent and I, and perhaps my Front-Bench colleagues, of a party political carve-up. Mr. Melnik, who heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, said to me afterwards that he felt that, after six months of grief, he had been given a slap in the face. Mr. Melnik did not spend his Christmas celebrating the festivities, which took place just a few months after his daughter died; he spent it printing out and signing letters to every Member of Parliament, including every Conservative Member.

When I tabled my early-day motion, I did not say that Members could sign it only if they were Labour, Liberal, a nationalist or from Ulster. It was not a Conservative-free zone. There is no room in grief for ideology and there should not have been any room for party politics in the debate. The simple fact is that there is a gaping hole in the law. Mine was a legitimate attempt to try to fill it. A better way forward has been signalled by the Home Office in its timely report.

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that residents of Burney lane will be joining me this evening to present a petition to the House of Commons in support of the principle.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to hear that, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support and for his campaigning on the issue in his constituency and in Parliament. The simple truth is that the measure is neither a conspiracy nor a carve-up. Mr. Melnik is not a party member and he is not a conspirator. He is a grieving dad. I suggest that it says something rather deep about Conservative Members that they cannot imagine that sometimes people campaign for the right thing for the right reason.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Since the hon. Gentleman went out of his way to try to insult me, I simply say that it is regrettable that the Halliday review took two and a half years to report. If the report had been dealt with more quickly, the recommendations from that report could have been included in the Bill. That is not now possible because of the timing of the report. It means that the change in the law that the hon. Gentleman wants will not be made until a year or more from now.

The hon. Gentleman has not addressed the point about penalties in the appendix to the report. He knows that the previous Home Secretary was against locking up more motorists; he thought that there were already too many motorists in prison. The proposal was that another 800 a year be put in prison. I do not believe, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has any reason to believe, that his Government are committed to achieving that. This is an exercise in trying to allay concerns without making any firm, unequivocal commitment.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 7 - National speed limit for villages

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

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross). It seeks to make a 30 mph speed limit for villages and settlements statutory. I will give a brief explanation of the clause. Subsection (1) says:

''The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a national speed limit of 30 m.p.h for motor vehicles in villages.''

Subsection (2) gives a time scale of

''not later than twelve months'',

and subsection (3) sets out a definition of a village as

''a settlement of 20 or more dwellings situated along not less than 600 metres of any highway.''

At the outset, I say that I am grateful to the Campaign to Protect Rural England for having brought the matter to my attention and giving me a brief. I see the new clause as a part of an overall road strategy, and particularly as a strategy for developing a clearer road hierarchy. I have often spoken during our debates about the difference between those of our roads that are clearly engineered and designed for use by the motor car at speed—the obvious examples of that are the motorway and the dual carriageway—and those roads that are not so engineered.

Many villages have narrow roads with mixed use, where pedestrians and other road users are in potential conflict with the motorist. As a principle, I have always sought not necessarily to slow traffic down or say to the motorist, ''Do not go fast unless the road is properly engineered'', but to focus on those areas where we can legislate in a way that has regard to that mixed use of the road. That is why I believe passionately that enforcement in 20, 30 and 40 mph zones is so important.

The Government could and should consider this matter, and they are already committed to do so because the road safety strategy published in 2000 included two specific commitments for rural areas. First, it stated that 30 mph should be the normal speed limit for villages, and secondly, it included a commitment to develop a road hierarchy that would update the current road classification. I think that it was the Prime Minister who, in launching the strategy in March 2000, made the commitment, welcomed at the time, that 30 mph should be the normal speed limit for villages.

The three-year review of the road safety strategy concluded that those commitments were being successfully delivered, and its conclusions established the policy that 30 mph should be the norm for villages. Although that has been restated, I am not sure that the necessary progress has taken place, and no deadline has been set for achievement of the Government's aspiration.

Although there is clearly some difficulty with regard to the definition of ''village'', the definition included in the new clause is satisfactory. We know that 60 per cent. of road accidents take place in rural areas—many fatalities occur on rural roads—and over 50 per cent. of accidents take place in areas where there is a 30 or 40 mph speed limit; those two points are juxtaposed. It would be sensible for us to consider a 30 mph limit for villages.

The new clause cannot be considered in any way to be anti-motorist. I think that it is pro-motorist because, as a motorist myself, when travelling in rural areas in my constituency I find a number of villages with no speed limit, as well as some that have a limit of 40 mph and some with a limit of 30 mph. It would be useful to know that every village had a clearly defined 30 mph speed limit; it would be a reassuring measure for drivers, rather than an anti-motorist one. I commend the new clause to the Committee and I hope, albeit without too much optimism, that the Government will look favourably on it.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The hon. Gentleman has performed a useful service in tabling the new clause, if only so that we can look at it and dismiss it. It is not anti-motorist, but it is impractical because it is too inflexible. Many villages would support the imposition of a 30 mph speed limit, but many others would take the opposite view. That is why I cannot support his blanket approach.

To give an example, I used to live many years ago in the village of Thurmaston, Leicestershire, which has been bisected by a dual carriageway that runs straight through the village. There is a pedestrian over-bridge and a pedestrian subway and, I believe, fencing on both sides of the road. As far as I am aware, there is no public wish for the speed limit on the road to be reduced to 30 mph.

The A1 runs through several villages, not all of which have a 30 mph limit. Considering the proximity of houses to the carriageway of the A1, there is a good reason for not having a 30 mph limit in force. I hope that the Minister will say that the hon. Gentleman's approach would be too inflexible, because that is certainly the conclusion that I have reached.

There may be a case for examining the inconsistency of speed limits across the UK. I for one would favour a speed limit audit by the Government to determine what local authorities are doing in different parts of the country, and publication of the findings. If that has been done, I am not aware of it, or, if it is under way, I would like to hear of it. If it has still to be done, perhaps we should do it.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I certainly understand the concerns that give rise to the new clause. I represent a rural constituency with many villages that are clamouring for a 30 mph speed limit. However, there is no need for the new clause, simply because local authorities already have the sole responsibility for introducing speed limits on their roads. I appreciate that many local authorities do not decide on a 30 mph speed limit in a particular village—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's point about an audit is appropriate—but it is very much down to them to make the decision on the basis of local circumstances. I appreciate that there ought to be flexibility. Local authorities may choose a speed limit from 20 to 70 mph without the need for any authorisation from the Department or the Secretary of State.

