Road Safety Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2006.

Road Safety Bill [Lords] - Standing Committee A

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I shall deal at the beginning with one or two domestic matters. In doing so, I welcome all hon. Members to the Committee. I am confident that the Bill will be debated constructively and positively.

I hope that the programme motion will be noted by all Members. I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill, and that copies of both are available in the room. I also remind Members that adequate notice of amendments should be given and that as a general rule, my co-Chairman Janet Anderson and I do not intend to call starred amendments. Will all Members also ensure that electronic gadgets—pagers and mobile telephones—are either turned off or on silent mode during sittings? I am inclined to react aggressively if I hear any tinkle or other electronic sound.

We come first to the programme motion, debate on which may last up to half an hour. Members will be aware that the matter was discussed by the Programming Sub-Committee last evening.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Road Safety Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 21st March) meet—

(a) at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 21st March;

(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 23rd March;

(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 28th March;

(d) at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 18th April;

(e) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 20th April;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; Clauses 17 to 19; Clause 5; Schedule 1; Clauses 6 to 9; Schedule 2; Clause 10; Schedule 3; Clauses 11 to 16; Clauses 20 to 22; Schedule 4; Clauses 23 to 40; Schedule 5; Clauses 41 to 60; Schedule 6; Clauses 61 to 64; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 20th April.

I welcome you to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. It is a pleasure to serve under you, and I have no doubt that it will be a very enjoyable experience for all of us.

Yesterday I was being driven along the M6 between two visits in the west midlands when, a few hundred yards ahead of me, a large lorry travelling in the opposite direction veered across the carriageway and smashed into the safety barrier, sending barrier and wreckage flying across the road in front of the vehicle in which I was travelling. Fortunately, the driver whom I was with was sufficiently skilful to avoid the debris, otherwise I think that the Committee would have been looking for another Minister before the sitting could have commenced. The experience has reminded me to ensure that the Whips look after me better in future, as I have a majority of only 660, and I do not think that they would welcome a by-election at the moment. It has also given me renewed enthusiasm for the Bill, so I look forward to the debate. I am pleased to see the expert Committee that has been put together, including many hon. Members on both sides of the room who have had a long and meritorious association with road safety issues over many years.

The programme motion allows us nine sittings. The proposed order of consideration is logical, and nine sittings should be more than adequate if we are all disciplined about making our contributions, which I have no doubt we will be. The clauses will mostly be considered in the order in which they appear in the Bill, although the order of the first group that we will discuss has been changed slightly to allow us to discuss speeding issues at one time rather than have to return to them later. I am confident that the programme motion will be received well by the Committee.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before I call the spokesman for Her Majesty’s Opposition to respond, may I say, I am sure on behalf of the Committee, that we are delighted that the Minister came safely through his scrape on the M6? Coming down the M1, there were signs all the way saying that there was a problem on the M6. We are delighted that he came through unscathed owing to the skill and expertise of his ministerial driver.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. Serving under your chairmanship is a great pleasure. The Opposition will do our best to follow your instructions and to stay firmly in line, as I know that you will come down heavily on those who transgress. It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister here after his unpleasant experience yesterday, which shows the relevance to millions of people of our discussions over the next few weeks.

We have avoided a by-election, and I am glad that we have a Minister sitting in front of us who looks not only safe and sound, but ready to answer a number of questions, as the Opposition have tabled a large number of amendments. I would like first to welcome our team. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has been an enormous help in drafting our amendments, of which I think that there are more than 100. Our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), will obviously provide valuable input from the rural point of view, as I suppose I will. It is also a great pleasure that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is present, as he is a fund of knowledge on motoring and motor cars; I believe that he owns more cars than any other individual Member of Parliament. He told me once in the Tea Room that he was up to 15 cars—is that right?

Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) indicated assent.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

They are all in the House of Commons car park.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I hope that they are not all in the House of Commons car park—my right hon. Friend might assure us of that later. He has a great knowledge of this field, and as a former Minister, he knows how the world of power works. We look forward to hearing his advice. It is also with great pleasure that I greet my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), who will give the suburban or urban perspective.

We have tabled a large number of amendments, some of them obviously probing. We would like the Government to clarify the clauses, and we would like to tease out what they are really about. We will make it clear when amendments are probing amendments and when we are merely seeking information and clarification. Most of the amendments that we will consider today will probably fall into that category, as we do not have any great disagreement on the first few clauses. Indeed, there are parts of the Bill that we support. We are quite open about that, as we were on Second Reading, which we did not oppose.

Our general drift, however—I made this point in my winding-up speech on Second Reading—is that one cannot coerce 34 million people with driving licences. That is just too many people; they drive 25 million cars and 2.5 million vans. Things must be done in partnership, and they cannot all be stick. There has to be some carrot, and recognition of what is happening on our roads. We cannot legislate in an ivory tower in Parliament, ignoring the reality—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I am sure that I am going to hear this speech later on, because it has nothing directly to do with the programme motion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his eloquence when we are dealing with the appropriate amendments, but we are currently debating the programme motion.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am sorry, Sir Nicholas. I am happy to be picked up.

We will support certain provisions, and some of our amendments will be probing. We will withdraw such amendments happily, but there are other amendments on which we really want the Government to change. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has raised concerns, for example, and he has had a satisfactory meeting with the Minister, so we will happily withdraw the relevant amendment if the Government promise to come up with a serious amendment of their own, drafted by Ministry officials. Then there are bound to be other amendments on which we simply do not agree and on which we will stick to our guns, because there are certain areas where the Bill is not perfectly drafted and is flawed in some of its conceptions.

With those remarks, as the debate is open-ended and no guillotine is built into the motion, as we agreed in our informal meeting last night, I can say that we will be happy to support the motion as it stands.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I associate myself with the remarks of the Minister and of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) in welcoming you to the Chair, Sir Nicholas.

This is the first occasion in which I have had any dealings with a transport Bill since my appointment by my party’s new leader. Having previously dealt with home affairs, however, I am no stranger to the Standing Committee system and to this Corridor. Being back in the salt mines at such an early stage in a new era of responsibility is an unexpected pleasure for me. I am delighted that the Minister is here, given the perils that he has clearly endured to be with us.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire said that he offered from the Conservative Benches the perspective of the urban, suburban and rural. I can add to that, because I bring the island perspective, which is a distinctive perspective. It was observed after I had been appointed to the Committee that I represented a constituency that contained not a single yard of motorway or railway track. I therefore hope that I can bring dispassionate and disinterested observation to our consideration of the Bill.

I am delighted that, for once, I am not the only Scot in this Standing Committee, as many parts of the Bill will have a significant impact in Scotland. I see the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East (Rosemary McKenna), for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), previously Glasgow, Cathcart, and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy).

The Government’s provision of nine Committee sittings should, with good will, be sufficient to deal adequately with the Bill. I believe that the serious work is done in Committee and that more often than not, less is more.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I add my voice, Sir Nicholas, to those that have already expressed delight that you will chair at least some of our sittings.

I am pleased that the Minister escaped unscathed from his recent experience on the M6, which I believe is one of the most dangerous motorways in the United Kingdom, mainly because of the volume of traffic. I hope that when he has a chance and it is in order for him to do so, he will tell us whether the crash barrier in question was the old type or the new concrete type that appears to be being introduced on some of our motorways. There is an aspect of his incident that he should perhaps look into. Far too many accidents on motorways are caused by heavy goods vehicle drivers driving carelessly, sometimes while on the telephone, and using the size of their vehicle to throw their weight around. I hope that his Department will look at the percentage of accidents caused by HGV drivers and see whether something can be done about it.

I am less happy than my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire that a programme motion has been tabled. I am delighted that the Minister has thought it appropriate not to have internal knives. Where there is a guillotine motion, it should always be for members of the Committee to decide what aspects of the measure they want to dwell on and not for the usual channels, which are not part of the Committee, to tell us that we must finish so many clauses by a certain date. But why is there a guillotine motion at all? The measure was not opposed by any party on Second Reading. There was no obstruction and no attempt to say to the House that we did not wish to see the measure as a vehicle—if hon. Members will forgive the use of the word—to look at road safety issues. The parties agreed that there should be a Road Safety Bill. The differences on Second Reading arose in relation to the items that the different parties wanted to see in the Bill or removed from it.

I am therefore disappointed that the Minister has not taken the view taken by the last Conservative Government, who thought that there should never be a programme motion unless and until there was evidence of obstruction. That used to be the basis on which we proceeded in Standing Committee: a guillotine was never imposed until it was clear that the Opposition were seeking to prevent passage of the measure. I may be a lone voice in this regard, but I deplore the fact that we have this programme motion before us. It is not as bad as it might have been, but I still deplore the fact that we have it at all.

The last time that I whipped a Bill in Standing Committee, I was the then Government’s Home Office Whip and I had a perfectly good relationship with the Labour Home Office spokesman. [Interruption.] I will come to who it was. Throughout the proceedings of that Bill that spokesman said where he wanted the set-piece debates and the time of day that he wanted them, and that if we helped him to achieve that we could have the out-date of the Bill whenever we wanted. That spokesman was the Prime Minister. We never had any problems with the Prime Minister when he was an Opposition spokesman. I do not think that the Minister will have any problems with my hon. Friend, because the Opposition start the examination of this Bill from a position of good will. We want the vehicle of this Bill, it is just its contents that we wish to scrutinise and examine.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the current Home Affairs spokesman for the Opposition said on Radio 4 that part of this Bill was a matter of philosophical difference between us and that the Conservatives would oppose it at all costs. I think that he has changed his position on that now, but nevertheless he said in public that the Opposition would try to hold this Bill up if they could. I welcome the fact that they are now taking a far more constructive line on I, but there is potential for fundamental disagreement.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am not sure that the Minister is right; opposition is not necessarily obstruction. The Minister needs to distinguish between the two, because I am sure that he would accept, on reflection, that effective scrutiny and seeking to persuade by rational argument and reasonable discussion that a particular clause should not be in a Bill are not of themselves obstruction. It is what we are here for.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The House decided, rightly or wrongly, that there should be a programme motion, and we must accept that basis, whether Opposition Members like it or not. The question is whether the programme motion will allow adequate scope for appropriate debate on those parts of the Bill that Opposition Members do not like, rather than whether they agree with the principle of programming. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I will certainly bear that in mind, Sir Nicholas. In essence I am saying that I do not like the principle of programming and so I do not like this programme motion.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

May I reassure my right hon. Friend that we made it quite clear that there are elements of the Bill that we do not like but there are also elements on which we disagree in principle? We will have some long debates. We have not opposed the programme motion because it is open-ended. We had an assurance from the Minister last night that we could go on into the night if necessary. I am relaxed that we will have plenty of time to discuss issues where we disagree. As I made quite clear, there are issues of fundamental difference between us and the Government. I reassure my right hon. Friend that we will discuss them at great length if necessary.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

If we go through the night often, we will all be relaxed. I am not relaxed about the principle and therefore I do not like to see these things on the Order Paper. That is the point that I am placing on record.

Clause 1 - Road safety grants

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 1, line 13, at end add—

‘()Before making a grant under this section to any body which is not a local authority, the relevant national transport authority shall consult the relevant local transport authority or authorities.’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 16, in page 1, line 13, at end add—

‘()No road safety grant shall be paid to any organisation which comprises or is part of a safety camera partnership.’.

No. 17, in page 1, line 13, at end add—

‘()A national transport authority shall publish an annual report including information on—

()the number of grants given,

()the purposes for which those grants were given,

()the effectiveness of the grants in promoting road safety, and

()such other aspects as the national transport authority may consider appropriate.’.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

We get off to fairly easy bowling in this clause. We do not disagree hugely with it and we have tabled three amendments of a probing nature.The clause says that payments will be made by a national transport authority to local authorities for the purposes of promoting road safety. The Opposition would like to know what will happen to the funds that are allocated by central Government to local government agencies for road safety. We have received representations from a number of groups that are alarmed because local authorities, knowing that fresh funds will come in through the conduit provided by the clause, might be given the chance to cut their road safety budgets. It would be helpful if the Minister said what sums are going to local authorities, how they are distributed at the moment and under what conditions, and how he envisages the new funds being disbursed. How will the process be decided and audited?

Through amendment No. 15 we are seeking to examine whether it is possible for the funds to be spent beyond the bounds of local authorities. Could they be disbursed to smaller agencies—such as parish councils and town councils—with the approval of the local authority, which is probably in charge of speed limits at county level, and has an overall county view on them? We should like to know how the funds will be distributed and what consultation there will be between the local transport authority and the relevant national authorities.

On amendment No. 16, we are aware that some authorities will be part of safety camera partnerships, because there are local authorities that comprise constituent parts of such partnerships. The amendment is quite deliberate, however, because we should really like to see localism on the issue. We think that there is merit in schools having ability to access funds for local speed limits. Some interesting work has been done in Canada, where there are quite tight speed limits around schools at certain times of day, and that is widely known and displayed in notices that are rather like the parking restriction notices that we see in our cities. The notices indicate at what time of day one is not allowed to go above a certain speed near a school.

I believe that there is merit in localism for the issue of road safety. When I drive from my home to Oswestry I go past a primary school where there is a very narrow road and a narrow pavement. The statutory limit of 30 mph is wrong in that location, because when cars are parked up—with little parking space—it is not sensible to go at that speed. It is well worth investigating the idea that such schools should discuss with the local authority—as proposed in amendment No. 15—the merits of a localised limit.

There are numerous parish councils in my constituency and I am sure that my hon. Friends from suburban and urban seats could speak for town councils. The same idea could apply to those councils. There are areas where local people have strong feelings about the issue, and relatively small sums can make a big difference.

The obvious vehicle for such a measure is an automatic sign. In fact, on my way to a meeting in Portcullis House this morning, I was clocked by one in the passageway between Speaker’s Court and New Palace Yard. It got me doing 5 mph—walking. The big red sign displaying the number five brought me up. We all have these signs in our constituencies. This is anecdotal, but numerous people have told me that flashing signs that tell the exact speed do have an impact on people’s driving behaviour. I have heard it too often for it not to be true. Surely it would be meritorious to have a serious look at allowing parish councils or town councils to apply for funding for such modest schemes. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much self-illuminating signs cost and his opinion of them.

Amendment No. 16 clearly suggests that we would like to go beyond local authorities. We are nervous that local authorities will be able to grab the money and allocate funds that were previously dedicated to transport issues and road safety to another pot. I would like the Minister’s reassurance on that matter.

I like the idea of localism. When the sentiments behind amendments Nos. 15 and. 16 were debated last summer—my right hon. Friend the member for East Yorkshire will confirm this—then Minister, Mr Jamieson, claimed that they were incompatible. That is not the case; this is deliberate.

I would really like some localism and local decision making. Such an approach would also have an impact on local opinion. If people felt that there was funding available for tiny schemes, such as putting some signs around a school or erecting a self-illuminating sign, it would be beneficial.

I would also like to move amendment No. 17, partly picked up in Brake’s submission on the proposed amendments. That organisation called for an annual report—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

May I correct the hon. Gentleman? He cannot yet move amendment No. 17; he may merely discuss it.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I will discuss amendment No. 17 in the light of Brake’s submission, which called for an annual report on the speed limits on roads. We thought that the legislation should go further than that, and that it is appropriate to have an annual report on where the money is going, how many grants have been given out, the purposes of those grants, and, above all, their effectiveness in promoting road safety. It is important that the term “road safety” is included, because clause 1 would be improved dramatically if it were stated clearly that we want to know how the grants are spent and what impact they have on road safety.

For instance, returning to my two examples, if it were decided to put speed limits around schools, it would be very interesting to receive an annual country-wide analysis on what that had done, whether it was sensible and whether the following year it might be better to pursue entirely different expenditure. Again, modest schemes, such as painting the road, having different signs and reducing the number of signs and not muddling motorists can have impact. It would be interesting and worth while to know how the money was disbursed, to whom it was disbursed, and what impact it had had.

As a catch-all, amendment No. 17 concludes with a blanket statement, recommending that a national transport authority could discuss any other aspects that it thought appropriate.

Clause 1 is benign. We do not intend to oppose it; we just want to tease out what it is really about. It would be improved if the Minister looked favourably on our amendments, because there is real value in localism and in seeing the money spent locally.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I do not need to detain the Committee at any great length. The hon. Member for North Shropshire said that the clause is benign, which is a view that I share. Its objectives are well intentioned and would be of significant benefit. There is merit in some of the thoughts that the hon. Gentleman floats in his amendments, especially the requirement for consultation in amendment No. 15. Although I am no great lover of annual reports—barely a day seems to pass when half a dozen do not end up in my bin—it would be appropriate for there to be a proper mechanism whereby we could keep track of the impact of clause 1. I would have preferred the report to be to Parliament, because too often we labour away in Committee, the Bill is enacted and that is the last we hear of the proposals, often because the Government do not implement them. I hope that this measure will be implemented, because it can make a significant difference.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire was right to say that localism is important. Communities should feel that they have a meaningful say on road safety measures—that they are not just visited on them from on high. It is much more likely that there will be proper obedience to road safety measures if communities have some sense of ownership of them.

I did not follow the hon. Gentleman’s thinking when he said that the exclusion of any organisation that comprises, or is part of, a safety camera partnership would necessarily lead to a greater degree of localism, but that may emerge from the debate.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

My point is that we want to get over the normal local authority organisations and go right down to local level. The county might be part of the safety camera partnership but we want to go beyond that to the school or the parish council. The amendment was deliberately intended to probe the Minister on how the money would get through.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I accept that the amendment is probing and that the motivation behind it is good and sound, but I have reservations about whether it provides the most effective means to achieve what is intended.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

One thing that unites hon. Members on both sides of the Committee is that we all want road safety to be improved, although we may disagree on how to achieve it. One way of doing so is to ensure that every driver who transgresses receives penalty points on his licence and eventually is removed from the road.

I believe that a one-eyed approach is less effective than a broader approach that encompasses educating all road users, not just those who drive a motor vehicle but cyclists and pedestrians, and increasing warnings. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire mentioned the flashing electronic signs, which are very effective because they warn all road users who may not be familiar with a stretch of road that they need to take care. I hope when the Minister replies he will confirm that he will take a broad view of road safety and consider a mixture of penalties, education and warnings where appropriate. Some Opposition Members feel that the so-called road safety camera partnerships in some parts of the country are obsessed with raking in fine money by catching motorists speeding and less focused on the wider promotion of road safety.

The clause is very widely drafted, which may be a reason to applaud the Minister. Subsection (1) states:

“A national transport authority may make payments to any local authority or any other authority or body for meeting the whole or part of the capital or running costs of any measures”.

If “any measures” are indeed to be considered—if the issue is to be considered in the broad sense—there is a case for encouraging local innovation. If a parish council has a unique idea about how road safety can best be promoted in the village or villages it represents, why not encourage that and give it a grant? The measure does not have to be yet another red box alongside the road; it may be a scheme to go into schools to teach children about the dangers of traffic, or a method of encouraging members of the community to play their part, as they do in neighbourhood watch schemes which have been such a success in tackling burglary. There may be many such ideas that the Government have not yet picked up on but that should be encouraged. I therefore hope that the Minister will confirm that he envisages the clause operating as broadly as possible.

I agree with the comments on amendment No. 17. In general we do not want to encourage more bureaucracy, but the Minister will satisfy us if he can say how he envisages the effectiveness of the clause being monitored. Does he expect his Department to do that and feed back to him? I would be satisfied if there is to be active monitoring by officials at the Department for Transport: I do not necessarily want the over-regulation of an annual report. If that is how the Minister envisages the clause working, perhaps he will undertake periodically to make a written statement to the House stating what grants have been given, what new ideas have been encouraged and so on. I think that the Minister will be able to allay many of our concerns when he responds to the debate.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Will you give members of the Committee permission to remove their jackets?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am extremely traditional but I am prepared to move with the times. If members of the Committee wish to remove their jackets in order to be more comfortable, I am happy that they should do so. I hope that that is a satisfactory response to a matter of comfort, rather than a point of order.

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

I rise to speak to amendment No. 15. As chairman of the governors of a local school, I shall talk about some of the problems experienced in suburban areas where traffic congestion and parking causes immense problems for children on their way to school. Anything that can help in that respect—for example, signs that flash up the speed that cars are doing—is to be welcomed. Many of those signs have been put up in my constituency, but local authorities have limited resources and anything that can bring extra money for such purposes is to be encouraged. I therefore support my hon. Friend’s proposal.

In the average suburban area, single-line traffic and cars parked either side of the road cause enormous problems. The proposal will help to solve them and save lives in the long term.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I ask you to indulge me for a moment, Sir Nicholas, and allow me to talk about what clause 1 is intended to achieve, which would usually be more appropriate to a stand part debate. However, I need to do that in order to explain the Government’s view of the amendments.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 made it possible for the Government, in promoting road safety, to make grants to bodies other than local authorities. I have no doubt that the Government at the time intended that Act to allow them to give money to bodies other than local authorities as well as giving money to the local authorities themselves. However, they succeeded only in making it impossible for Government to give money to local authorities for one-off schemes, which is perverse. The clause will allow us to give money either to local authorities or to other appropriate bodies to carry out demonstration projects—pieces of work that might teach us something about a road safety measure that we can then disseminate to all local authorities or more widely throughout the country.

We have various mechanisms for providing money to local authorities. The hon. Member for North Shropshire, who opened the debate, asked what happened to the existing funds that go to local authorities. We can make road safety funds available to local authorities through the local transport plan arrangements, but ring-fencing that money is difficult. Local authorities have a great degree of local autonomy at the moment and they can spend that money on virtually anything, as long as they are accountable to the local electorate. Clearly, if we want a particular local authority to do a piece of work for us as a demonstration or proof of concept, the last thing that we want is to hand over that money only to have the local authority decide that it is not going to do the project and that it will use the money for something else.

We want to be able to give specific local authorities one-off sums of money to do the sort of experiments that Opposition Members have highlighted. We might want a local authority to experiment with flashing warning signs or with 20-mph zones around schools, for example, and to feed back the information from that experiment so that we can disseminate the experience more widely.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The Minister says that local authorities have a fair degree of autonomy at the moment, but to a large extent that is not true in London. The amendment would allow London boroughs to try a number of road safety schemes. In my borough, where I am still a councillor—for another eight weeks anyway—we have tried to get such schemes but were constrained by road safety funds and grants made available by Transport for London. The thrust of the amendment would be to allow local authorities and—perhaps more importantly and at an even more local level—ward councils to push for schools and parts of their area to get such funds, which are not available at the moment.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not want to get into a discussion about local government in London, as I suspect that you would pull me up sharply if I were to do so, Sir Nicholas, but clearly if we agree to the clause as it stands, we would be able to give one-off grants to specific local authorities in London. We would want to do that in collaboration and co-operation with Transport for London—we do not want to go behind its back—but we would have the power to make the sort of grants to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.

I hope that I have answered the point that the hon. Member for North Shropshire raised and the concerns expressed to him about local authorities spending the money that they had coming to them for road safety generally in the hope that we would then provide them with additional money. That is certainly not the way in which we envisage the grant being used.

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire talked about the carrot and stick approach, which the hon. Member for North Shropshire also mentioned. I agree with them that it is no good thinking that we can impose road safety on the world. We have to bring people with us and win over their hearts and minds. We have to make sure that they have all the information and all the training needed to be able to use the roads safely, and we need a lot of innovation if we are going to do that.

I believe that we in this country have the safest roads in the world. One of the downsides, from our point of view, is that we have already hit all the easy targets. Now, we have to be innovative to get further advances in safety. We have to have fresh ideas. Where the stick will come in is often clear—we can see how it might help us to improve road safety in certain areas. It is often much more difficult to identify where the carrot can work—where providing that extra information or training programme can work—and that is where I envisage the grants being used. We might, for example, test ideas about training young people about road safety issues and driving before they are even old enough to be drivers; however, I would not want to pump money into a national scheme until I knew that it would work. The obvious people to do that work for us and to find out whether it works are local authorities. We want to have the power to make such grants without going through the cumbersome special grant procedure.

That is exactly how we see the programme working. We do not see it as an alternative to local transport plans, and we certainly do not see it as a way of removing local autonomy. As to reporting on the issues, I understand what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) means about having a bin full of annual reports. I sometimes share his concern on that, but information on such programmes tends to be provided through the Department’s annual reports and other such mechanisms. More importantly—this relates to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire—we publish the results of such experiments on our website.

Clearly, the whole point of conducting such an experiment is to learn from it and to find out what works and what does not. It would be self-defeating to carry out such demonstration projects without publishing the results widely. On certain occasions, it would be appropriate for a Minister to make a statement about the outcome of a particular experiment, especially if that outcome were so positive that we believed it presaged or would even lead us directly to a change in Government policy. It would be entirely appropriate for such results to be flagged up in a written ministerial statement. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks: wherever the grants were used, the Department would monitor carefully how they were used, study the outcome of the experiment and demonstration and ensure that the information was properly disseminated. On that basis, I hope that he will accept that another report will probably not be particularly helpful.

I have no doubt that we will discuss camera partnerships in more detail later in our proceedings, but I should remind hon. Members that when we announced the changes in our policy on camera partnerships a few months ago, we said that we envisaged them becoming much wider. Frankly, I do not want to see partnerships consisting only of the police, who have responsibility for enforcement and collecting fines, and the teams that put up the cameras. Such an approach breeds exactly the mentality of those who believe that the only answer to a problem is a camera, because the people in such a partnership will essentially be earning their living out of cameras. Of course they will see cameras as the solution, and they will see more cameras as a way of providing more income.

I want partnerships to be much more widely representative of the local community. They have worked most successfully with that approach; some of the partnerships in the east of England are a good example. I want to see local authority road safety teams in there. I want people from the national health service and the fire service to be involved, as well as the police. Perhaps people from the voluntary sector should be there too. Clearly, if we are going to have these wide-ranging partnerships, accepting an amendment preventing us from giving grants to anyone who was a member of such partnerships would be perverse. I hope that we can dispose of that amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

In the Minister’s vision of wider safety camera partnerships, does he envisage a role for the local road user?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

It is entirely possible that representatives of local road users could be in the partnerships. They could include people from the business community who have fleets that use local roads, such as those in the haulage industry, or representatives of ordinary road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. Such people may well have a place in the partnerships. At some point we might want to use one of the small grants to encourage a local authority to devise a scheme to identify the appropriate people for a partnership. We could then disseminate more widely that authority’s experience of including people.

I hope that I have dealt with all the points that have been raised. If I have not, I am prepared to try again.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The idea of experimental money for new projects is interesting. Will the Minister assure us that it cannot cut into existing transport budgets? The obvious question that has not yet been asked is how much money we are talking about.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to take money from existing pots and put it into the new pot that will be at our disposal. We do not yet have a budget identified. We have used various budgets in the past to give money to a variety of organisations, including local authorities. Some of that has been disbursed through special grants and some through other mechanisms. He will be aware that the Government often have to be innovative in the way in which they make money available to projects, and we have granted money to local authorities and others through various ruses.

The sums involved tend to be relatively small. Bigger projects may sometimes receive £100,000 or £300,000. Schemes have ranged from those seeking to educate young people on road safety matters to those involving cyclists and other road users. We are not necessarily talking about massive projects, although there is scope for some big and innovative projects in the future. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for North Shropshire and other members of the Committee with examples of the schemes that we have helped in the past and would expect to fund through this mechanism. I hope that I have given sufficient reassurances to hon. Members to prevent them from pressing the amendment to a Division, and also that they will support clause 1 stand part. I understand that the amendments were probing, and I hope that they have probed sufficiently.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

That clarification has been helpful. I had not understood that the notion was that the funds would be experimental and for the purpose of carrying out practical trials. We have had an interesting debate, and I particularly liked the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire about education. I think that the Minister confirmed that funds could be disbursed for education as well as for the ideas that I put forward, such as flashing signs or speed limits around schools. I am encouraged by what he said and by his reassurance that a wide range of people will be on the partnerships. As we will discuss shortly, I think that the partnerships as they stand are flawed.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. An example of a project that has been funded is one in Stoke-on-Trent that involved Blurton dads’ club, which is run alongside Sure Start. There was also a grant of a little less than £1 million to an older pedestrians’ initiative and one of about £1 million to a project in Liverpool called “Our walk to school.” Those are neighbourhood road safety initiative projects that we have funded. The hon. Gentleman might also want to look at a scheme called Kerbcraft, which teaches young children practical roadside skills. I hope that those are the sorts of educational schemes to which he referred.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

That was a most helpful intervention. I am glad that the Minister did not find those projects in his notes, because they are exactly the sort of projects that we would be seeking over and above the stuff about science and limits, and they would be a worthwhile addition to measures to improve road safety, as long as we had the assurance that they would not cut into existing budgets. On that basis, I am happy to seek to withdraw the amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I rise to ask the Minister a question and to place on record an expression of hope. First, the question relates to the scope of the grants. Could a road safety grant ever be given to remove a road completely? If someone has an idea that a road should be closed to traffic and turned over completely to pedestrians, could one of these grants ever be used for that purpose?

Secondly, I hope that if the Bill completes its passage and the system is up and running, the Department will not take a one-size-fits-all view of grants under the clause, because local needs and the environment of the area must also be taken into consideration.

Perhaps I may give the Minister an example in a related area. I am well aware that Departments generally try to encourage local authorities to consider ways of promoting public transport use and to discourage unnecessary car journeys. There is nothing wrong with that. In cities such as Nottingham or maybe Derby, or in inner-city London, it makes sense to support the local authority if it wants to introduce a park-and-ride scheme. One way to encourage motorists to use park-and-ride schemes is to make them pay for inner-city parking, while the parking for the park-and-ride is free or very low-cost, so there is an incentive to use it.