The definition of ''village'' in the new clause is the same as the definition that the Department for Transport adopts in its traffic advisory leaflet, issued in January 2004. Obviously, great minds think alike, so there is no problem with that. The issue is whether the local authority, and indeed the village itself, wants a 30 mph speed limit. In my experience, most villages do. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), assisted me with a campaign for a village. As a result, we now have a dozen speed cameras—perhaps it is a little over the top—along a road through three villages to ensure that 30, 40 and 50 mph speed limits are observed. The villages are protected by speed cameras.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned speed cameras, as I find that local authorities with backing from the police are often reluctant to agree to 30 mph speed limits. They are concerned about enforcement. If I mention speed cameras, they say that the strict guidance from the Department prevents them from installing them. Is there support in the Department for vehicle-activated signs, which would at least warn drivers that they are approaching a 30 mph limit area and that they should slow down?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Indeed, there is support for vehicle-activated signs. Wetley Rocks, the village that I mentioned, had a vehicle-activated sign, but still, in a tragic week, three people were killed in two separate accidents in the area of the village. The village therefore moved to speed cameras, but with the expert advice of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I managed to convince the county council that in fact they had flexibility, within 15 per cent. of their overall budget for speed cameras, to introduce them along that stretch of road. The legislation already allows for that to happen.

We are sympathetic to the point about having 30 mph speed limits in rural areas, but it must be a decision for the village and the local authority. Obviously, some villages are in areas where motorists would probably think that a 30 mph limit was inappropriate. In that situation, there is a difficulty in persuading drivers to abide by that limit.

The advisory leaflet not only makes it clear that the norm for a village should be 30 mph, it lays down a host of guidance about vehicle-activated signs, 20 mph zones, and the use of traffic islands, gateways and different markings. The advice exists and I urge local authorities to use it. They should also take advice on speed cameras. That would demonstrate that rural areas have as much right as urban areas to have a speed limit to protect their residents. They have got the support of the Department. I urge the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to withdraw the motion.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I had not intended to participate in the debate, but I think that the Minister and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross have missed the main point, which is surely that all drivers should be driving at the speed that is appropriate in the circumstances. The village where I live used to have the national speed limit, although most people drove at about 20 mph because the road was single track and there were bends. If we impose a speed limit that is not regarded as the maximum in ideal circumstances, it will not command respect.

In the less populated rural areas, in particular, it is surely important that all motorists go at an appropriate speed. During the day, when there are children around, that speed may be different from what it would be at the night time or during the early hours of a summer morning. I am worried that there would be speed limit signs in every village in the countryside and that they would add to the rural clutter instead of reinforcing the message that too many people are driving too fast in particular circumstances, in relation to their own safety and the safety of others. That is what is emphasised in the highway code.

Too many people think that they should drive up to the speed limit. To finish my example, a blanket 40 mph speed limit zone was introduced in the whole of the New Forest, but that was too fast for our village, so another limitation on driving in our village had to be introduced, because it seemed implicit that people would drive at 40 mph. Surely, without the need for a lot of clutter and a lot more regulation, we should re-emphasise the need for people to drive at an appropriate speed, irrespective of what the speed limit sign says.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

That is why the Department leaves it to the local authority to decide the appropriate speed limit. That seems perfectly consistent with ensuring that the speed limit reflects local circumstances and conditions.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Members who have taken part in this short debate. I am even grateful that I enticed the hon. Member for Christchurch to his feet. It proves the old angling adage: if you fish where the fish are and use the right fly, you will usually catch one.

I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) for his supportive dismissal, or dismissive support—whichever it was. If my understanding of the new clause and the advice that I have been given is correct, the circumstance that he puts forward would be exempt because of the way in which the new clause is worded. Clearly, it is not aimed at stopping the operation of a dual carriageway that happens to pass through a village, where the engineering has been undertaken in such a way that the pedestrian is protected. That would be ridiculous. Neither I, nor the Campaign to Protect Rural England, want to do that.

The specific case that concerns us is those villages—I am delighted that the Minister spotted where my definition of a village came from—in which there is no speed limit, which is the situation in many rural areas of the United Kingdom. There may or may not be the odd street light. There is one example in my constituency, where, because there is no speed limit, people take the view that 60 mph is the appropriate limit. The argument used by the hon. Member for Christchurch is turned on itself because when people do not see a limit, they assume that there is no limit, so they go at 60 mph. I agree with him that good motorists should use appropriate speed, but sadly not all motorists do. The fact that we have a hierarchy of speed limits means that people look for the guidance that they offer.

I am sorry that the new clause has not found favour with the Government, as it would be helpful. I hope that we can keep the situation under review, and perhaps the Government will continue to consider the measure. It would be a useful addition to the Bill. I am sure that there is a consensus that safety and the cutting of speed in rural areas is as important as anywhere else. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

New clause 8 - POWER TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS ON TRAFFIC AUTHORITIES AS REGARDS PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AT LEVEL CROSSINGS

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

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

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 10—Increase of penalties for failure to comply with traffic lights at level crossings—

'(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 consisting of a failure to comply with a traffic sign placed at or near a level crossing indicating that vehicular traffic is not to proceed over the level crossing shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine of level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with six penalty points.

(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force.'.

New clause 11—Increase of penalties for careless or inconsiderate driving causing damage to a railway or other bridge over a road—

'(1) A person who causes damage to a railway or other bridge over a road by driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with not fewer than six penalty points.

(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force.'.

New clause 12—Measures to promote road safety at railway and other bridges—

'In section 122(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (which sets out the matters to which local authorities must have regard in exercising their functions under that Act), after paragraph (c) insert—

''(ca) the need to remove the risk of heavy commercial and other vehicles from colliding with railway and other bridges crossing highways by installing warning devices and physical barriers on the highways approaching such bridges;''.'.

Amendment No. 40, in title, line 2, at end insert—

'and for related purposes concerning road safety.'.

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

We now move curiously from the road to the rail, and, more exactly, the interface between rail and road. We all remember the tragedy that took place at Ufton Nervet rail crossing, which was one of many incidents that take place at level crossings each year, the vast majority of which do not end up with the tragic loss of life that occurred in that incident.

I was approached by Network Rail. The new clauses and the amendment have been drafted by Network Rail, so they have a competence way beyond that to which I could ever aspire. I hope that instils some confidence in Committee members about the quality of the proposals. The principles are complex. I could spend time going through the detail, but I should like to address them so that we can make progress.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

On the confidence that we may have in Network Rail, it sent me comments that it received from the Health and Safety Executive, suggesting that the new clauses should be amended. Hon. Members should be aware that we cannot rely on them.

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

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me because I have the exact same letter. Network Rail sent all members of the Committee comments on the proposals. The HSE would like some amendments, not because of the technical quality of the proposals, but because of how it wants them to work. If, by some miracle of legislation, the Committee were to accept the new clauses, another place would have to tidy them up, as it tends to do from time to time.

The principles revolve around two matters. First, level crossings are safe when used properly. However, the new clauses suggest several changes that could enhance their safety. We always think of accidents at rail crossing as being entirely a rail matter, but they are not. They are very often a road matter, and most certainly an interface matter. It is appropriate that some duties be placed on traffic authorities. Secondly, some of the proposals also deal with what are known in the trade as ''bridge bashes''. There are significant problems for the railway system when most vehicles strike railway bridges because, each time a bridge is struck, a hazard is created and passengers are delayed, as trains have to be slowed or halted until engineers have checked the safety of the bridge.