My local authority, the East Riding of Yorkshire council, has recently been put under considerable pressure to introduce car-parking charges in Bridlington. In this case, which I give as an example, there has been no consideration of the needs of an English seaside town. We should encourage people to take holidays in the UK and to visit our seaside towns. I say to the Minister with the greatest respect that we will not encourage a young couple with children to go to the seaside, park their car and then, with little Johnny, their suitcases and their buckets and spades, use a park-and-ride scheme. My local authority has been put under pressure by the Department to abolish free parking in the town of Bridlington, and that is a mistake. It will affect the local economy, because a seaside town is different from an inner-city area in the middle of the country. I therefore hope that when we are considering grants under this provision, the Department will take into account local need, which it has not done in that example.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I do not know of the initiative to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and I would be worried if my Department were applying pressure so specifically. He may want to drop me a line about the project and I shall certainly look into it.

We do not intend the clause to be used to allow any form of road engineering. Were we to do that with a one-off grant to a particular local authority, I have no doubt that all the other local authorities would plough in and say, “We want some, too.” That would then begin to bring into disrepute the local transport plan programme and all the other mechanisms that are in place to distribute road engineering funding fairly.

Having said that that is not what we intend, one might ask whether the clause could be used to remove a road or a piece of engineering work in the future. I will ask my lawyers to reflect on that, but my interpretation of the clause is such that if it could be argued that the measure in question was entirely a road safety measure and that that was the only rationale for it, the provision could legally be used for that purpose. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and tell him whether the lawyers confirm that that is the case, but we certainly do not intend the clause to be used in that way.

Perhaps I may take the Committee back to where we started. Back in 1988, the then Government had what I thought was a very good idea: they wanted to encourage demonstration projects to be carried out by the most appropriate voluntary organisations or other expert groups, so they drew up a measure to enable them to provide those groups with money. Clearly, the groups would not be the sort that would carry out engineering works on our roads; they would engage with local communities, teaching kids how to get to school more safely, helping cyclists and motorcyclists, and carrying out similar projects. However, the 1988 Government did not intend to prevent themselves and future Governments from giving money for the same purposes to local authorities.

We want the clause to enable us to use local authorities to carry out demonstration projects in the same way as the 1988 Government intended to use voluntary organisations and others. That is how we want to use the clause, although on first reading it might appear that, if they wanted to, the Government could use the money in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. However, as I said, I shall write to him on the matter.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The debate has demonstrated the purpose of a Standing Committee, because we now have a much better understanding of the clause. Opposition Members like the idea of experimentation. We like the idea that the clause can be used to support small projects and that, if a project has worked in one part of the country, it might be advertised to other areas. The clause also allows variety and flexibility. On that basis we are content to support it.

Clause 2 - Application of surplus income from safety camera enforcement

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 19, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, leave out from ‘(2)’ to ‘to’ in line 20.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

We like the clause, but we think that it could be better. There are real doubts in the public’s mind about the present safety camera regime, and we want to toughen up the clause so that all surpluses have to go towards road safety.

The figures are quite striking. In 2000-01 there were only seven partnerships. They received £10.362 million and spent £8.985 million, leaving a balance of £1.367 million, which went into the Consolidated Fund, which, to be blunt, is the black hole presided over by the Chancellor. That balance was 13 per cent. of the funds in 2001. What is fascinating is that there has been a spectacular increase in income and in the number of partnerships—we are now up to about 35 partnerships. In 2003-04 there were receipts of £112.2 million and expenditure of £91.8 million, leaving an astonishing £20.4 million going to the Chancellor. Not only have receipts increased approximately tenfold, but the balance going to the Chancellor as a percentage of total receipts has increased from 13 to 18 per cent. That means that a very substantial sum is not going towards road safety.

The issue has caused controversy in my own patch. In the autumn, the Minister kindly answered some parliamentary questions of mine. In West Mercia, £4.897 million was spent on speed camera running costs, but fixed penalty fines totalled £6.182 million, so more than £1.2 million from my area went to the Consolidated Fund. That is bitterly resented. The regime has to change. We have gone from about 200,000 speeding fines imposed about 10 years ago to about 2 million today, and very large amounts of the money raised are not being spent on safety. There are worse cases: six road safety partnerships have each made a profit of more than £1 million, with money going on to Whitehall. The biggest profit—£1.7 million—was made by the Northumbria safety camera partnership, with motorists in the county stumping up more than £4 million in fines.

The Secretary of State has announced that he will overhaul the programme and that the surpluses—about £110 million a year—will go to a new national road safety fund. That has to be done. There is an interesting quote from Edmund King, the executive director of the RAC Foundation:

“These figures show that there is a lot that can be spent on wider road safety improvements. Some cameras are money-making enterprises, some are not. I have seen a document from a road safety partnership warning that it was in danger of not breaking even and suggesting two options. One was to place cameras where they would catch more motorists and the other was to lower the speed threshold for prosecution.”

That is exactly what we should not be doing. That really is not the way to get the collaboration of the 34 million drivers whom I mentioned on Second Reading and touched on briefly in the debate on the programme motion. I believe strongly that we cannot coerce those drivers—we cannot just use a stick. The vast majority of drivers are hard-working, law-abiding people going about their daily lives and trying to get from A to B in safety and on time. Unfortunately, the way in which the safety camera regime has been set up has caused real alienation.

A case close to me, although not on my patch, has caused real controversy locally. I had a note from the Association of British Drivers about one of the earliest cameras. I have not had time to go into the details, but the association claims that a local council and a local camera partnership provided different detailed information on a camera at a location called Bennetts bank. The association says:

“When the information was analysed, it showed that not only did the camera partnership and the local council provide different data, but the partnership’s analyses of the figures were highly dubious and, quite clearly, there had been no accidents at the point where the camera was installed.”

The association claims that the camera was installed without the statutory number of accidents—at the time, four fatal accidents in a three-year period, I think—having occurred.

Last night, I received an e-mail from a Mr. John Evans, who wrote that Bennetts bank

“was an obvious place to trap drivers coming down from the M54 or coming from Wellington back up to Ketly Roundabout on a normally safe straight piece of road, spacious and walled on both sides except for some terraced houses at the top end.

An employee of the council seconded to the partnership agreed with me off record and admitted that the main reason for the placement was that it was a good place to catch the 7000 vehicles per day flow. It was necessary to kick start the abominable partnership in this way as this was the first such camera in Shropshire ... I assure you that I have no great interest in cars but hate it when both my intelligence and my pocket is abused. It is probable that tens of thousands of fines have been collected at this site alone. I know that countless people have been up in arms about this cynical ploy based on the narrowest interpretation of the law to meet the Exchequer’s requirements.”

We have to face the political reality that such opinions are out there and they are very damaging to the idea of collaboration. It is vital to implement speed limits that are respected and accord with drivers’ behaviour. In this case, there was a straight piece of road, where fatal accidents had not occurred. In fact, last night, a senior member of the Telford community told me that there were other places in Telford that really would have benefited from the installation of speed cameras.Vicky Cann, the assistant director of Transport 2000, said that

“the very high casualty criteria are a major obstacle to greater use of cameras along roads considered dangerous. It is unacceptable that where people have already died or been seriously injured in speed-related crashes further tragedies must occur before effective speed limit enforcement is undertaken”.

The current regime is being attacked from two angles. There is a strong belief that cameras are being placed unnecessarily, rather as the Bourbon tax farmers had free rein to raise taxes and to take a slice of the revenue themselves. To put it bluntly, the more a safety camera organisation can expand its operations, the more money it can raise and the more it can fund itself and pay its employees. That is quite wrong. We must get away from the concept that speed cameras are not helpful. We need to get back to the idea, promoted by Vicky Cann, that there are areas where a speed camera in the right place could reduce accidents.

I have referred several times to the example in Telford because it caused such bad feeling in the local area. A speed camera was installed on what is regarded a straight, safe road, where, according to those who have discussed the case with me, it is probably safe to travel at 40 mph. It is vital that we return to the idea that speed cameras are associated with road safety. They should be placed in areas where there are real dangers of very unpleasant and possibly fatal accidents. I received a very good letter from Roger Geffen, the campaigns and policy manager of the Cyclists’ Touring Club. He said that

“to kill off the criticism of safety cameras as “cash cows”, two principles must be followed:

1) The purposes of cameras must be transparently linked to road safety objectives and

2) That there is no risk that the Government might use camera revenue to replace other “mainstream” road safety funding, as delivered through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process”.

Those principles are wholly admirable. We would begin to claw back some public confidence in speed cameras if people knew that all the money raised went toward road safety. That is black and white statement. We should be able to tell all motorists and road safety campaigners that every bit of the surplus will be ploughed back into road safety. Such an approach might begin to win back some public confidence. The Minister might comment on that in his response.

As it stands, clause 2 states that some of the money may be spent on relevant

“local transport facilities or related environmental improvements, including road safety measures”.

Can the Minister elaborate on what the Government have in mind? I ask because the Committee received an interesting note from RBS Insurance, pointing out that

“One area ripe for action is the framework for inspecting the quality of road repair work undertaken. At present local authorities only have a duty/right to inspect 30% of road works to make sure that their companies are meeting appropriate standards, a level that is surely inefficient”.

On what objectives is the money to be targeted?

Clause 2 would be improved greatly if amendments Nos. 18 and 19 were agreed to. The word “may” is wishy-washy—it allows the Government to park the issue for a year or two. The word “shall” should be used. It should be clear that all surplus revenue raised from the installation of speed cameras must be spent on road safety schemes. I am very interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that suggestion.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I dread that I may one day have to tot up the amount of time I have spent in Committee debating whether the appropriate word to use is “may” or “shall”. I fear that if we did undertake that exercise, we would discover that we have contributed very little to the sum of human happiness. In fact, on this occasion, I beg to differ with the hon. Member for North Shropshire. By using the word “may”, the Government have got it right, because to compel the Government to make a regulation that changing circumstances may render unnecessary would merely lead to yet more unnecessary legislation.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Frankly, I do not care whether the word used is “may” or “shall”. I agree entirely that the clause is wishy-washy and badly drafted, but it was inserted in the Lords by Liberal Democrats and Tories.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am sorry, but I may have given the impression that I cared about whether the word used was “may” or “shall”. If I did give that impression, I accept that it was entirely misleading and I apologise unreservedly to the Committee.

I have some concerns, however, about amendment No. 19. Removing the words

“over and above such income as is required to cover expenditure on the operation of a safety camera scheme”

would effectively enable any future Secretary of State to leave a camera partnership operating at a loss if he demanded a certain amount of money. I can see tensions arising there. The hon. Member for North Shropshire is right to highlight the amount of fines that will go to the Consolidated Fund, but his amendments, which could mean that taxpayers, locally or nationally, ended up funding safety cameras directly, would not be helpful in any way.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Is the hon. Gentleman’s party happy that substantial sums are now going directly to the Treasury instead of being ploughed back into road safety schemes?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Of course I am not happy, although what the hon. Gentleman describes has for ever been the case, whether through fixed penalties or penalties imposed by the court. That is why he is right to highlight the fact that such an amount is going into the Consolidated Fund. Be they wishy-washy or otherwise, the provisions give us the opportunity to direct some of that money back towards local road safety improvements, which should be welcomed.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The hon. Gentleman may not care whether it is “may” or “shall”, but my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire is right to differentiate the two. He made several important points in support of the amendment. First, being the learned gentleman that he is, the Minister will know about the Shakespearean theme of appearance and reality. He may be about to argue that the reality is that too many speed cameras are not revenue-generating machines for the Government, yet most people perceive that a huge number of them are merely just that. Cameras should be there to reduce the speed of vehicles to make them comply with the law or to reduce accidents. The whole point of having “shall” instead of “may” is to reinforce that.

My hon. Friend spoke about the amounts that go into some general pot that can never be seen. I am surprised that the Minister does not want to support the amendment. If he did, there would be money for the experimental schemes that he talked about when we discussed clause 1. It would be helpful not to siphon such moneys off into general or non-transport areas. That is entirely consistent with what was said earlier, so the amendment is entirely consistent with the thrust of what the Government are trying to do. Surplus moneys from speed camera fines should be used for road safety improvements.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman just called me learned. I hope that he was saying that I have learned something, rather than using the word in its formal sense and accusing me of being a lawyer. If he is accusing me of being a lawyer, I may have to black his eye for him.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I apologise.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Frankly, I do not mind whether the amendments are agreed to. I shall leave it to the Government Whip to decide whether he allows them to be passed. He may wish to enhance the career of the hon. Member for North Shropshire by allowing him to be the first shadow Minister to move an Opposition amendment that is agreed to, but I shall be seeking the support of my hon. Friends for removing the entire clause at stand part.

The clause is unnecessary. We considered these matters in December. The purpose of the clause is to make money raised through fine income from cameras available for purposes wider than the installation of cameras. In the current financial year, the rules are that camera partnerships that install cameras can keep the fines in order to pay their costs in maintaining the cameras and enforcement, after which only the surplus goes to the Treasury. We agree entirely that that gives the impression to drivers that cameras are self-proliferating and that people put them up in order to make money.

I say to the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who talked about a road in his constituency—

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The road is not in my constituency.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I stand corrected. The hon. Gentleman referred to a road that was straight and safe to break the speed limit on. Anybody who does not wish to pay a fine can stick to the speed limit. If a speed limit is there, one must assume that it is there for a purpose. That is why the Secretary of State said in his announcement in December that, as well as breaking the link between fine income and cameras, we would also ask all local authorities over the next few years to review every speed limit in the country and to make sure that the limits were appropriate. I have said publicly that I expect some speed limits to go up, perhaps where engineering has improved the safety of a road over the years, so the lower speed limit is no longer appropriate.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

That is an important point. I understand that local authorities can currently impose speed limits irrespective of whether they are necessary. There is no means by which a member of the public who uses a road can challenge the local authority’s decision or make it give reasons. Under the process that the Minister outlined, are local authorities given guidelines as to what they should look for, which tell them that if a speed limit does not meet the criteria, they must seek to raise it? Are they put under a duty to do so?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

We are certainly producing guidelines that we want local authorities to follow in assessing all speed limits. I have said publicly that I would expect them to start with the highest priority sites, which I would have thought they would identify through the accident rate, first and foremost. If there is a very high accident rate on a particular road, they must consider the possibility that the speed limit is set too high. Equally, if there is a low accident rate on a road, but a high rate of speeding, they might consider the possibility that the speed limit has been set too low. They should adjust the speed limit accordingly and, in doing so, win back the confidence of drivers.

What we must not do—this was implied in the tone of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, with which I take issue—is say to drivers that there are any circumstances in which it is okay to ignore the speed limit. If somebody thinks that the speed limit is not right, they should make representations through their local council to have the limit changed. They should not think that they can make the judgment and simply ignore the speed limit.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Has the guidance crystallised? In other words, is it in its final form, and if so, could members of the Committee please have a copy?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I do not know whether the guidance has been finalised yet. It is within a short period of being finalised. If it is ready for dissemination, I shall certainly let Committee members have a copy. If not, I shall write to advise when it will be available, and copies will be put in the Library and sent out to all local authorities.

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

I have raised previously an issue concerning a speed camera at the bottom of the M11. The only thing proven by the evidence that has been supplied is that the camera has made accidents and road safety worse. In such instances, the word “shall” would at least tell the people who are fined for speeding that their fines will be properly used for road safety, rather than that the fines may perhaps be used in that way, although they may go to the Chancellor.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I do not know the particular scheme to which the hon. Gentleman referred; he may well have raised it or written to me about it, but it has slipped my memory. I can tell him, however, that wherever a speed camera is put up, the accident data and the reasons why it is there should be on the partnership website associated with that camera. Any member of the public who sees a camera that they suspect has been installed for money-raising purposes can go on to the internet and find out why it is there. It is the number of people who are killed or seriously injured, rather than just the number of fatalities, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, which governs where a camera should be located.

Until now, the rules have referred to whether a certain number of people have been killed or seriously injured over a period and whether there is evidence of speeding at the location. That is what a camera partnership should look for before a camera is installed. If cameras are installed other than in such locations, members of the public should talk to their local council and to the partnership about exactly why that has happened.

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said that members of the public could not challenge a speed limit that they feel is inappropriate for a particular road. Of course they can challenge it; indeed, we are just coming up to local elections, which is exactly when they should do so. When councillors or potential councillors knock on people’s front doors in local elections, if people occasionally raised such local issues and said that the candidates would be judged on them, I suspect that there would be a good deal more focus than at present on some of the things that irritate people. There is no specific right of appeal, however, and speed limits are not subject to planning applications in the way that the hon. Member for North Shropshire might hope for.

We need to make camera partnerships more responsive, but I should first say that cameras work. We have now completed three studies during the four years for which camera partnerships have existed, looking at accident rates before and after camera deployment. There was some controversy last year about whether the so-called regression to mean effect might be distorting the data, but in the fourth study, we have examined not only whether the accident rate at camera sites has been reduced, but the impact of regression to mean on the figures. There is absolutely no doubt whatever that cameras save lives. They reduce people’s speed, and they reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites.

As I have said on several occasions, however, we must strike a deal with the motorist whereby we make it clear to them that we are putting up cameras not merely to raise money, as some motorists perceive, but where there is no better way of making a site safe and when we have looked at the accident and speed record, along with alternatives such as engineering work, flashing signs and other information that might be made available to help slow motorists down. When there is no better solution for a serious blackspot than a camera, a camera goes in.

If we can convince motorists that that is what we are trying to achieve, I hope that they will respond. Their part of the deal will be to respect speed limits more than they do at the moment. We should start telling people who speed that their speed is not acceptable, in the same way as in the 1960s and 1970s, when people changed their attitude to drink-driving dramatically. Characters in television situation comedies used to get drunk and drive their cars and everyone laughed at them, but no one would laugh these days. By striking a deal with the motorist, we have to get the public to change their attitude to speeding, so that they start to respect speed limits and we will not have to fine them.

We have completely changed the rules that govern the camera partnerships so that there is no link between the fines they raise and the money they get. From 2007-08, all the money from fines will go to the Treasury. In return, the Treasury will give back £110 million—the amount currently being collected through fines—which will be used by local partnerships and authorities for road safety measures, which may include the installation and maintenance of cameras. The decision on the most appropriate way of using the money will be made locally. There will no longer be an incentive for people in camera partnerships to put up cameras because it will guarantee them an income. There will be no link between the fines raised by the local authority camera partnership and the amount that they receive. Where there will be a link is in how well they are doing on road safety issues. The local authorities that are successful in tackling road safety will benefit most.

I have described the mechanism that will operate in future. We do not need legislation to change it, because we have done it already. The Secretary of State made a statement in December about how the road safety partnership system was being changed. That makes clause 2 redundant and I hope that the Committee will vote against its standing part of the Bill. I am completely neutral on the amendments, although we might agree to them so that, for a few brief seconds, the hon. Member for North Shropshire can say that he has won something in Committee.

During the debate I have been reflecting on what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said. I can tell him that traffic authorities have to publish traffic regulation orders when they propose changes to speed limits. The public can object and their objections must duly be considered before the order is made. There is therefore a mechanism other than the local elections for people to object to speed limits.

Having said all that, I hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will again make the case for the amendments and that my hon. Friends will then remove the clause from the Bill.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The Minister’s reply was a bit of a curate’s egg. We are delighted that he is happy to support our amendments, but if what he says is in line with Government policy, I am not sure why he will not support clause stand part. He appears to have said that there is an absolute guarantee that all surpluses raised by speed camera partnerships will go to the Treasury and then on to road safety measures. I wonder if that is a correct statement, because our amendments have the same purpose: we want all the surpluses—income in excess of expenditure—to go into road safety measures. That is a simple request, but an important part of the battle to regain motorists’ confidence.

The Committee’s views on speed cameras are not miles apart, but there has been a loss of public confidence. If we were able to say that all the fines would go into road safety it would have a major impact on people’s confidence. I am pleased that the Minister said he would support amendments Nos. 18 and 19.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I think that we are shortly to find out what the words “hollow victory” really mean.

The whole Committee is grateful to the Minister for the way in which he responded to the amendments. I applaud what I perceive to be a change of tone from the Government and their recognition, which I have not heard before, that one needs to consider the law-abiding motorist. That is basic common sense, because if speed limits are respected those who flout them will become just as ostracised as those who drink and drive are now. As the Minister indicated, that was not always so. When the drink-driving legislation was first introduced, in it was a field day for comedians, particularly because of the bag that one had to blow into in those days. I welcome the Minister’s change of tone, but I am not yet convinced that the Government have got the balance right. I hope that we will see the guidance that is to go out to local authorities before the Committee debate proceeds much further.

The Minister said that a speed limit notice can be challenged as inappropriate, but in reality they are not challenged because most motorists are not aware of them. Most motorists live in one local authority area and commute to another to work. If the speed limit is altered on the part of their journey that is in the local authority area where they work, they probably do not buy the local paper. Even if they do, they will have to look very hard in the public notices column, and if they miss the paper on the day when it is published, they will not know that it is happening until it is too late.

The idea that the imposition of a speed limit could be reversed during local elections was the weakest part of the Minister’s speech. Very often, if there is a tragedy in a village—for example, a young child is killed on the road—politicians of all parties unite to mirror the grief in that village. If the relatives of the child hold the rather blinkered view that a lower speed limit is the answer, there tends to be local momentum behind the view that that would solve the problem and prevent another young child being killed, so a campaign for a lower speed limit is launched. It needs somebody very brave in those circumstances, particularly if he is seeking election, to say to the parents of a deceased child, “A lower speed limit is not the answer. A barrier on the pavement is the answer, and perhaps more education in the local school or with parents to make sure that children are not running loose on the pavement.” In those circumstances, emotion tends to rule the roost and a campaign goes forward with all-party support. I will applaud what the Department is doing if, as the Minister has indicated, the guidance tells local authorities that there may be cases in which they need to raise the speed limit. By so doing, a local authority will have more credibility and public support when it seeks to introduced a lower speed limit.

I welcome the overall tone of the Minister’s remarks, which I hope will live on longer than the clause, as amended, will do.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. We will make the guidance available to the Committee as soon as it is written.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that people do not know about traffic regulation orders. I am the Minister of State and I did not know about them until a note was passed to me in the middle of that discussion, so how on earth can ordinary members of the public know that they can challenge speed limits in that way?

My point was that it is open to political parties to make a commitment in their manifesto for the forthcoming elections to review speed limits in their area and decide whether they are right or wrong. I am pleased to say that in some parts of the country some parties’ manifestos say that they will review the speed limits around schools and use the powers that the Government have given them to introduce 20 mph zones. That is absolutely correct—every local authority in the country should examine the speed limit around every school and decide whether it is appropriate to have a 20 mph zone. It is a small leap from there for local authorities to say, “And while we’re at it, we will get on with the job of reviewing all the speed limits in our area, because we believe that some of them may no longer be appropriate. We shall join the Government in this battle to win over the hearts and minds of motorists.” They should commit to making sure that cameras are in the right places, that engineering is used where it is needed and that better signage and information is used where that is more appropriate. However, they will then make it clear to motorists that, having done their part of the deal, they will be tough with them: where there is a clear danger spot, the authorities will expect limits to be properly enforced. They will expect motorists to obey the law and not come whingeing that they have three points on their licence and that it will cost them £30 if they break the speed limit.

That is what we want to achieve. We have already changed the rules of the partnerships to achieve that. The Government have all the flexibility that they need to do that under existing legislation. That is why the clause is unnecessary. To be fair to their Lordships, when they inserted the clause in the Bill, they did not realise that the Government were on the verge of changing the rules without the Bill. I imagine that they would not have inserted the clause had they known that.

The clause is unnecessary. I hope that my assurances about the Government’s intentions in relation to road cameras and speed limits are sufficient to reassure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and that Opposition Members will now allow the clause to be removed from the Bill, having had a short but, I hope, happy period in their lives when they thought they had won something.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister says that the clause is unnecessary. As long as he remains in his post, that will undoubtedly be the case. I have no hesitation in saying that he is a man of good faith. However, I must gently point out to him that the day may come when he is not in that job. The day may even come when the Labour party is not in government.

I know that there is much talk in Labour circles about legacies. I suggest that the clause could be the Minister’s legacy to future generations, so that if the day came when the Government were not minded to act in the exemplary and fair manner that he outlined, which seems to have won such approval from all parts of the Committee, there would be something in law, albeit secondary legislation, that would prevent that change from taking place. That is why the clause is necessary and why it should stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Flushed with our victory on amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which we think significantly improve clause 2, I was very interested in the Minister’s comments. Like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I am pleased to see the way in which the Government have come round on this subject.

There are two extreme views on speed: there are those who think that cars will only be rendered safe if a man walks in front with a red flag, and there are others who think that the only really safe measure is to put a large spike, six inches long, in every steering wheel and to rely on the driver’s sense of self-preservation not to put his own life at risk while driving at any speed he wants. There has to be a happy compromise between the two. The Minister used absolutely the right word—“appropriate”—in his speech. That is the key. Speed as such does not kill. It is inappropriate speed that kills.

I have had a ton of correspondence on speed limits sent to me. One of the most extraordinary facts I learned was that when the speed limit in Park lane was 30 mph, the average speed was 41 mph. When the speed limit was increased to 40 mph, the average speed dropped to 39 mph. That struck me as a very good example of an inappropriate limit: people were driving with the imaginary spike pointing at their chests—driving with a sense of self-preservation. Against that, we have the case on which there seemed to be unanimity this morning—the question of having more flexibility on speed, particularly around schools. Interestingly, there seemed to be all-party support for that. I am therefore pleased that the Minister referred to “inappropriate speed” and not just “speed”. One cannot simply say that speed kills. It is inappropriate speed that kills.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire might like to hear that on Sunday I spoke to a Yorkshireman who had been taking his son to a driving lesson through a windy little village in Yorkshire. The son was going about 28 mph in a 30-mph area, and the father really went for him, saying, “What are you doing? Look what’s happening. There are tourists around, people crossing the road. There are families and buggies. This isn’t sensible. Forget the sign. You should be driving appropriately, according to the circumstances”. I have been encouraged and pleased by the way the Minister has been talking this morning, although I am disappointed that, having happily supported the amendments and allowed clause 2 to be improved enormously, he seems unlikely to let it stand part of the Bill.

I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. We may trust the Minister—he has been talking a lot of sense this morning and we agree with him. However, he will move on, perhaps to greater things, so it would be nice to have this legacy firmly on the statute book as a memorial to his firm belief that all surpluses should go to road safety. I hope that he will reconsider in the next few minutes and that clause 2, as amended, will stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

There is common ground. We all want to establish motorists’ confidence that speed limits are appropriate and should therefore be respected. I would like Opposition Members to remember that recent opinion polls have shown that as many as 85 per cent. of motorists regard speeding as acceptable in certain circumstances. It is not. That is the battle that we are fighting. However, we have to fight it with both the carrot and the stick, as has been said. I think that the Government have got it right. The policy that we have proposed is the right one. We do not need new legislation, which is why the clause should be removed from the statute book.

Legacies have been mentioned. I can tell Opposition Members that the smiles on their faces when they won their amendment was sufficient legacy for me. However, one can have too much of a good thing, so I invite my hon. Friends to remove the clause from the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

That was my first experience of that situation arising in a Standing Committee. Perhaps we have set a precedent.

Clause 3 - Graduated fixed penalties

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 3, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

‘()the time of day it was committed,’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in clause 3, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

‘()the number of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the vicinity at the time,’.

No. 22, in clause 3, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

‘()the prevailing weather conditions,’.

No. 23, in clause 3, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

‘()the conditions of visibility,’.

No. 24, in clause 3, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

‘()any mitigating circumstances put forward by the offender.’.

No. 26, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

‘()the time of day it was committed,’.

No. 27, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

‘()the number of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the vicinity at the time,’.

No. 28, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

‘()the prevailing weather conditions,’.

No. 29, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

‘()the conditions of visibility,’.

No. 30, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

‘()any mitigating circumstances put forward by the offender.’.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Following our bitter disappointment that the amendments to clause 2 did not quite make it, we move on to clause 3. Again, the Opposition approve generally of what the Government are trying to do. I think that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire who spoke on Second Reading about flexibility. We think that it is sensible to vary fixed penalties according to certain conditions, as proposed by the clause.

My party believes that there is a small number of what my right hon. Friend called, I think, bad hats—a hard core on which we should help the Government to bear down. The trick is not to go overboard on the vast majority of drivers who are hard-working, conscientious people, trying to get from A to B. While looking at some of the press reports, I found one of a completely ridiculous case in Fife, where a 38-year-old was found doing 85 mph in a 30 mph zone, causing the deaths of two people. In another case, in Lewisham, an uninsured 16-year-old drove an illegal car and killed two people.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman quote the case from Fife of a driver doing 85 mph where there was a 30 mph limit, and that that caused the deaths of two people. That is well outwith the range of anything dealt with by a fixed penalty offence; it is an indictment offence for causing death by dangerous driving.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

That was helpful information, and I think that I know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. My point, which we shall discuss at length when we deal with dangerous driving and causing death by dangerous driving, is that when one reads the press reports one sees that there is an extraordinary distance between a small number of people causing real damage and behaving extraordinarily badly, stupidly and dangerously, and, at the other extreme, the large numbers of people who are trying to go about their daily lives. The trick is to frame the legislation to encompass the two.

We are keen to help the Government bear down on the hard core—the small number of people who simply must be removed from the roads and punished extremely heavily. Driving at 85 mph in a 30 mph limit is absolutely ludicrous—I am sure that all members of the Committee endorse that view. The trick is somehow to come up with a framework of law that does not alienate the 34 million drivers. On that basis, we support the clause.