New clause 8 would give the power to impose requirements on traffic authorities regarding protective equipment at level crossings. The critical point is made in subsection (2), which introduces ''relevant traffic authority'', instead of the local authority and Network Rail, and that is repeated throughout the new clause, putting a duty on traffic authorities to become involved.

New clause 10 would increase the penalties to a term not exceeding six months or a fine at level 5 for failure to comply with traffic lights at level crossings. I particularly support that because, during the summer recess, I spent some time with the British Transport police at one of the level crossings in Dingwall in the highlands and observed at first hand the operation of the camera. It was frightening to discover that the assessment made prior to the camera being installed was, if I recall correctly—although I may have got the numbers slightly wrong—an estimated 70 incidents of cars crossing on red throughout the highland area. Following the introduction of cameras, that number has been revised to something like 700. The problem is that people know there are around 23 seconds between the light changing and the train coming, and locals who know that tend to take more risks when crossing. There is a need for greater enforcement.

New clause 11 would increase the penalties for inconsiderate careless driving that causes damage to a railway bridge. New clause 12 would introduce measures to promote road safety at rail, and other, bridges.

The new clauses, while long and a little complex, are straightforward in principle. I am realistic. I am aware that the Government will not welcome them with open arms, but I hope that they would at least consider what they contain, together with the suggested changes put forward by the Health and Safety Executive, which is broadly content with the new clauses. Perhaps the Government will consider adopting some or all of them at a later stage.

The last in the group is amendment No. 40, with which I need not detain the Committee for long. It just so happened that, when I sought to table an amendment on another matter, the Clerks pointed out to me that the long title of the Bill did not include the words ''road safety''. I could not, therefore, table that amendment. So I now hope to amend the long title to include:

''and for related purposes concerning road safety''.

Funnily enough, the new clauses relating to the rail network would need that stipulation. No doubt the Minister can say why the Road Safety Bill's long title does not contain its short title.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I applaud and support the motive of the hon. Gentleman in tabling the new clauses, but I am afraid, as in the previous debate, he has not convinced me that it is necessary to put his proposals on the face of the Bill or to make the changes in the way he has suggested.

It is worth repeating that safety on our railways is among the highest in the world. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged as much when he said that, when there is an interface between road and rail, more often than not it is a road accident that involves a railway vehicle, and not the other way around. We need to ensure that motorists are constantly reminded of the danger of crossing a rail track when warning lights are flashing, and most authorities are alert to the need for action with road markings and signage. My local authority certainly is. At most, if not all, level crossings with a traffic light system, there are cameras as well. The authorities, quite rightly, regularly prosecute motorists who skip through the lights and over a junction.

I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do is either necessary or the correct way forward. He seeks to increase penalties for failing to comply with traffic lights at level crossings. I am unsure why he wants to elevate the offence of disobeying a traffic signal at a level crossing above that of disobeying any other traffic signal. To me, those are serious offences. If someone is injured as a result of a driver skipping a light at a level crossing, why should he be dealt with more severely than he would be if he injured the same person when they happened to be driving home in a car rather than being on a train? I do not support new clause 10.

With new clause 11, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman again failed to take me with him. There are many other cases where one could perhaps argue that the penalty should be increased if a motorist falls below the duty of care and the standards of driving that we expect. What about a motorist who hit a listed building, or the wall of a dwelling when it was occupied, or the side of a courthouse when a court case was in progress? I do not see the logic of singling out particular circumstances as he has done.

Turning to new clause 12, I can tell the Committee of a fairly recent case in East Yorkshire where two HGVs—both, on the face of it, travelling too fast—collided at the top of a road bridge going over a railway near the town of Howden. Luckily, no trains were involved in the incident. However, the authorities felt so concerned that the two vehicles had crashed at the top of that narrow, steeply inclined bridge that they immediately placed concrete blocks on either side of the carriageway and reduced the traffic to a single flow, controlled by temporary traffic lights. I accordingly made representations to the Government that it was a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It was causing massive delays in summer for people seeking to take their holiday in Bridlington. That is the main route into Bridlington—I encourage anyone wishing to holiday in the UK to do so in that marvellous seaside resort.

That action was clearly causing unnecessary delays, and I am grateful to the Government for listening to representations; those were made by the local authority, not just by myself. The Government have decided to remove the risk of heavy commercial or other vehicles from colliding, as mentioned in new clause 12, by providing the money to widen the bridge. The carriageway is now safe for two heavy goods vehicles to cross the bridge, without the risk of them colliding being as great as it was.

Although I applaud the sentiment behind these new clauses, I am not convinced that they are necessary or desirable.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, but I will not be recommending that the Committee accept the new clauses. Taking new clause 8 first, I can tell hon. Members that the Secretary of State already has powers under the Level Crossings Act 1983 to provide for the protection of those using a level crossing, and to specify the protective equipment to be provided. That would include traffic lights, television equipment and so on. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has alerted us to something that we may already have been aware of, but it is important to debate it. There is clearly a lack of interface between the traffic authorities and the railway. Despite the fact that Network Rail has direct access to the Department for Transport, it felt that, for some reason, it had to draft the new clauses.

The traffic authorities already have powers under the Highways Act 1980 to provide structures and equipment for the detection of traffic offences. That would obviously include cameras to detect motorists who jump red lights. I am absolutely appalled that someone would risk their life by jumping a red light to save 23 seconds. I am flabbergasted that anyone would do that. I believe that we have video or photographic evidence of someone doing that with two children in the back of the car. I cannot believe that anyone would want to do that, but people do. The problem is that it is difficult to legislate for people who do what would, in most people's eyes, be completely mad.

As I said, traffic authorities can put up traffic signs. They can convey all sorts of warnings and, in general, they do. The existing powers are broad enough to include most of the devices that have been suggested to improve the proper use of level crossings.

The new clause would also transfer responsibility for the level crossing from the railway to the traffic authority. That would make the traffic authority responsible for, and give it control over, the highway across the level crossing. It would require it to be responsible for the effects of the operation of a system over which it has no control, because it is the railway signalling system that instigates the operation of warning devices and barriers, and the traffic authority has no control over that. I appreciate that there may be a problem about sufficient warning devices, but the new clause would create an additional problem.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I mentioned earlier the response of the Health and Safety Executive. It says that something valuable could come out of new clause 8, in that it could extend its powers to make level crossing orders to include highway authorities. It says that that is what happens in Northern Ireland, where each party's responsibility can clearly be specified whereas, in England and Wales, all it can do is ask the operator to seek the co-operation of the highways authority. Some benefit could come from something along those lines.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some good could come of that, because there is a lack of interface which we need to address. Introducing legislation is not necessarily the way forward, because it is often ignored, but doing something such as that would make considerable sense.