I have touched only upon speed. I am aware that the clause covers other motoring offences, but speed is the one that really catches the public imagination. As I said, there is a danger of losing the support and collaboration of many motorists. On that basis, the amendments propose a number of factors that should have an influence on penalties for those who have contravened a speed limit. I think that the time of day, as mentioned in amendment No. 20, is fundamental. There is a big difference between going at 32 mph, 33 mph or some speed just over the limit at 6 o’clock on a June morning in broad daylight when one is fresh and wide awake, and driving at the same speed at a busy time in the evening on a November evening when it is pouring with rain, one has driven 200 miles down from Manchester, and there are people coming out of schools. That point touches on the comment that I made about my friend in Yorkshire who taught a lesson to his son. The time of day should be taken into account.

As amendment No. 21 suggests, there is big difference between going out early on a clear summer’s morning when there is no one around and going out when people are coming home from work or leaving schools. That should have a bearing and a sensible driver should take into account the number of pedestrians who are around. We know that the majority of pedestrian accidents happen in towns.

Moving on to amendment No. 22, the weather must also be taken into account. It would be sensible to state in the Bill that weather conditions play a huge part in accidents. We have seen the highly publicised press reports of accidents happening in bad weather, when a sensible driver would have taken account of the prevailing conditions. That relates also to amendment No. 23, which mentions visibility. There are still cases of people driving at inappropriate speeds in the fog. Visibility is a measurable fact and it would be sensible to take it into account. Amendment No. 24 makes the blanket addition of any other mitigating circumstances.

We support the graduated fixed penalties, because they will give the Government and the authorities a chance to show flexibility and acknowledge that in a speeding case it is the appropriate speed that counts, not the absolute speed. Our amendments would improve clause 3, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on them. On the whole, we are in favour of the clause.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I support the aim of my hon. Friend’s amendments. My only doubt is whether they are necessary. The Government’s own list is not exclusive. Proposed paragraphs (a),(b) and (c) in subsection (2) list as considerations

“the nature of the contravention ... how serious it is”

and

“the area, or sort of place, where it takes place”.

One could argue that that would include the time of day when an offence was committed. That is covered by the words “how serious it is”. If it was committed on a sunny day, I think that most people would say that it was less serious than if it had been committed on a foggy evening. One could argue that the number of pedestrians also has a bearing on “how serious it is”, and the same is true of the prevailing weather conditions and the visibility.

It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says. I applaud my hon. Friend’s amendments, and I am with him on his aims but as a lawyer I am not convinced that we need to tack on to the Bill every imaginable set of circumstances, because the existing description pretty much covers all the eventualities that my hon. Friend wants us to consider.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Although the Government have set down several criteria, we received a number of representations from the road transport lobby and others about the way in which we define “serious” and whether that is sufficiently precise. The thrust of the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire is to ensure greater precision in the wording of the clause.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

If the Minister does not convince the Committee, I will be with my hon. Friend on any vote he may wish to press for, although I suspect that the Minister may take the view, which I take, that the amendments are superfluous. I hope that he will be able to answer in detail shortly.

I have a different point that I would like the Minister to answer. Are the graduated fixed penalties in this clause and the graduated fixed penalty points in clause 4, which relate to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, in respect of fixed penalty notices, howsoever issued, or do they relate only to fixed penalty notices issued by a police officer? I have concerns if they cover all fixed penalty notices. We all know that police officers are trained in the rules of evidence and that, by and large, unless one is dealing with a rogue officer, a police officer has a sense of justice. If he feels that a case is marginal and the driver is contrite, the officer may not even bother to write out a ticket and may wave the driver on, telling him to be more careful in future. A civilian person, however, might have been told by his line manager that the more tickets he gives out, the more likely he is to get a bonus at the end of the year or to ingratiate himself with those who employ him. I would have reservations about that and would take the view that we should perhaps put in extra safeguards. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister explain whether the offences are in respect of tickets issued by police officers or go wider.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I do not think that anyone would take issue with the comments of the hon. Member for North Shropshire about cracking down on the hard core. However, if what a person does is so severe as to be worthy of the description of hard core, they should never be the subject of fixed penalty notices. I accept that I am perhaps a little old-fashioned in this respect, but I think that this is what the courts are there for. I speak as one who made his living as a criminal court solicitor, first as a prosecutor as a procurator fiscal depute and latterly as a defence agent, before entering Parliament. Indeed, examples such as the one from Fife that the hon. Member for North Shropshire cited must be placed before the court. That applies equally to the other examples that he cited, as it would to that of the Yorkshireman whose learner-driver son drove at 28 mph in a way that could at the very least be described under the terms of section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as careless or inconsiderate.

My concern—I put it no more strongly than that—about graduated penalties is that their success or otherwise will be determined according to where the threshold is set. The danger is that by giving those who would otherwise go to court a fixed penalty, one downgrades the seriousness of the matter and risks losing some of the public disapprobation associated with going to court, not to mention the no small measure of inconvenience and expense associated with attending, which will act as a disincentive to the hard-core offender. That is why the definition of what constitutes hard core is crucial to the success or failure of the operation of the process.

I have seen the following happen as a result of actions taken by Governments of every colour during the years I have worked in the criminal justice system, and since I left it. There is a move to take people into courts, especially for what are considered to be minor road traffic offences. As the Minister said, speeding is not a minor road traffic offence; it is a particular species of antisocial behaviour and a very dangerous one at that. The move to pull people out of the criminal court system runs contrary to the Minister’s stated aim of improving our attitude towards speeding as a particularly antisocial offence.

Regarding the operation of clause 3, I go along with the view of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. The amendments are well intentioned and have been proposed to probe the Government’s thinking. In fact, much of the language used in the amendments could well have been borrowed from the explanatory notes. However, to be as exclusive as the amendments appear to be may not be helpful.

I would like to probe the Government’s thinking on proposed new subsection (2)(d), where it says:

“whether the offender appears to have committed any offence or offences of a description specified in the order during a period so specified.”

I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm my understanding of that. I presume that if someone were speeding at a certain level that was unexceptional in itself—albeit over the limit—in a car with a number of defects which would bring it into contravention of the construction and use regulations, it is envisaged that a greater penalty could be imposed. Is that the meaning of proposed new paragraph (d), or is there some other meaning behind it? If the Minister could clarify the way in which that paragraph will operate, I would be immensely grateful.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Shropshire: we have to get really tough with the hard core. Bad offenders really need to feel the fingers on their collar. I agree also with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that when people commit disproportionate speeding offences, there should be no hesitation about taking them to court and prosecuting them for the most serious offence available.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

We have heard many negative comments about the operation of speed cameras, but does the Minister accept that when a motorist does 85 mph in a 30 mph limit, as in the case outlined by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, the use of the camera would be essential and would be of enormous benefit to the prosecution? It would almost establish almost a cast-iron case of dangerous driving, and all that would remain for the prosecution to prove would be a causal link between the driver and the death.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I agree absolutely. The hon. Gentleman was entirely right when he said that someone who drives in excess of 80 mph in a 30 mph zone is clearly guilty of dangerous driving and not just of a minor speed infringement. If somebody has died as a result of that, the courts must impose serious penalties, and the camera would be vital in providing evidence to that effect.

With graduated penalties, we have a continuum available to us. At one end of the scale, there are people committing offences and breaching, for example, speed limits so seriously that they are guilty of dangerous driving. At the other end, there are people breaching the speed limit, which is a serious offence, but it would not proportionate to treat them in the same way. In between, there are grades of severity. It is clear that there are differences between those in a 30 mph zone who drive at 32 mph, and those who drive at 37 mph, 49 mph and 85 mph. We must have the flexibility to deal with those drivers differently.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is in favour of people having their day in court. Of course, people always have that opportunity. If they think that a fixed penalty has been imposed unfairly, they are entitled to say that they want their day in court and to argue either that they are innocent or that there were mitigating circumstances. I think that the hon. Member for North Shropshire slightly misunderstood matters when he suggested that mitigating factors should be included in the legislation. If an individual believes that there are mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account, it is for that person to make that argument in court. I have heard the stories about people racing to hospital and, therefore, believing that they had a rational reason for not obeying speed limits. If that is the case, by all means, they should have their day in court, make their case and see whether the magistrate agrees with them. That will be for the individual to decide.

By giving the police the flexibility to treat different offences differently, we are creating this deal that I talked about earlier—making the punishment fit the crime. We are also helping the police to be maximally efficient, because if somebody does have their day in court, or if the police decide to take someone to court rather than issue a fixed penalty notice, a police officer will have to be in court and cannot be on the streets enforcing the law. There is an efficiency argument for the disposal of a significant number of offences through the fixed penalty system, if we can do so.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I must reinforce the point that a police officer who attends court to give evidence is enforcing the law. That is a very important part of his duty. Often, under the graduated system, it will be in the interests of the culpable motorist rather than of the public that he should accept the fixed penalty, because we have seen people at the upper end of the graduated scale dealt with in court, rather than in the privacy of their own front room with their cheque book.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he forgets that offering a fixed penalty is at the discretion of the police. If they think that a higher penalty might be available to them if they take an individual to court, they will decide whether they should pursue that course of action to obtain the higher penalty. I do not envisage a system in which somebody who has committed a serious breach can sit at home, realising that if they accept the penalty notice they will automatically do better than if they take the matter to court. They may well do better if they take it to court, but the process will not be automatic and the police must have the discretion to decide whom they take to court and to whom they issue the fixed penalty notice.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I wanted just to inquire whether the circumstances on which the Minister bases his reply, namely the issuing of the ticket by the police, are the answer to my question. Will the provision relate only to tickets issued by police officers?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

No, those circumstances are not the answer to the question, and no, the provision will automatically apply not only to police officers. We are talking about speeding offences. That is where most of the publicity and consultation has been. It would be possible under the terms of the legislation for us to bring forward orders in which other offences—for example, breaches of the working time directive for heavy goods vehicle drivers, and other breaches—might be brought within the regime. They might be enforced not only by police officers, but by employees of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, for example. The order would be needed to specify the levels of training and expertise necessary for somebody to issue those tickets. It is not as if we are talking about decriminalising those offences, hiring just anybody to issue tickets and civilianising the offences; the provisions would have to be set out.

Talking about orders, I hope that this argument will convince the hon. Member for North Shropshire. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire put his finger on it when he said that I would argue that there is sufficient detail in the Bill for our purposes. That is my view. To create an offence under the provisions before us, we would have to bring forward an order and carry out consultation. In the order, we would define exactly what we meant by “serious” and set out the offences that would be liable for graduated penalties.

The information in clauses 3 and 4 is sufficient detail. I cannot see any merit in putting in greater detail and tying this Government’s or future Governments’ hands any more tightly.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I note that the consequence of the measure will be to remove some offences from the court system and deal with them through fixed penalties. Will my hon. Friend clarify whether there is a corollary? Currently, someone travelling at 32 mph in a 30 mph zone will—practically speaking—almost never be prosecuted. With a graduation of penalty points, might someone in that position face one or two penalty points for a small offence, 2 or 3 mph above the official limit?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he correctly points out, someone doing 32 mph in a 30 mph zone would almost never be prosecuted. According to the Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines, the figure is 35 mph in a 30 mph area. The first reason for that is that ACPO recognises that speed can drift up and down by 1 or 2 mph, even when one is diligently trying to stick to the limit. Secondly, there are inaccuracies in speedometers and in the equipment that measures people’s speed. For fairness and to be proportionate, ACPO does not recommend prosecution at 35 mph. I would not envisage that that is likely to change any time soon.

I would, however, add this caveat. It is not impossible that at some point in the future the decision might be taken that speedometers are so good and speed detection equipment so accurate that the ACPO guidelines need to change and we might want to say that we can enforce fairly at 33 mph in a 30 mph zone. I simply put that as a possibility because I want to be honest with my hon. Friend. But we have no intention of changing the ACPO guidance at present.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Before I let the hon. Gentleman intervene again, could I give him an answer to his question about proposed paragraph (d)? Its main purpose was to build in repeat offending and cases where people might accumulate offences if we decide to include things like the working time directive and breaches of drivers’ hours regulations within this structure.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

This has been an interesting and helpful debate. The Minister’s attitude has been central to that. It appears however that the effective operation of graduated penalties will depend on the decision of the police officer, certainly regarding the number of penalty points and the amount of fine that is to be imposed. What discussion has the Minister had with ACPO or any of the other police bodies to ensure that the officers who make what is no longer a straightforward decision, but one that brings with it a degree of discretion and no small measure of legal complexity, will be given the proper level of training and will be of appropriate seniority?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I envisage the issuing of fixed penalties as ultimately being a straightforward decision-making process. We published an earlier consultation on how this would work, which included the ACPO guidance and our first pass ideas of where people would be eligible for two points, a three points standard fine or six points. I will be talking about those issues on later clauses. If these enabling powers are passed we intend to publish an order that sets out our views on how these things would be done. There would be a full consultation and doubtless a debate in the House before such an order is made.

The break points for the issuing of fixed penalty notices will be a relatively routine process. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a senior officer must be involved when a decision has to be taken on whether someone has now breached the law in such a way that they ought to be taken to court and a more serious offence pursued. I will be talking to ACPO about how it intends to address that issue. I can understand what the hon. Gentleman was trying to get at with these amendments but I do not believe that they are necessary. There is sufficient detail in the Bill already and there are sufficient safeguards in the orders that we will have to publish before we enact the legislation.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I should like to clarify the points that I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

I described some extreme cases to show what we are facing and we will come to “careless and dangerous.” We have tabled carefully thought-through amendments on that, because there is a clear problem with the complete idiot who goes at 85 mph. I quoted that little story of my friend from Yorkshire to show that the question is one of appropriate speed. There might be times of day when going at 30 mph through that twisty Yorkshire village is absolutely safe, because there is no one around. There might be times of day when one could go up to the ACPO level of 10 per cent. plus two—35 mph—when there is no one around and it is dry. That might be sensible. The point that my friend was making to his learner son was that on quite a busy Sunday afternoon that was not sensible. The son could not be done for careless driving or anything, but he was trying to teach him that the sign, with the disc and number, is not the last word. It is an indication. The key is appropriate speed.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Dealing with the idiots is straightforward, the ones at the extreme end as simply as with those who are at the lower end, at 35 or 36 mph. That is not difficult. The difficulty comes on the margin. The challenge presented by graduated penalties is that there will be much more discretion in deciding what is appropriate given to police officers. That will only work if they are sufficiently senior and trained.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. The problem is the subjective judgment about conditions. I am pleased that we are now talking about this. That is part of the problem; adhering to the number inside the red disc is too brutal and too simplistic. He is right that there will have to be subjective judgments made by officers on the ground, but that is why I like what is being proposed in clause 3. We put the obviously probing amendments down, deliberately listing the conditions. The Minister made a good case for them probably being unnecessary, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. The amendment is quite obviously probing. The trick is to get across about appropriate speed, which depends on conditions.

I did not mention a couple of studies. One, from British Columbia, where a big survey on speed limits was carried out, was particularly interesting. It said, bluntly, that posted limits that were set higher or lower and dictated by roadway and traffic conditions were ignored by the majority of motorists.

That was confirmed by another report, from the Arizona department of transportation, which talked about the 85th percentile, which is the speed up to which 85 per cent. of drivers are driving. Interestingly, they have established that the safest speed is at the 85th percentile speed. Those who were driving well below are dangerous and, obviously, the idiots who are driving well above are dangerous. The trick is to try to get the speed limits somewhere in line with the 85th percentile. That is extremely hard with fixed signs, therefore the clause, in attempting to get flexibility for the authorities to adjust their actions according to the conditions prevailing at the time, is very sensible.

We were obviously probing with our amendments, but on the basis of what the Minister said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I had not intended to speak, but a couple of things came out of the Minister’s reply to the earlier debate that I would like to tease out of him. He indicated that the Government’s game plan is to widen the number of people who are able to issue the fixed penalty tickets from the police officer to employees of the Department who are qualified vehicle examiners.

Road Safety Bill [Lords] - Standing Committee A

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Would it be possible for you to ask the relevant officials to make available copies of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988? As we go through the Bill, we will find that it gets fiendishly complicated, and it would be helpful if we could have hard copies to use during the debate.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). I have served on Committees considering similar Bills in the past, where it has been of immense service to have copies available of the statute being amended. In passing, I notice that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 also features from time to time, but as the hon. Gentleman says, the principal statutes that we are dealing with are the two 1988 Acts.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas. I may be able to help to a small extent in that I have a copy of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, having foreseen the problems that have been identified, and I am quite willing to lend it to other Committee members.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I was going to suggest from the Chair that the Minister will have heard the points of order raised. Being entirely unbiased, I can only say that it would be helpful to Members of all parties if hard copies of the Acts mentioned, including the Road Traffic Act 1998 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in particular, were made available to all members of the Committee, including the Chairman.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The problem we have is that there has never been a reprinted version of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to take into account all the amendments that have been made since it took effect. It may be difficult to be helpful to the Committee. I will certainly ask my officials to do their best, but it may be necessary for hon. Members to avail themselves of the House of Commons Library and “Halsbury’s Statutes”, a copy of which my Parliamentary Private Secretary has availed himself of.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Following up the Minister’s comments, I am confident that electronic copies of the Acts are available. It should be up to the Department to make copies available to Committee members and I am sure that the Minister, even if his officials are second hand in this arena, will have heard what I said. The availability of an updated Act in both cases, perhaps provided electronically to hon. Members, would be very helpful to the future progress of the Bill.

When we broke for lunch, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) was on his feet, and I ask him to resume his brief remarks.

Clause 3 - Graduated fixed penalties

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I was reflecting on what we are letting ourselves in for if we accept clause 3. Will the Minister give us some idea of the scope and nature of the orders that will flow from the clauses 3 and 4? I have no difficulty at all with the status quo, whereby a police officer trained in the rules of evidence can give out a fixed penalty ticket in certain circumstances where he feels that an offence has been committed. The clause breaks new ground, however, in that an element of flexibility has been introduced. To some extent, that will lead to a subtle shift in the behaviour of the police in which they will move from being mere enforcers of the law to acting to some extent as a judge of the situation. As I understand it officers will, for the first time, have the precise level of sentence in their own hands.

Although I support the principle of flexibility, I am just a little concerned about how such provision will operate in practice. Will the police officer carry in his car or in a box on his bike a range of tickets with different penalties? Or will he have a box to tick when he fills out the ticket for a motorist who he believes has committed an offence? Is the heat of the moment the best time for the police officer to make that judgment? There is a real risk that where a motorist who has been stopped for an offence is truculent or bellicose, the police officer may decide to ratchet up the level of penalty, although the offence does not warrant it, merely because he has experienced a degree of friction with the motorist.

Hitherto, the Government attitude has been that the motorist can take it or leave it; he can accept what is in the fixed penalty ticket or he can go to court. However, that answer is not entirely satisfactory. Has the Minister considered that point? If not, will he do so before the orders are made? Is there not a case for having the police officer issue an open ticket—a ticket recording the offence and inviting the motorist to tell the officer what mitigating circumstances there are, if any? Within 14 days of such a ticket being issued, someone else in authority could decide what grading the ticket should have. A person behind a desk seeing both the facts as alleged by the police officer and any comments in mitigation by the motorist would be better placed to determine the grading. I wonder whether the Minister has reflected on that possibility.

Clearly, we do not want motorists arguing by the side of the road with a police officer. We do not want motorists saying, “No, I should be graded down one,” and the officer saying, “No, I think that you should be graded higher.” I wonder whether a system in which that is done at base will remove the risk. The police officer could simply issue a ticket and say, “Within 14 days you will know full details of the impact of the ticket. Is there anything that you want to say?” That could be fairer, and it is more likely to be just. If the motorist decides at the end of the day to take the matter to court, the prosecution will make great play with asking, “What did the defendant say when the accusation was first put to him? What did he say in answer to the allegation?” The prosecution will not ask, “What is he saying now, in court?” If the motorist is invited to have his say there and then, when he is stopped by the police officer, and the police officer puts that in his notebook, it is more likely to lead to a just outcome.

Those concerns are relevant to cases in which the ticket is issued by a police officer, but how much more relevant are they when the scope is widened, as the Minister said, and a non-police officer issues the ticket? What if it is issued by a vehicle examiner who has no experience or knowledge of the rules of evidence? Should not he be encouraged to note down what the driver has to say at the time of the offence, before the grading of the penalty is determined?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The intention is not that that flexibility should exist at the roadside. The flexibility will exist when we come to make the order in Parliament. That order should prescribe the circumstances in which a motorist will get a particular type of penalty. In other words, if the officer stops a motorist at the roadside, the officer should be in a position to say, “You were doing 45 mph in an area with a 30 mph speed limit, and I am able to offer a fixed penalty for that. The fixed penalty is this, because that is what Parliament has prescribed for these circumstances.” That will be the level of flexibility.

Having said that, I can see some merit in what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, in that perhaps the appropriate thing is for the policeman to just say, “This is the offence I’ve stopped you for, and you will hear within a period of time as to whether we’re going to offer you a fixed penalty, and what it will be.” I shall reflect on the matter and confirm what I say later, but to the best of my knowledge, a policeman would not be prevented from taking that course of action if it were the view of the local constabulary that that was how it wanted to issue tickets. The flexibility will come when we make the order in Parliament, and we will prescribe the precise circumstances at that stage.

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the fact that if somebody is belligerent at the roadside, there may be a temptation for the policeman to ramp up the penalty. That will almost certainly not be a circumstance that Parliament would want to cover in the order. In such circumstances, the policeman’s response should be to say “Okay then, there will be no fixed penalty. We’ll take you to court, and I’ll be explaining to the magistrate how you have behaved.”

I have a childhood memory of my brother driving a car, with my uncle in the passenger seat. My brother was stopped by a policeman, and my uncle kept repeating to my brother, “Humble pie, humble pie,” to keep him calm while the policeman told him off. In the end the policeman sent him on his way, so my advice to any motorist who is stopped by a policeman in future is, “Plenty of humble pie; listen carefully to what the officer has to say and learn from it, and maybe that will serve you well.”

I repeat, however, that the flexibility will arise from making the order in Parliament that will prescribe the circumstances in which a penalty will be available.

Clause 4 - Graduated fixed penalty points

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Will the Minister clarify where we stand on the system of graduated penalties? This morning, he mentioned the guidelines produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which refer to an excess speed of 10 per cent. plus two that we should be reached before an offence kicks in, but we are debating these matters against the background of a spectacular increase in motoring offences. The latest figures that I have are for 2003, in which the number of motoring offences dealt with by the police in which a penalty was charged is 13.2 million, which is up 15 per cent. on the 2002 level and is the highest number ever recorded. I understand that that trend has continued, and that the number of motoring offences dealt with by fixed penalty notices, including those issued by traffic wardens, was 3.6 million, which is up 27 per cent. on 2002. There were 2.3 million court proceedings for motoring offences during 2003, which is up 9 per cent. on 2002.

Speed cameras, our friends of this morning, provide the evidence for 1.9 million offences that were dealt with—93 per cent. of speeding offences. There are now up to 5,000 camera sites and the number is growing. The result is that whereas there was previously some flexibility, there is now the rigidity of the camera system. The Government published what we thought was a consultation document, but we were told that it was a discussion document. In relation to the 30 mph limit, it was proposed that there would be a schedule of lower penalty points: two points plus a £40 fine at 39 mph, a standard penalty of three points from 40 to 44 mph and a higher penalty of six points at 45 mph.

Without rehearsing this morning’s arguments on penalty points, which were similar, I can say that we welcome the flexibility to allow for conditions. I am intrigued, however, by how the system will work if ACPO adheres to an excess of 10 per cent. plus two, which I believe is sensible. Indeed, some major newspaper reports appeared over the weekend saying that some police monitoring devices are not accurate. It is therefore sensible to have some flexibility about the speed that is being prosecuted, aside from taking into account the circumstances.

We said in previous debates and in the House of Lords that we were not happy that proposed new subsection (3A) to section 28 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 states that all these matters will be decided in a separate debate on a statutory instrument. It would be better for us to have the debate now so that it is on the record and so that all the parties can hear the Government’s thinking.

The Government’s proposals have support outside the House. The RAC Foundation is a respected organisation that has a great deal of knowledge and which has done a great deal of research on the subject. It stated that while it appreciated that all speeding could be dangerous, it supported the graduated penalty system. It believes that the level of punishment needs to fit the crime, and that a range of penalty points may in fact discourage people from excessive speeding. The greatest reduction in road casualties would come from reducing the speeds of faster drivers—a point that we discussed this morning. The foundation states that there is no evidence to suggest that a graduated system would encourage motorists to drive just above the limit, as two penalty points are still a strong deterrent to speeding. So there is support from respectable bodies outside the House.

My party supports graduated penalty points because of the variability and flexibility that they give, but I would like a clear idea from the Minister as to whether he has a schedule in mind that might be debated at a future stage in a Statutory Instrument Committee. Would it not be better for him to debate it now and tell us how the ACPO ruling will affect it?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

As I understand the clause, the existing floor for penalty points—the minimum that is normally imposed—of three is to be removed, and there will be greater variation. I believe that that will apply in all parts of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell me what consultation he has had with the Scottish Executive? As the statutory instruments under the proposed new subsection will apply in Scotland, the Executive will be responsible for them. The challenge for the Government, wherever they are, is that the certainty that exists with the three-point minimum will be lost, as it will be possible to have different rates north and south of the border. That is an undesirable development.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The Government will take this power if the Committee and, ultimately, the House agree. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, the Bill does not include the detail of how graduation will work. That is a matter for the future. I can understand why he would want to have some sort of debate on it now, but such a debate would have to be fairly superficial. It will be held in much more detail when the time comes to lay an order.

For the hon. Gentleman’s information, clause 3 penalties—that is, matters to do with money—will be subject to a negative resolution, and orders under clause 4 will be subject to an affirmative resolution. The reason for the difference is that we regard penalty points as more serious than sums of money, as they can ultimately lead to the loss of one’s licence and possibly even one’s livelihood. If someone loses their licence but carries on driving, they can even be imprisoned. As that issue is clearly more serious, there will have to be a debate in this place before an order is made.

What sort of things do we have in mind? On 1 September 2004, we published an outline of what we think might be appropriate, and we opened that up to consultation. We shall review the feedback from that consultation, if the Bill is passed. We will suggest another set of proposals based on that consultation and then move to further consultation and an order. My promise to the hon. Gentleman is that there will be thorough consultation before we make the order.

How will the proposals mesh with the ACPO guidance? First, in England and Wales, enforcement guidance from ACPO is discretionary. The situation is different in Scotland, where I understand the Lord Advocate sets the enforcement guidelines and the police have no discretion. Let us assume for the purposes of debate that the ACPO guidance is in operation in England and Wales and let us take the 30 mph figure that the hon. Gentleman has given us. The proposal that we took out to consultation was that, in a 30 mph zone, there should be a lower penalty of two points and £40 up to 39 mph; a standard penalty of three points and £60 between 40 and 44 mph; and a higher penalty of six points and a £100 fine for 45 mph.

If we overlay the ACPO guidance, I envisage no charge being made between 30 and 35 mph, because that is ACPO’s enforcement guideline. However, should a person exceed the speed limit at more than 50 mph, the opportunity to offer a higher penalty of six points and £100 will lapse and the person will be taken to court, because that is where ACPO guidance sets the higher level of court enforcement. Therefore, I envisage the order that the House ultimately passes will be overlaid by the ACPO guidance.

I can tell the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that discussions on all aspects of the Bill have taken place with the Scottish Executive. The instruments will be dealt with not in Scotland but in Westminster, as they are for the whole of Great Britain. This is a reserved matter that will be dealt with in that way.

I hope that I have answered the questions put by the hon. Member for North Shropshire and that he will agree that clause 4 should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Penalty points

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 55, in clause 17, page 21, line 25, leave out ‘“2-6’ and insert ‘“1-6’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 88, in clause 17, page 21, line 29, leave out from ‘substitute’ to end of line 30 and insert

‘3-6 or appropriate penalty points if committed in respect of a speed limit on a restricted road; 2-6 (fixed penalty) in other cases”, and

“restricted road” in paragraph () means a road defined as restricted in section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).’.

No. 56, in clause 17, page 21, line 29, leave out ‘“2-6’ and insert ‘“1-6’.

New clause 13—HGV speed limits—

‘In Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits for vehicles of certain classes), in paragraph 5(2)(b)(iii) column (c) leave out “40” and insert “50”.’.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I do not want to delay the Committee by making the same points as were made in the previous debate, because the clause centres on flexibility and variation according to circumstances. The Government propose points of two to six, and amendment No. 55 proposes points of one to six, giving even more flexibility to allow circumstances to be taken into account.

An interesting report published last week suggested that 1 million drivers are now on six or more licence points. Perhaps the matter has been rather dramatically put, but it has been said that, as there is a chance of getting six points on any speeding offence, some people are only one flash away from losing their licence completely. I think that we would all agree that people should not be driving so fast that they get six points, but a large number of people who have been caught—I think mainly because of the big increase in speed cameras—are now reaching the point where their driving is affected: they are so paranoid about being caught by a speed camera that they are concentrating on the cameras rather than on their driving technique, although I have only anecdotal evidence of that.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I should rise to declare the same interest that I declared on Second Reading: I am one these many millions of drivers with six points. Knowing that every mile I drive I am on the verge of losing my licence, which would happen if I were caught speeding again, I concentrate not on the location of speed cameras, but on keeping my speed below the legal limit. I am sure that that experience is common to others in my situation.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

That was a helpful contribution. One feels for the hon. Gentleman and we should wish him good luck with cautious driving. Perhaps he will shortly endorse our proposal about detection devices, but I will not test your patience on that, Sir Nicholas.

We are all citing our friends and family histories, as well as horrible incidents yesterday on the M6. Much of this is anecdotal, but people have been telling me that as they have reached six points, they are under pressure and are really worried about it. As the Minister said, their lives, careers and jobs may depend on having a driving licence. Our proposal is quite simple. We have done to death the idea of flexibility and attention to the conditions surrounding the circumstances of being stopped and we propose just a little more flexibility to go from one to six.