New clause 10 would raise the penalty in question to up to 6 months' imprisonment and a level 5 fine of £5,000, compared to a level 3 fine of about £1,000. It would also allow an alternative endorsement of six points rather than three. I appreciate the seriousness of the offence, and I understand why people want to underline that seriousness by ensuring that there is a heavier fine and possible imprisonment. However, there are difficulties with picking out the offence for special treatment. Many other offences—for example, ignoring a pedestrian crossing sign—could also lead to dire consequences. Going through a red light at a busy junction could create absolute mayhem. We must consider the issue in the context of other criminal penalties. I do not support the new clause.

New clauses 11 and 12 deal with bridges. An existing offence covers the failure to comply with a mandatory height limit that is placed in advance on a low bridge. The penalty is a level 3 fine of a maximum of £1,000, or a discretionary disqualification and three penalty points. I note that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has included the phrase

''without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration''

in the offence. However, it would be odd to attach a custodial penalty to such careless driving, when one does not apply elsewhere, at least not currently.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the frequency of bridge strikes. The Department is aware of that problem. There are some 2,000 bridge strikes a year by over-height vehicles on Network Rail bridges alone, and even more if one includes other bridges. The Department must consider that seriously. We have done some research; it is worrying that, despite the fact that drivers are encouraged to carry advisory documents and, since 1997, have been required to measure the load and height of their loaded vehicle for every trip and carry the figures in their cab, that does not appear to be working as well as it should. Sometimes it is because the load may not have been accurately measured, or because each journey is not sufficiently regulated and the height is not measured for each trip. There are clearly many factors affecting the load. In normal circumstances, that may make no difference at all, but when it is a matter of a few centimetres of clearance, it could mean the difference between good luck and disaster. The Department will continue to look at that: a committee is monitoring it and working with the industry to ensure that we consider the situation. A recent survey, completed but not yet published, demonstrates that much work must be done in that field.

The only other issue that I ought to mention relates to advance barriers. Section 92 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides a power

''to place obstructions . . . to prohibit the passage of vehicles''

where such prohibitions have been imposed by the traffic regulation order. Many vulnerable bridges are already equipped with integral collision protection beams, which are designed to reduce the impact of any collision. We would not support the construction of height barriers over highways in advance of low bridges, because they could themselves cause significant damage and could be a hazard. However, we accept that much work must be done on bridge strikes, and a departmental committee is working on it. I am sure that, because of today's debate, we shall consider the matter even more closely.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and, as ever, for the sympathy, if not total support, of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. To pick up on his first point, I repeat what I said when I responded to the Secretary of State's announcement following the crash in Berkshire: we must not lose sight of the fact that our railways are extremely safe. Nobody should be discouraged, but that need not stop us trying to make them safer, and I am sure that that is the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman made his remarks. He asked why the punishment for jumping a red light on a level crossing should be greater than that for jumping any other red light. I shall not labour the point, but it could be argued that when someone is endangering an entire train and all the people on it, that is more serious than other circumstances. I fully accept that that is open to argument, and we will not go into that today.

I simply say to the Minister that I am grateful that she accepts that there is a lack of interface between the rail and traffic authorities, which is one of the problems that we all recognise. There is work to be done. She made a point, with which I concur, that if an organisation such as Network Rail feels so moved as to seek amendments, the matter is clearly troubling it and deserves to be considered. I am grateful that she did give that undertaking.

Unfortunately, new clause 5 did not find favour with the Chairman, so I was unable to describe the problems of planning contained therein, but when the Minister discusses the issues with Network Rail will she include that item as well? With that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 14 - SPEED LIMITS FOR VEHICLES OF CERTAIN CLASSES

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

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

The clause would raise the maximum speed for heavy goods vehicles on single carriageway roads from 40 to 50 mph.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I was saying that my new clause has to be looked at in the context of raising the maximum speed in ideal circumstances. At the moment, for lorries on single carriageways, that speed is deemed to be 40 mph. We know that lorries have become much safer, their braking has become more efficient, and the quality of many of our single carriageway roads, particularly trunk roads, has increased significantly.

In the past, it was possible to overtake lorries on single carriageway roads with relative ease, because the traffic was much lighter. Now, however, it is virtually impossible to overtake any vehicle at busy times on single carriageway trunk roads, and so all the traffic goes at the speed of the slowest. I have in mind, for example, the road between my constituency and Honiton, most of which is single carriageway. The result is that heavy goods vehicles often find themselves generating driver frustration—a fact recognised by the Minister in a letter he recently sent to Commercial Motor in response to its campaign to raise the limit to 50 mph. Tesco lorries now have a sign on the back saying ''This lorry is limited to 40 mph'', because so many motorists find that speed incredible, and sometimes vent their frustration on the driver. In times past, I suspect that some lorry drivers raised their speed above 40 mph in ideal circumstances, but now, with cameras and tachographs, they are unable to do so. As a result, driver frustration creates danger.

I propose that the maximum speed in ideal circumstances for HGVs on single carriageway roads should be 50 mph rather than 40 mph, which would improve road safety rather than making it worse. That is the view of those in the commercial goods industry, and of many of those involved in driving HGVs.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am sorry that I have missed the campaign by the organisation that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and I have not heard before today the argument that driver frustration leads to danger. Is there any evidence of what that danger is, or is it anecdotal?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We do not have much time to go into the details, but I would pray in aid what the Minister himself said in his letter to Commercial Motor on 13 January 2005:

''Your article suggests that some car drivers may become irritated when they are following a slow moving HGV and I have no reason to believe that this is not the case.''

In fairness, he goes on to say that, human nature being what it is, he is not convinced that even if the speed limit were increased the same small minority of car drivers might not still want to overtake. That is where I part company with him. There is a lot of difference between driving behind an HGV mile on mile when it is travelling at only 40 mph and doing so when it is travelling at 50 mph. Also, overtaking a vehicle that is travelling at 50 mph is a significantly more dangerous manoeuvre than overtaking a vehicle that is travelling at 40 mph—for obvious reasons.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Just to be clear: is the danger that drivers will be irritated? The Bill is about saving lives and preventing casualties on the roads, not about people being irritated.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

There are signs—admittedly mainly on trunk roads—saying, ''Dual carriageway 3 miles ahead.'' Those signs are put up to try to ensure that drivers who are frustrated and do not know that length of road very well will hold themselves back, will not engage in a potentially dangerous overtaking manoeuvre and will wait for the dual carriageway. The issue of driver frustration and the reality of life on the roads is already recognised by the highway authorities. That is why we are deluding ourselves if we deny that there is such an issue as driver frustration. We delude ourselves if we think it is not a sensible way forward to try to reduce the amount of driver frustration and create safer roads as a result. Obviously, I would like a lot more dual carriageways and bypasses. We are already on record as having promised that and that is what we intend to get down to after 5 May.

In the meantime, however, we think that raising the HGV speed limit would make a contribution in this area. I am not saying that it is a panacea and that we will save hundreds of lives, but we will save some and we will certainly make the roads more efficient.

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

I begin by directly addressing the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford. If he were to drive on the A9 south of Inverness, after the dual carriageway at Daviot, he would come across a large sign that says, ''Frustration kills. Allow overtaking.'' Indeed, if he were to speak to the chief constable of the Northern constabulary, he would find that frustration is one of the major concerns on our roads.

Raising the speed limit is a matter that I have raised in correspondence with the Minister. I have also corresponded with the chief constable. The view of both the Minister and the chief constable, as I understand it, is that the potential safety disbenefits of allowing an increase in the speed for HGVs are greater than the potential safety benefits. That is certainly a case and I have no doubt that the Minister will make it, but I would like to add a few comments on the other side of the argument.

Funnily enough, the hon. Member for Christchurch made a point that I want to make: when the traffic is not too thick on the A9, the fact that a lorry is travelling at 40 mph makes it easier to get past. The problem is that, since the road was built—it is part dual carriageway and part high-grade non-dual—traffic levels have risen to the extent that there can be queues of up to half a mile. Part of the problem is that many of the visitors are not used to overtaking. We get lorries in a line astern and it is a question not of getting past one lorry, but of getting past a fleet. Many of the regular long-distance drivers, such as Stevens from Wick and Bannermans from Thame, know that and always leave a gap between their lorry and the one in front, for which I am always grateful. However, there are lorry drivers who do not leave that gap, and force one to try to overtake—where it is safe—two or more vehicles. When a queue builds up, it causes huge frustration, and eventually after driving for mile after mile through the beautiful highlands in a long queue someone will lose patience and go for it, and that is when the potential for big accidents arises.

The other side of the argument—the reason why I wrote to the Minister about the matter—is put by the haulage industry. In the far north there are a number of companies that regularly transport goods—particularly fish from the port of Scrabster, and many agricultural commodities from Easter Ross—down the A9. The A9 is a high-grade road. Having to travel at 40 mph rather than 50 mph limits the distance that the drivers of those vehicles can cover during the time available for them to drive, with the result that there are certain destinations that they would go to that they cannot reach in the legal driving time. They are therefore forced to stop overnight in the cab and to start again the following day. That has a number of consequences: it makes the produce less competitive, and causes the driver to spend time in rest periods that would not always be required. I am also told, although I have not seen substantial evidence for it, that the engines are less efficient at 40 mph than 50 mph, and that therefore the emissions are slightly greater. However, I do not stress that last point, as I have not seen it borne out.

There is therefore an argument for increasing the speed limit to 50 mph on good roads. Part of the problem is that our A road categorisation system covers a huge variety of roads. They range from the easily identifiable very high-grade dual carriageways, such as that on the A9, which is extremely well built with barriers and where necessary underpasses for stock and pedestrians; to the high grade A9, which is a single carriageway but with good lane width and good width to the side of the road; to the 1970s model A9, which is somewhat narrower; to the 1950s part of the A9, which is narrower still. Other parts of my constituency have A roads that are single track with passing places. I invite members of the Committee to come and enjoy those any time that they would like a lovely holiday.

My point is that, as the A road categorisation covers a wide range of road types, there is an argument for recategorising our major roads, so that we can differentiate between roads built to a modern engineering standard, for which a limit of 50 mph might be appropriate, and roads built to an older standard, for which such a limit would be inappropriate.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The new clause would increase the speed limit from 40 mph to 50 mph on single carriageway roads. However, it is phrased in such a way as to cover only rigid vehicles drawing one trailer, where the aggregate weight exceeds 7.5 tonnes. I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch may have intended to cover all vehicles of more than 7.5 tonnes.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

If that is the only objection that the Minister has to my new clause, I am very relieved.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Oh no, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will not be as lucky as that this afternoon.

I acknowledge the importance of the transport industry to the UK economy. Moving goods around rapidly is important, particularly with the ''just in time'' principle that many companies work on these days. I also accept that allowing vehicles to travel faster could improve some journey times in some cases. There are two questions: first, to what extent being able to travel at 50 mph rather than 40 mph would decrease journey times; and secondly, whether one can do so safely.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Did the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 impose that speed limit, or was it a codifying piece of legislation, with the speed limit imposed at an earlier date? When were such vehicles subject to the 40 mph speed limit? What is the comparable speed limit for those vehicles in France and Germany?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That is some extra technical information to get hold of before we complete. It may even be coming to me now. Right, it says, ''No, I don't know. Have to write.'' There we are. All the gathered intelligence in the Room cannot tell us, so I shall jot a note to the right hon. Gentleman.

The 40 mph speed limit for heavy goods vehicles on single carriageways exists for a purpose. Even with the technological advances in braking systems and tyres, heavy goods vehicles take longer to stop than cars travelling at the same speed. Whereas an HGV travelling at 40 mph could pull up in time to avoid hitting a car travelling at 60 mph which was stopping in an emergency, an HGV driver is unlikely to do so if his vehicle is travelling any faster.

Even at the current 40 mph speed limit, the HGV accident involvement rate on single carriageway rural roads is 45 per cent. higher than for cars. If the HGV speed limit were to be increased, all the evidence points to the fact that it would result in more casualties. Notwithstanding the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, which is perhaps atypical—I do not mean that unkindly—because it is a rural area and has few major roads, for most of the time and most of the journey, HGV drivers will be expected to be on major trunk roads or motorways, where they travel at a maximum of 60 mph. Usually, the single lane road would form the smallest part of the journey. We do not expect HGVs in general to travel long distances on minor roads, except in some circumstances in England and in parts of Wales and Scotland.

The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to safety and accident records. We looked at a sample of 632 overtaking accidents on single carriageway roads between 1999 and 2001 where the identity of the overtaken vehicle was known. Some 44 of those incidents, which is only 7 per cent., involved vehicles overtaking HGVs. By far the majority of overtaking casualties—43 per cent—involved vehicles overtaking cars. So the numbers are not large.

I said in my letter that people might be irritated, and I stand by that, but if we are irritated it does not give us an excuse to do something that puts our life and other people's lives at risk. Attractive as the new clause may sound, in road safety terms I must ask the Committee to vote against the motion if it is put to a vote.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I certainly shall not push the matter to a vote, because the new clause does not go as far as I had intended, as the Minister realised. He quoted some statistics and promised to provide my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire with some data, so with that information we may want to revisit the subject.

The point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was the one that I had very much in mind when I drafted the new clause. If it had been possible to limit it to A roads, it would have probably overcome some of the Government's concerns. Again, if one limits it to A roads, however, one has a definitional problem, because some of them are of a much lower standard than others.