On new clause 13, there is a slight change in subject. The purpose of the new clause is simple. We have had a considerable number of representations from the commercial trucking industry saying that there would be sense in increasing the speed of heavy goods vehicles on single-lane main roads from 40 mph to 50 mph. I have completely failed to establish where the 40 mph limit originated. That is the first problem. It seems to be ancestral. I can find no evidence on why it was established, but those in the industry think that it was introduced many years ago when vehicle technology was quite different, anti-lock braking systems did not exist and suspension systems were different.

We have established that about 50 per cent. of accidents are caused on single-lane roads, and they tend to be head-on collisions. Again, the evidence is anecdotal. Many car drivers do not understand that heavy goods vehicles are limited to 40 mph. The trucking industry believes that frustrated drivers are queuing up behind trucks and then choosing inappropriate moments to try to dash past them. On roads such as the A9 in Scotland, the A5 near me and the A41 that can be quite dangerous. There is a clear case for considering increasing the speed of heavy goods vehicles.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I have two quick points to make. It seems a very radical measure to base on purely anecdotal evidence. Secondly—the hon. Gentleman has been given notice of this question because I asked it of his Front Bench colleagues on Second Reading—can he name a single country in the world where an increase in the speed limit has led to a consequent reduction in road fatalities?

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Yes, I am talking trucks. There is evidence in the United States, from states such as Montana. When the limits imposed during the fuel crisis in the 1970s were lifted, there was an improvement in the accident rate.

Rosemary McKenna (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East)

Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot compare roads in Montana or any other American state to the roads in Orkney, or to the A9 in particular, which he mentioned.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am touched that the hon. Lady queries my reply to a straight question from her hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris). He asked whether I had evidence, I said yes and I gave it. I do not want to upset her, but I am going to give her some more evidence from America.

I considered two studies of changes in traffic; one from the US Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration, and the other from the Wyoming legislative service office. They show that when trucking limits were devolved, certain states maintained a differential speed limit, with one speed for trucks and another for cars, and others maintained a uniform speed limit, with the same speed for cars and trucks. For example, Arkansas had a differential speed limit, keeping cars at 70 mph and trucks at 65 mph. Idaho was uniform; it went for 75 mph for all vehicles.

The evidence from the federal report is, bluntly, that the changes did not make much difference. It is not absolutely clear from the study whether they made any difference. The problem with that study and the Wyoming study is that we are talking about interstates, which are the same as our motorways, with traffic flowing in the same direction; interestingly, there has been no dramatic change either way under either regime.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Is not the hon. Gentleman’s point that accident rates are not entirely dependent on speed limits? We know that in this country, because some of the roads that he mentioned, which in Northamptonshire, too, have high accident rates, do not have good lighting. They are rural roads. Many other factors must be taken into account, and he is not making an argument against the speeding issue at all.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am touched that the hon. Lady was listening so carefully to our debate this morning. That is exactly what we were saying: circumstances and conditions decide accidents; it is not pure speed. All I am saying is that I could find no real evidence of any research in this country, and all I could dig out was some stuff from the United States. Her hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South queried whether I had any evidence, and I am giving the evidence that uniform and differential speed limits have made no huge difference either way. That was the lesson from the Wyoming legislative service office study.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman’s flow, because I am enjoying it. However, if the surveys and international comparisons from which he quotes conclude that there is no real difference one way or the other, and they suggest that a change will not improve road safety records, why does he argue for change—albeit accepting that it would not make them any worse?

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

That is exactly my point. I expected people from his point of view to be popping up, saying, “It is a scandalum magnatum to be talking about increasing any speeds at all.” My point is that from the international studies I am citing, change did not make any great difference either way. The studies are inconclusive, and that is an important point.

It is worth listening to the industry professionals. It is perfectly fair to listen to them, because they have to live with the situation every day and hear from their drivers. Again, we run into our dear old friends, the speed cameras. I suspect that for years, as motors have got more powerful and drivers have developed more confidence in their braking systems, drivers have been going over 40 mph. Now they are being clocked more frequently by speed cameras, which make no distinction in relation to the conditions we rattled through this morning. That is becoming a real problem for the industry.

The industry is convinced that drivers, whose jobs depend on this, are now being really careful; I cannot think of anyone who is more dependent on a clean licence than a commercial truck driver. They are now being ultra-prudent, which is frustrating car drivers who then overtake on single-lane roads at inappropriate moments. I received a letter from Roger King, the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, which says:

“HGVs are limited by law to a maximum of 40 mph on such roads. In fact custom and practice usually meant 50 mph as trucks sought to go with the flow of prevailing traffic. With the advent of speed cameras close observance of the limit is required, although with a theoretical grace of 10 per cent. plus 2 mph added on, enforcement is carried out at speeds over 46 mph. While such generosity is appreciated any slight excess of 46 mph, and we are talking about something like 46.3 mph here, will end in a fine and endorsement.

No one can condone lawbreaking. However, 40 mph on a well engineered A road sets the truck up as a mobile obstacle followed by other motorists frustrated at the slow progress being made. This often ends in dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

Today’s HGV with up to 16 forward speeds, or highly sensitive automatic gearboxes do not operate efficiently at such low speeds, moving at a lower gear speed and thus less fuel efficient. 50 mph is an optimum speed conducive to efficiency. With modern disc brake systems and air suspension the stopping ability is more than adequate.”

That point is endorsed by the Freight Transport Association, which also picked up on the point about pollution. Chris Welsh of the FTA sent me a note and, on the question of pollution, said:

“This is a complex and somewhat imprecise issue but our vehicle engineers and scientists estimate that where an operator can use the higher speed limits on down hill sections of the road to conserve energy on the uphill sections that by keeping the speed within green band of the rev counter there is a potential fuel saving of approximately 3.7 per cent. If the rev counter goes into the red zone fuel consumption increases dramatically.”

He continues:

“A 3.7 per cent. fuel saving on a 500 litre tank of diesel represents an 18.5 per cent. fuel saving with the corresponding savings in emissions of PM10 ... and NOX.”

Our contention is that the limit was set in the mists of time and truck technology has moved on. The advent of speed cameras has meant that truck drivers are now being extra cautious and are adhering very strictly to the 40 mph limit. That is leading to car drivers getting frustrated and an increase in head-on collisions when car drivers overtake at inappropriate moments on single-lane roads. There would be an efficiency gain and a safety gain if the speed limit for HGVs were increased from 40 to 50 mph.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I want to make a few brief comments in response to the thoughtful and interesting comments made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. I declare another interest: my father was an HGV driver for most of his working life. Fortunately, he was never involved in a serious accident despite the fact that he drove for his whole life with a very severe handicap because he had only one eye. Now is perhaps not the time to go into detail about the hours of fun my brothers and I used to have with the spare glass eyes in the sideboard when he was away driving long distance. He obviously took his job as an HGV driver extremely seriously and was an extremely careful driver, but I have to take issue with what the hon. Gentleman said about HGV drivers being extra cautious these days.

At the start of the debate we heard from the Minister about his near-death experience on the M6 yesterday, when the vehicle he mentioned as having caused the accident was, unsurprisingly, an HGV. I would be interested at some point during these proceedings if we could have a figure from the Minister about the number of motorway accidents in particular that have been caused by HGVs rather than cars. That would possibly illuminate the discussion about exactly the kind of damage and deaths caused by trucks on the road rather than private cars.

The hon. Gentleman talked about his main thrust being to increase the speed limit that HGVs have to adhere to, particularly on single-track roads. We have had the arguments before: because trucks have better braking systems, are more fuel efficient and are safer vehicles, they should be allowed to travel at a higher speed. Yet, presumably, any new regulation would apply to all vehicles, regardless of their age. Of course, they would all have to meet an MOT and the standards imposed by the Government, but to say that because the newest trucks are admittedly safer than older vehicles and therefore all vehicles should be allowed to drive at the higher rate is a dangerous argument.

The hon. Gentleman talked of drivers losing patience, being stuck behind HGVs on a single-track road. I agree that a there is curious cultural phenomenon in this country; even when I am not in a particular hurry to go anywhere and have all the time in the world to get from A to B, as soon as I sit behind a wheel and get held up at a traffic light, I suddenly start to feel impatient. I wonder if, instead of pandering to that irrational instinct, we should be encouraging drivers, particularly new drivers, to learn patience and to understand that it is not all about how quickly one gets from A to B, but how safely.

The hon. Gentleman talked about dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. That is something we should do everything we can to avoid, but we should not legislate to allow people to travel more quickly in order to alleviate their impatience. Surely the danger is that allowing such trucks to travel at 10 mph higher than they are currently travelling at is not going to make people less impatient? People will be more impatient to overtake, because 50 mph or 60 mph are never going to be enough for those drivers who see getting from A to B in the quickest possible time as the most important thing in their lives.

The idea that British motorists throughout the country are suddenly going to feel relaxed about following a truck travelling at 50 mph instead of 40 mph is bogus. That will never happen until we change the culture of driving in this country to emphasise how important it is simply to have patience and to understand that the most important thing is not how quickly one goes from A to B, but how safely.

At a later point perhaps we might discuss exactly how we can inculcate that new culture as part of the driving test. I will leave those comments for the time being.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

That was a most insightful contribution from the hon. Member for Glasgow, South, offering us a rare glimpse into the upbringing that has made him the man he is today. A childhood spent playing with glass eyes explains so much all of a sudden.

I will deal first with amendments Nos. 55 and 56 in the name of the Conservative Front Bench and then speak to amendment No. 88 in my name.

I would be reluctant to support amendments Nos. 55 and 56, the effect of which is to lower the floor for penalty points from two to one, unless a more comprehensive case were made. The construction of penalty points and the way in which that system operates, from a minimum and with 12 totting up to a period of disqualification, make me reluctant to accept any radical tinkering. I have some reservations about the reduction from three to two, and a reduction from three to one would be a step more than I would be prepared to countenance.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Is not what the hon. Gentleman just said a contradiction in terms? He referred to radical tinkering. Surely it is either radical or tinkering. It cannot be both.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The right hon. Gentleman may well be correct. For the record, I should say that it is a more radical change than I would be prepared to countenance.

Amendment No. 88 would retain the minimum of three points for restricted roads, which are, in effect, those with a 30 mph limit. I hope that the amendment will find some sympathy with the Minister. He spoke this morning about educating the motoring public and changing attitudes. He said that we must start thinking of speeding as unacceptable in the way that drink-driving is unacceptable.

We tabled the amendment because there is an attitude that just a bit over is somehow acceptable. We would say, and the Minister has already said, that in fact that is not acceptable. Roads that are designated as restricted tend to be in what are loosely called built-up areas. They are areas with housing, shops and schools, and many pedestrians and other non-motorised road users. In such circumstances, a reduction from three points to two does not send the correct signal. It would be preferable to retain a penalty point minimum of three for restricted roads—those with a 30 mph limit.

I wish to say a few words about new clause 13. From all that the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, I presume that it is a probing amendment. It is one that I was inclined initially to dismiss out of hand, but the hon. Gentleman made some good points about the nature of the vehicles that are on the road now and the way in which technology has advanced. Of course, that change is not restricted to heavy goods vehicles; it also applies to private cars.

However, before we took such a route, we would want more extensive and objective evidence than that which the hon. Gentleman supplied. The views of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association—I believe that those were the two organisations that he mentioned—are interesting and instructive, but nobody would claim that they are disinterested bodies. There would be other reasons why they might welcome an increase of the sort that the hon. Gentleman proposes.

I also take issue with the hon. Gentleman on the question of impatient motorists being forced to pull out and overtake. His argument can play on both sides—in favour or against. He seems to be suggesting that the impatience of other road users would end because heavy goods vehicles would be allowed to go from 40 mph to 50 mph. That view displays the sort of optimism that I would normally associate with a Liberal Democrat. I do not really see any justification for it at all. I think that motorists will remain as impatient if they are stuck behind a heavy goods vehicle at 50 mph as they are at 40 mph. However, if they are going to overtake a vehicle travelling at 50 mph instead of 40 mph, that is a more difficult manoeuvre and the likelihood of a head-on collision to which the hon. Gentleman referred is that much greater.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The Minister said earlier that he believed that speed limits should be appropriate if they are to command respect. One could extend that argument to cover all aspects of road traffic law, because in order that motorists respect it and, hopefully, adhere to it the law needs to be seen to have a cause. That theme should remain with us while we consider the rest of the Bill.

It is interesting that everyone who has referred to the new penalty points scheme has referred to it as a flexible points system, but the Government’s proposal is not a flexible points system at all; it is a movement from a single prescriptive system to a range of prescriptive alternatives for such offences. The courts will not have the opportunity to say that because of special circumstances they will not award penalty points. Parliament is saying that penalty points must be imposed, and that they shall be this or that depending on certain circumstances—whatever other circumstances there may be. I would have preferred the introduction of a genuinely flexible points system so that the courts could themselves determine whether, in a particular case, they should award penalty points or not.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The right hon. Gentleman might be mixing up the fixed penalty notices—for which the circumstances and the points will be prescribed—with the situation in which someone wishes to take their chances and go to court, either because they think that there are mitigating circumstances, or because they think that they are not guilty. If the court finds that person guilty, it has flexibility in how it punishes that person.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I invite the Minister to come back further, because, under the proposals, if a motorist has exceeded the speed limit by a certain percentage, the courts will be told—I believe—how many points to impose.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

There is an obvious caveat to what I am about to say, in that it is now quite some years since I dealt in practice with this area. My recollection, however, is that there is provision under either the Road Traffic Offenders Act or the Road Traffic Act for a proof to be held on special reasons, which would relate to the circumstances of the offence. That would allow the court to reduce the number of penalty points or indeed impose none at all. It was very rarely successful, because according to case law it is a fairly difficult standard of proof to meet. That discretion does remain available in exceptional circumstances, however.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am not sure whether that is an example of the Lib-Lab pact, but I thought that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire was seeking a response from the Minister.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

My understanding is that the court has flexibility, but I shall check with my lawyers and provide elucidation later.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. My answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is that there are different types of flexibility. If the threshold of special reasons is set as high as I understand it to be, it is not really flexibility in the sense I argued. I think that there is a case for the courts to judge each circumstance on its merits, and I understand that they have to impose a certain number of penalty points unless there are exceptional circumstances that are very difficult to prove. I am not talking about the totting-up provisions but the awarding of points in relation to an offence.

I start from the position that I should like the whole system to be far more flexible, and therefore I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire. In fact, I wish he had tabled amendments to say, “Zero upwards”, because that would be true flexibility.

I support what my hon. Friend said about heavy goods vehicles. Before the second world war, they were required by law to have on their mud flaps the maximum speed that they were permitted to travel, which at the time was 20 mph. Some of those early HGVs are on show in heritage museums and one can see the notice on the back saying that the vehicle is limited to 20 mph.