Frankly, the Minister is not on to a good point about the stopping distances, because it is incumbent upon heavy goods vehicles to travel at a safe distance from the vehicle in front. That is what we expect them to do, although the way many of them travel on the motorways, it defies belief that they could ever stop in time. However, that is another story and we shall not get into that now. We have had a short and interesting debate, but time is pressing on. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 15 - MOTORCYCLES IN BUS LANES

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

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

We had sort of curtain-raiser for the new clause last night at the all-party reception with the Motor Cycle Industry Association and other motor cycle groups. I was delighted that, when I drew the attention of those present to new clause 15, it received overwhelming support. It also enjoys the support of the Liberal Democrats, which is a bonus.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

All of them?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Well, certainly the two who were at that event. It would probably depend on the way the pendulum swings, so I take my hon. Friend's point. However, I am grateful for their support because in the Minister's peroration on the last debate, he said that, in road safety terms, he could not concede on this. Yet in road safety terms he must allow the new clause to go through. There is overwhelming evidence that allowing motorised two-wheelers to use bus lanes improves road safety. That is the clear finding of the Transport for London survey, which shows that there has been about a 20 per cent. reduction in accidents, despite an increase in the use of bus lanes when motor cycles have been allowed to use them.

I will say no more about the matter, as the case for doing what I suggest is overwhelming. There needs to be a national standard. Otherwise, it is very confusing if we leave it to each local authority—or within London, to each borough—to decide for itself. The local authorities in Colchester and Peterborough have already done what I suggest, and people are thinking of doing it in Essex. If it is a good thing in some areas, why not in all areas? Surely, in the name of road safety, we should now make it a national standard.

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

We did, indeed, have the curtain-raiser for the new clause yesterday. I can confirm its provisions represent a long-standing Liberal Democrat commitment, for which we were happy to reiterate our support. The arguments have been put and there are many other important new clauses to get on to. One point that I would pick up on is that a number of local authorities have already gone ahead with this provision. Rather than wait for it to come in piecemeal, authority by authority, let us get on and do it nationally.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

A long-standing Liberal Democrat commitment is usually the time it takes to get from one doorstep to the next. Of course, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, that could take a considerable period of time, whereas in my constituency it does not take long at all—although in my constituency we have abolished the Liberals, so we do not have the problem that we had there some years ago.

The purpose of designated bus lanes is to give priority to buses and other classes of traffic. The more that other motorised vehicles have a statutory right to use them, the more their purpose can become devalued. However, I am very sympathetic to the principle of improving facilities for motor cyclists, including their use of bus lanes. Some local authorities have allowed motor cyclists to use bus lanes, and the Secretary of State has permitted motor cycles and licensed taxis to use the M4 bus lane. That was a sensible and welcome move. However, there are concerns for the safety of other road users, in particular cyclists and pedestrians. We are awaiting the results of trials allowing motor cycles into bus lanes in London and Swindon before revising the guidance, which recommends that motor cycles are not normally allowed to use bus lanes. I understand that Transport for London has extended its trial by 18 months, as it wants more evidence before it makes it a permanent feature.

I was at the all-party reception last night, and I saw a flash of inspiration come over the hon. Member for Christchurch because he thought that in allowing motor cycles into bus lanes he had found a Tory policy that was actually popular. What he did not tell us, however, was that generally the Conservatives are opposed to bus lanes. If it were not for Labour Members, there would not be any bus lanes for the motor cycles to use. Some time in this debate, I would be interested to hear—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. The Minister must keep to the new clause.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am sorry, Mr. Pike. I was responding to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

In Birmingham, for example, where one bus lane has been taken out for a good reason, I am told that the Tory local authority has no intention of putting it back. There will be no motor cycles in that lane. We must take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said last night. I hope that the motor cycle fraternity will bear it in mind, as they cast their votes for the new, popular Tory policy, that the Tories may be in favour of motor cycles in bus lanes, but they are not in favour of bus lanes.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister recognises a popular policy, albeit not that new, but it has nothing to do with the number of bus lanes. We are saying that wherever there is a bus lane, powered two-wheelers should be able to use it. I believe in local democracy, and although I think that it is important to have a national standard and that wherever there is a bus lane it should be used by powered two-wheelers, I would wish to continue to allow individual elected local authorities to decide where there should be bus lanes.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Gentleman is telling us that democratically elected local authorities should be able to take a decision, but that is precisely the situation now: local authorities can take a decision on whether motor cycles go in bus lanes.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

That is a completely different proposition from whether there should be a bus lane in a particular locality. When the Minister has time to reflect on this matter, he will realise that it is desirable to have national laws that are applicable nationally, so that motor cyclists, wherever they are in the country, can be confident that when they see a bus lane, they can use it, in accordance with the law. Obviously, there will be bus lanes only where elected local authorities choose to place them, except for those that are the responsibility of the Department, the Highways Agency or the other Administrations.

I am glad that the Minister accepts the strength of our argument. He says that TfL plans to extend the experiment for another 18 months or so, but the evidence already produced, if it is analysed properly, shows overwhelmingly that lives would be saved if the proposal were accepted now, and I therefore want to test the Committee's view.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

New Clause 19 - Amendment of Road Traffic ch3Act 1988

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

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

The new clause seeks to make provision for retro-reflective markings in primary legislation. I should declare an interest, in that I am patron of an organisation called Reflect, which brought the matter to my attention. International standard ECE 104 requires that retro-reflective tape—tape that can be seen from the side of, and from behind, the vehicle—is fitted to heavy goods vehicles, as it makes them easier to see and therefore less likely to be involved in an accident.

I understand that it is possible through existing secondary legislation to make such tape a requirement. I tabled a new clause because I believe that there is some resistance in the Government to doing that. The view is that Europe should adopt ECE 104 and that it is not appropriate for the United Kingdom to act unilaterally. However, one EU country, Italy, has already implemented the legislation and has not been subject to any action by the Commission. If Italy can do it, we can do it.

It has been said that not all vehicles can be fitted with the tape, but the number of those that cannot is minuscule. I am sure that regulations could be made in such a way that that could be dealt with. Obviously, the Government's position is that ECE 104 should be made mandatory throughout Europe—certainly that would be the best way forward—but I do not understand why we should wait for that to happen before we implement it.

For members of the Committee who are interested in the full details, there was an excellent debate in Westminster Hall. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) powerfully set out the case in a debate on 30 March 2004, at column 381WH of Hansard. Because of the time limit, I shall not go into detail, other than to ask Members to bear it in mind that HGVs represent approximately 1.4 per cent. of the traffic on our roads, yet are involved in 15.5 per cent. of accidents. It is interesting to note that the occupants of HGVs represent 8 per cent. of the total casualties on our roads, whereas occupants of vehicles that collide with HGVs account for 26 per cent. Clearly, the danger is to those who fail to see and who collide with an HGV, rather than those who are in the HGV.

Since the matter was first discussed in 1998, when a cost-benefit analysis was done, there has been considerable movement. Loughborough is examining the evidence. I understand that the time required to fit the tape is now 90 minutes, not four hours, as was stated in 1998. That brings the cost down, and the cost of the tape itself has come down.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm who in Loughborough is looking at this? He just said ''Loughborough''.

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

I was trying to paraphrase to keep the discussion short. The Department has commissioned Loughborough university to update a cost-benefit analysis of making ECE 104 mandatory. Furthermore, publication of that analysis is expected in February 2005. However, we know that the cost of the tape has gone down, as has the time taken to put the tape on, while the estimated cost of road deaths has gone up, so the cost-benefit ratio is clearly improving. There is a strong case for ECE 104 becoming mandatory. It is a simple, relatively cheap measure that would save some lives on our roads. I commend it to the Government and hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I fully understand and share the hon. Gentleman's interest in the use of retro-reflective tape. I note that he read the account of the Adjournment debate in which I responded to the right hon. Member for Bracknell. On the new clause, however, my bewigged lawyers inform me that we do not need primary legislation to make the alteration, but only a statutory instrument to amend section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Earlier research conducted on behalf of the Department showed the potential for the wider fitment of reflective tape to reduce accidents by increasing conspicuity. It also highlighted the disproportionate cost. That work is now several years old, and the Department is reviewing the benefits and costs of mandating the use of that material on goods vehicles, trailers and large passenger-carrying vehicles. The research project is nearing completion and the results will be made public, in accordance with our commitment to open government. It would be unwise to do anything where the benefits were outweighed by the costs of introduction, so we will await the results of the report.

For completeness, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire asked who in Loughborough examined the evidence, I note that it was the university's ergonomics and safety research institute. Its new buildings were opened recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), carrying out excellent constituency work.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I should mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is also a patron of Reflect. I am sympathetic to that the new clause. It clearly would be sensible if this were a mandatory EU-level requirement, because the lorries travel across the continent. Are our Government pursuing that matter in any negotiation? Would it be sensible to introduce the measure in two stages, with brand-new vehicles having to have them fitted before they could be on the road, which would reduce the costs further?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Yes, there would be great sense in that. I understand that the matter has not been subject to wider discussion in the European context, but it would seem sensible to move to unanimity in Europe if we decide that the measure is good for the UK, as there are large numbers of foreign vehicles on our roads. I am deeply sympathetic to the proposal, but I want to see the research, which will be ready shortly. Should we decide, on the basis of that research, that this is the way forward, we can lay a statutory instrument before the House, which would involve a much simpler process. I want the Committee to wait for that report, and I ask it to resist the new clause.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response. I hope that we consider the matter again at another stage, but in light of the fact that we will probably get that evidence this month, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 20 - Amendment of traffic signs regulations and general directions 2002

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is important, because it would ensure that what the Government say is happening did happen, because people could not be convicted of speeding offences detected by cameras that did not comply with the Government's rules on conspicuity and visibility. It goes further, reflecting the concerns of many people that it would be much easier if the cameras identified the prevailing speed limit, the enforcement of which they were supposed to ensure. They would also have to be illuminated.

As one goes into the village of Chideock on the A35, there is a speed camera positioned shortly after the 40 mph limit goes down to 30 mph, but there is no street lighting. That camera is not illuminated, and because of its angle and the fact that the road is on a steep, downhill slope, it is almost invisible to motorists going along that road. It is not surprising that it has caught out an enormous number of motorists, particularly in the early hours of the morning when traffic is light. If that speed camera were illuminated, the situation would be better because its presence would be apparent, so people would reduce their speed instead of going in excess of the speed limit at that location.

A number of people have written to me over the years about the problems of the lack of conspicuity of speed cameras. I have a typical letter here from a Conservative supporter in Liverpool, expressing exasperation at the fact that on a stretch of dual carriageway the speed limit drops from 50 to 40 mph and 130 m later there is a speed camera opposite an adjoining slip road, followed approximately 200 m later by a short, sharp slope to a hidden roundabout. There are no warning signs referring to the roundabout or to the fact that it is hidden. The gentleman received a reply from the Lancashire partnership for road safety saying that it does not have any money to put up junction warning signs. That is deplorable.

I have another letter from someone in Weymouth—another area that will soon be represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament—who made a complaint to the safety camera partnership after witnessing a child being brought off their cycle when a motorist braked unnecessarily and suddenly on catching sight of a speed camera. The camera did not meet the visibility rules as set out in the Government press release released in December 2001. [Interruption.] The Minister seems to be crying ''foul'' from a sedentary position, but as a result of that sudden braking due to the fact that the speed camera is not visible until the last minute, a motorist knocked a person off their cycle. That accident could have been avoided if the camera had been more conspicuous. We could continue with a host of other examples.

The Government's own guidelines make it clear that there should be conspicuity and high visibility of cameras, but the problem with those guidelines is that the booklet in which they appear, in which the word ''must'' appears an enormous amount, states at the beginning:

''Compliance with these rules has no bearing on the enforcement of offences detected by the use of safety cameras. Non-compliance with these rules and guidelines by a partnership, or a representative of a partnership, does not provide any mitigation of, or defence for, an alleged offence under current UK law committed by a driver or a registered keeper.''

They are absolutely useless in providing a defence for motorists who are caught out by speed cameras that have not been set up in accordance with the Government's guidelines. My new clause would put that right.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

Briefly, I have some sympathy with the new clause. I do not think that it goes far enough, but I ask the Minister to consider whether being able to see a camera will reduce speed, which is what the cameras are intended to do. I mentioned earlier that specific signs should be there to warn that there is a camera ahead.

On the question of visibility, where there is a change in speed, there is often a speed safety camera to catch people as they go from a 70 to a 40 mph speed limit. As the Minister will be aware, that happens on the A30 coming into Exeter. In all those cases, the changes should be clearly marked well in advance. I urge the Minister to consider a system where we step reductions to ensure that changes in speed limits are more clearly indicated.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

When debated speed camera detection devices a few days ago, the essence of the Minister's desire for them to be outlawed was that they inform the motorist which cameras are live. However, he went on to confirm that it was Government policy for cameras to be clearly visible and not hidden. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred to the guidance that has been issued. The essence of the new clause is to ensure that cameras are clearly visible and not hidden, with the bonus that the camera would also have to display the applicable speed limit, so that the motorist would be in no doubt. The new clause seems reasonable and completely in accordance with the Minister's policy. I therefore hope that he will accept it.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

There are two separate issues and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about both.

I want to focus first on putting the speed on cameras. I suspect that the Minister will tell us that warning signs will always be put up ahead of cameras and that routinely some distance ahead the speed limit will be indicated. Well, that is true in some cases but not in others. My research into the subject is as a motorist and not particularly scientific, but I have noticed that on roads with a speed limit other than the national speed limit—that is, 20, 30, 40 or 50 mph—I am told what the speed limit in advance of police warning signs and enforcement cameras. However, I think that I have persuaded myself that when I am on the open road, to use a good old-fashioned phrase, and the national speed limit of 60 mph applies, I am not warned of it in advance of a camera. The same appears to be the case on dual carriageways and motorways.

The Minister and the hon. Member for Teignbridge probably know the A303 better than I do, but I have reason to travel on it regularly these days. My experience is that there are cameras in a couple of places where the speed limit is 60 mph, but there is no way of knowing that other than by remembering what the national limit is.

There have been numerous occasions on which I have been minding my own business, aware of the speed limit, but all of a sudden somebody has seen a camera in front, assumed that the speed limit was 40 or 50 mph and that they had not noticed a warning sign, and whacked their brakes on, forcing a string of traffic behind them instantly to do the same thing. Therefore, if the Minister says that it is wrong to put the speed on the camera, he ought to say that he will return with a proposal for signs ahead of cameras that indicate the speed limit.

I understand why the cameras are there and I do not argue with that. However, both the sites that I have in mind are dangerous places to apply brakes. One is on a steep hill, where there is an overtaking lane going up the hill but not one going down. One is invited to overtake lorries, and many do so, but as they overtake they see the camera and slow down to 40 mph. That is dangerous for people who come up behind and are caught unawares. The sensible answer would therefore be to put the speed on the back of the camera.

I will finish my remarks as I am conscious of the time and the fact that the Minister needs a chance to reply. I could talk about illumination, but I will leave the Minister to comment on that.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

One of the lasting testimonies to the period that the hon. Member for Christchurch spent as a Minister with responsibility for transport is the introduction of speed cameras. However, he did not introduce any rules regarding the conspicuity of those cameras. In fact, he predicted that the cameras would catch 2 million people a year with no conspicuity rules in place. It was this Government who introduced those rules. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), who was the Minister responsible for such matters at the time, insisted that cameras be conspicuous by making them yellow, which is why they are often called ''Spellar yellow''. The hon. Gentleman introduced cameras with no conspicuity rules, and now he is telling us that we are not doing enough.

The hon. Gentleman always tells us that there is too much red tape and unnecessary regulation and procedure, and yet he wants to regulate the camera partnerships to the extent that they would be too costly to run. The new clause says that a camera should be

''adequately illuminated during the hours of darkness'',

and

''have affixed to it a clearly visible indication of the applicable speed limit''.

Illumination in the hours of darkness would incur considerable cost, as would all the regulation that goes with it. He claims to be the great deregulator, yet here he is, telling us that we need more regulations.

The hon. Gentleman stumped up some examples. I do not know who provided them for him, but if it was one of his researchers, he ought to sack him. I was delighted to hear that there was one Tory in Liverpool; I have not bumped into him yet, but I dare say one day I will.

The hon. Gentleman went on to describe someone driving along a road at enough of a speed that he braked when he saw the camera. He must have lost control of the vehicle, because he did not brake in a straight line, and then hit a cyclist. For goodness' sake, what speed was the motorist doing? He must have been well over the speed limit if a cyclist was allowed on that road. Does he expect us to have sympathy with that motorist? I certainly do not. I think that such motorists are outrageous, and are breaking the law. I hope that the camera caught him.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Yes, I would like to know the hon. Gentleman's defence.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am asking the Committee to have sympathy not for the motorist but for the cyclist.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I have sympathy with the cyclist, and I say that cameras will catch people who speed unnecessarily. That is why we have camera partnerships.

There are still some cameras from the hon. Gentleman's ministerial regime that do not need to be conspicuous or signed. However, I challenge him again to say whether he knows of any cameras under our partnership scheme, falling under our new ruling about conspicuity, that are not properly signed. If he knows any, will he let us know? I would certainly look into it. That challenge is now 14 months old. As yet, he has come up with zero out of 4,500 to 5,000 cameras; I have not any brought before me. The new clause would introduce too much red tape, it is totally unnecessary, and I ask the Committee to resist it.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Well, it is rich indeed for the Minister to talk about too much red tape as a defence against this reasonable new clause. I am not embarrassed about having introduced the legislation that enables us to have enforcement cameras. As I have said, they are most successful at traffic lights, where there is no requirement for conspicuity, because there could be no possible excuse or mitigation for anyone going through a red light. The Minister's Government have amended the legislation and there are an increasing number of cameras, making them not so much speed cameras as ''greed cameras''. If they are meant to identify accident blackspots, it is important that they be illuminated. What possible reason can there be for not illuminating them? That is the point made in the new clause.

There is no point commanding the safety camera partnerships to comply with the conspicuity and signing rules laid down by the Government without having a sanction. If the sanction proposed in the new clause were accepted, there would be no cases of non-compliance, because the camera safety partnerships would realise that they would be unable to get any convictions.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is such a good idea, why did he not introduce it?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister asks why, if I think conspicuity rules are such a good idea, I did not introduce them. I had not realised that it would be necessary to introduce them, because I assumed that common sense would dictate that those cameras would be properly illuminated. My feeling was that the highways authorities would behave responsibly and sensibly, but I am afraid that that has not been the case in practice a number of times. They have not behaved sensibly because they are unduly motivated by greed and the incentive that the Government have given them under the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

If one is fair to the Minister, one could say that he has given the Committee a small reason—the cost—why paragraph (a) should not be accepted, but does my hon. Friend agree that he has given no reason whatever why paragraph (b) should not be implemented? The cameras need to be regularly maintained; surely it will be of minimal cost to fix a speed limit sign on the back so that motorists are clearly aware of the speed at which they should be travelling.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I do not concede that the Minister has dealt with the first paragraph; he has certainly made no attempt to answer the second. The issue is generating an enormous amount of angst among the motoring public. If we were to pass the new clause, the Committee would send out a clear message that, whatever parts of the Government think, we do not want to continue the war against the motorist.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. We are not allowed to say anything in this Committee beyond half-past 5 because of the strictures of the programme motion. However, before half-past 5, on behalf of the Opposition—and, I am sure, on behalf of all members of the Committee—may I thank you and your colleague, Mr. Hughes, for the way in which you have deliberated over our proceedings? Through your lightness of touch, we have been able to consider most of the issues in a most effective way.

I would also like to thank the usual people who are never normally praised in public. I would like to praise the police, the Hansard reporters, the Badge Messengers and other members of the Committee. I am very grateful to the Minister. He had a short nap this afternoon, but he was entitled to it; his colleague was speaking at the time.

I should also like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), who has been gaining a lot more experience since her days in Wandsworth, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and others whose participation has made this an enjoyable and productive Committee.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I associate myself totally with those remarks and thank you and Mr. Hughes for having presided over us with such care and diligence. I thank my colleagues and my fellow Minister for their support, and those on the Opposition Benches for their good work. I appreciate that it is often more difficult to be in opposition when considering Bills, because Opposition Members do not have an army of people telling them that one will have to write to Members because they do not have the answer. I also thank the officials and all those from the House authorities, who have worked extremely hard, for their contribution to this Bill, which has, largely, inspired consensus among the parties.

It being half-past Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [20 January 2005], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Amendment made: No. 51, in title, line 2, leave out 'motorway' and insert 'trunk road'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at half-past Five o'clock.