At some point in our history, the speed limit must have increased from 20 mph to 40 mph. The comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South would have applied against moving from 20 mph to 40 mph. We are seeking a modest increase from 40 mph to 50 mph. Why should there be such an increase? My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire said that the reason for the 40 mph limit is lost in the mists of time, but I think that it was introduced about the time when diesel engines were starting to be used in heavy goods vehicles. The Government of the day wanted to rid our roads of steam-driven lorries, which were dirty, noisy, heavy and damaged road surfaces. Yet the steam vehicles were capable of doing more than 40 mph and the diesel vehicles were not. In addition to the speed limit, the Government introduced an axle weight which penalised the owners of heavier vehicles.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Opposition Members are usually so thoroughly well informed that I am surprised that they are not aware that the restriction was first raised to 40 mph in 1963 and applied to all roads by the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations 1962 made under powers set out in the Road Traffic Act 1960. I thought everybody knew that.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Can the Minister tell us what the speed limit was raised from? Did it increase from 20 mph, as I said, or 30 mph?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Following the right hon. Gentleman’s logical argument that speed limits should be increased with technology, does he envisage any eventual upper limit to the legal limit at which trucks should be allowed to travel? In 100 years’ time, when we have rocket-powered trucks, will there be an upper speed limit of 500 mph?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I would rather deal with the present and the immediate future, not the fantasy of a time when no one in this Committee will be alive to bother about it. [Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. I certainly think that a speed limit that relates to a specific class of vehicle should be kept under regular review. There are many reasons for saying that heavy goods vehicles should have lower speed limits than normal motor cars, not least because of their weight and their capacity to cause damage in an accident.

When the hon. Gentleman next finds himself stuck behind a heavy goods vehicle, I ask him to read what is printed on the back of it. Most of them now carry a sign saying “Warning. This vehicle has air brakes.” What does the hon. Gentleman think that means? Why does he think there is a warning to other motorists that an HGV has air brakes? It is because air brakes are more efficient than the standard type of brake. In 1963 when the 40 mph limit came in, all vehicles had the drum braking system, which has since been supplanted in motor cars by disc brakes, which are more efficient. Now, heavy goods vehicles have gone a stage further and have air brakes, which are more efficient but far more expensive than disc brakes, which is why motor cars do not have them.

When considering a speed limit, we need to ask what progress has been made in enabling a heavy goods vehicle, which is a dangerous weapon if it is heading in one’s direction in certain circumstances, to be brought to rest within so many feet. Given the advent of disc brakes, it would not be unreasonable to increase the limit to 50 mph. In many cases, it could be argued that it would be unsafe to drive at 50 mph in a heavy goods vehicle or indeed a motor car, but that is a different point. We are considering whether it is appropriate to maintain a speed limit that was introduced in 1963, given that we have moved from drum brakes to disc brakes to air brakes. We could accept this modest uplift in the speed limit; many accidents are caused not solely by a vehicle’s speed, but by speed that is inappropriate given the road conditions.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire also referred to matters that are not as important as the safety of a vehicle and its ability to stop, but are nevertheless not without force. Heavy goods vehicles have moved from having three-speed standard gearboxes to four-speed and five-speed ones, and now their gearboxes can have eight or even 10 speeds. Such vehicles do not therefore travel in top gear; they use more fuel and are not as environmentally friendly as they might be.

In my constituency, dual carriageways are few and far between and in many circumstances on a fine day when the road is relatively clear, heavy goods vehicles could safely travel at 50 mph. At the moment, queues of holidaymakers travel at 40 mph because they cannot overtake the heavy goods vehicle ahead, which is travelling slower than it safely could because of the speed limit. That limit ought to go, and we ought to embrace the new clause.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Interestingly, I do not get many complaints about speeding offences. However, at my last surgery, one of my constituents came to see me to complain about the inconsistency of the penalty system. This guy had decided to pass his driving test and get a job. He became a self-employed landscape gardener. One day he was travelling into Blackpool, coming out of a 70 mph area to a 30 mph area, and, like many drivers, just took his foot off the accelerator to allow the car to slow down. He was caught by a speed camera at 36 mph, not far from the 30 mph sign, which he had seen, and he collected three points. Regrettably, the same thing happened as he went into Liverpool, and he collected a second three-point penalty for driving at 38 mph. His licence was revoked under the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995.

I ask the Minister for clarification on whether the variable points proposed by the Bill would apply also to probationary drivers, who under the 1995 Act remain probationary for two years. Would the same flexible penalty system exist for them? If this guy had gone to court and pleaded that he needed his vehicle for his job, he might, given the speed he was doing on both occasions, have collected fewer than six points. That would have allowed him to have kept his vehicle and carried on with his landscape gardening job.

My constituent brought in a cutting from a local newspaper, which reported that a driver had collected points on his licence and was in danger of losing it because he had been doing 62 mph in a 30 mph zone. That was, of course, very excessive. The gentleman went to the magistrates court and pleaded with the bench that he could not afford to lose his licence because of his job. The magistrates did not ban him from driving and revoke his licence. When those two drivers are compared, it seems very unfair. There is no excuse for doing 62 mph in a 30 mph area, yet the driver who did that preserved his licence, while my constituent lost his. Does the flexible points system also apply to probationary drivers under the 1995 Act?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Let me begin with the notion of changing the power in the Bill to allow flexibility between one and six points. This might surprise the hon. Member for North Shropshire, but I agree that the idea is not without some merit. When I first became the Minister and realised that I had to take responsibility for this Bill, and started talking it through with my officials, I challenged them on whether we had got the range right at two to six points. I said to them, “This is only a power. We would have to come back to Parliament for an order, so why not give ourselves a power of between one point and 11?” One point would be for very minor offences and 11 for something so serious that the courts would want to say, “That’s it for you; you can’t commit any more offences, otherwise you’ll have a ban. We want to make the penalty points so serious that you can’t commit any more offences.”

We talked about that suggestion for a long time, and we went round the houses. The first problem with that was that Parliament would feel that we were giving ourselves too much flexibility; it would argue that we should pull back on that. Secondly, we felt that if the court had given somebody 10 points because of a very serious offence, and a one-point penalty was allowed, they could still commit another offence before they got a ban. Yes, if someone got 11 points, then even a one-point penalty would be appropriate, but then we asked ourselves: “Under what circumstances would an 11-point penalty be given? How would we justify that to Parliament?” We found it very difficult to come up with answers to that. Likewise, we found it difficult to suggest a situation in which one point—which the hon. Member for North Shropshire proposes—would be appropriate.

Ultimately, an argument persuaded me not to table an amendment of my own to the Bill allowing a penalty of one point. That argument has already been highlighted several times today in Committee. We talked about the ACPO guidance, and at times we slipped into the error that some motorists slip into of thinking that the guidance means that the speed limit in a 30 mph zone is 34 mph, because if someone goes at 34 mph they cannot be prosecuted or fined. The speed limit in a 30 mph zone is 30 mph. The reason why ACPO suggests that there ought to be some flexibility is that someone’s speedometer might be wrong. Well, it can be wrong upwards and it can be wrong downwards. If someone is doing 34 mph according to the speedometer, they might actually be doing 36 mph, in which case they will be fined for it and will have been driving very dangerously. Indeed, in a 30 mph zone, one might be driving dangerously at 34 mph.

If we introduced the notion of one penalty point, the only circumstance in which it would be likely to have any merit would be where one was at the limit of the ACPO guidance, or perhaps just 1 mph over it. The consequence of saying that the driver would then get only one point might be to encourage people to think that the ACPO enforcement level was actually the speed limit. In other words, someone could drive at 34 mph in a 30 mph area knowing that if they got caught it would be only one point—and what are the chances of getting caught, anyway? That was my concern. That would be the only circumstance in which we could try to justify providing for one point, and it would have the perverse consequence of encouraging people to go over the speed limit.

That is why ultimately I became convinced that the original Bill, offering a power of between two and six points, had got it right. That is the argument I put to Conservative Members in asking them to withdraw their amendments. They should ask themselves under what circumstances would they make one point available and what the perverse consequences would be. If they are honest with themselves and objective, they will probably come to the same conclusion that I did with my officials: that we should stick to two points as the minimum available.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am listening to the Minister’s argument with some interest. Can he explain why that exact same argument does not apply to two points? Logically, it could do so. I fail to see, therefore, why the courts cannot be given the greater flexibility.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

We are talking not necessarily about courts but about the penalties that would be incurred through a standard penalty notice. The hon. Gentleman is right: a person has six strikes before he loses his licence, but at least two points are a significant dent on the licence and would make people realise that they can tot up eventually to 12 points. One point is too far from losing one’s licence. That is what this is all about.

The points on a licence mean two things to the average man or woman behind the wheel. First, they feel closer to losing their licence, which is a dramatic and harmful event, and, secondly, if they are being honest with their insurance company, believe me, the points hit the pocket far harder than the rather puny fines that we offer, even with the increased amounts in the Bill. Two points at a time are a sufficient reprimand to make it clear to people that they cannot go on for ever: they will ultimately lose their licence. One point is just too far away from that. However, these are judgment calls, and two to six points is where my judgment rests.

I began by saying openly that the alternative argument has some merit. Having pondered it and reflected on the circumstances in which one would use it, I came to the conclusion that two to six points was the correct range to offer and that anything wider would either have perverse consequences or would not be acceptable to Parliament.

Amendment No. 88 again relates to restricted roads. I understand what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is getting at. The bottom line is that he thinks that in a 30 mph zone the minimum should be three points. When we carry out our consultation and then debate the matter when we seek our order, that may be exactly the conclusion that we will reach—that it should be three points in a 30 mph zone. We went out to consultation on the notion that in certain circumstances it could be two points in a 30 mph zone. As we are taking a power rather than enacting the power, it is reasonable to give ourselves the flexibility of two to six points, which is why I have encouraged the hon. Gentleman to seek to withdraw his amendment. Equally, I will understand if, when we come to drafting the order we decide to offer two points in a 30 mph zone, the hon. Gentleman will argue for three, and I look forward to debating with him.

The HGV issue is more complex. The day after I saw what can happen when an HGV travelling at speed hits something is probably not the best day to ask me to increase their speed limit. Opposition Members may have forgotten the dangers caused by HGVs, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South referred. I can tell the Committee that 25 per cent. of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured on motorways are caused by or involve HGVs, although we are discussing single-carriageway roads rather than motorways.

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said how much brakes had improved. Yes, brakes have improved, but HGVs have got a heck of a lot bigger. It has been some time since my early scientific days when I had to do Newtonian calculations, but I have just done a quick, back-of-an-envelope calculation on the difference in energy between a 40-tonne vehicle travelling at 40 mph and a one-tonne vehicle doing 60 mph, which are the speed limits on our single-carriageway roads. The kinetic energy, which needs to be transferred into potential energy—in other words, the crash damage—if someone is hit by a 40-tonne truck doing 40 mph is 16 times greater than that if they are hit by a car doing 60 mph. That is why we must be very strict about speed limits for HGVs. They are enormous vehicles nowadays. A 40-tonne truck doing 40 mph has a heck of a lot of kinetic energy and will do an awful lot of damage if it hits someone. That is why 40 mph is probably still the right speed limit.

Will 40 mph always be the right speed limit on single carriageway roads? Hon. Gentlemen make a reasonable point when they say that that has been the speed limit for many decades and surely things have changed. Things may change in future. At the moment, however, we believe that 40 mph is right, and other countries agree. In Germany, all rigid vehicles of more than 7.5 tonnes and vehicles drawing trailers that exceed 3.5 tonnes are restricted to 37 mph on single carriageway inter-urban roads. In France, the speed limit for articulated vehicles of between 3.5 tonnes and 12 tonnes and for articulated vehicles of more than 12 tonnes is also 37 mph on single carriageway roads. The potential of these huge vehicles to cause damage is massive. It is right that we restrict them to 40 mph.

I accept the argument that sometimes people get frustrated when travelling behind these vehicles. However, someone who gets frustrated travelling behind a lorry doing 40 mph would probably get equally frustrated travelling behind a lorry doing 50 mph. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, at least it is easier to get past a lorry doing 40 mph than it would be to get past one doing 50 mph. In terms of reduced frustration, keeping HGVs to 40 mph is the safe thing to do.

I hope that my explanation will encourage hon. Members to withdraw or not press their amendments and that subsequently we can agree that clause 17 should stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

We have had an interesting debate. On the question of flexibility, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). The Minister’s arguments for two penalty points apply equally to one point. We can all provide anecdotes, but the anecdote from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) about his constituent was very relevant. It was interesting to hear that the Minister and his officials had discussed a range going from one to 11 penalty points. That is attractive to me on the basis of the point that we made this morning that we do not want to alienate the vast mass of motorists. The constituent going into a 30 mph zone who had taken his foot off the accelerator and was slowing down is a classic example of someone who should be treated leniently, whereas the idiot doing 60 mph in a 30 mph zone should be dealt with much higher up the scale.

I very much favour more flexibility, and it was illuminating to hear that the Minister had had that discussion. There are real merits in our proposal to go down to one penalty point, because there are people in this country who are at risk of losing their licences and livelihoods and not because they are bad drivers. Travelling salesmen drive very long distances—I used to drive 1,000 miles a week—and, given the extra controls, are getting caught exactly as the constituent mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was.

There is a real problem in this Committee: we must address the country as it is. This is where I pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South. It would be lovely to teach the frustrated motorists to be patient on the single lane rural roads where I live, but let us live in the real world. That is simply not going to happen, and we have to be blunt about it. People are frustrated by truck drivers—

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

And always will be.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I take issue with that. It would be a real safety gain if we were to increase truck speeds. The hon. Gentleman and I disagree fundamentally on this point, which makes for an enjoyable debate. He asked whether there are any examples of when speed increases have made a difference. I cannot resist giving him the evidence from a 1999 report by Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute. There is an enormous laboratory working on this issue—it is called the United States, which imposed the 55 mph limit. Stephen Moore said:

“In 1995 the Republican Congress repealed the 55-mile-per-hour federal speed limit law”.

At that time, there was strong lobbying that the decision would lead to an apocalypse on the roads of America and would cause 1 million additional injuries. Ralph Nader said:

“history will never forgive Congress for this assault on the sanctity of human life”.

This is absolutely relevant to the idea of increasing speed limits. It goes back to this morning’s discussion that the matter is not one of pure speed but of appropriate speed. Stephen Moore went on to say:

“Despite the fact that 33 states raised their speed limits immediately after the repeal of the mandatory federal speed limit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last October that ‘the traffic death rate dropped to a record low level in 1997’. Moreover, the average fatality rate even fell in the states that raised their speed limits. Higher speed limits have not caused one million more auto injuries.”

We must look at the world as it is and the roads as they are, not as we would like them to be. A report commissioned in British Columbia concluded:

“Posted limits which are set higher or lower than dictated by roadway and traffic conditions are ignored by the majority of motorists. The majority of motorists drive at a speed that they consider reasonable, and safe for road, traffic, and environmental conditions”.

On single lane, major rural roads, motorists are frustrated by trucks travelling at 40 mph. We must recognise that fact. It was very helpful of the Minister to dig around to find out why the 40 mph limit was set, but in 1963 the technology was very different. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire is absolutely right. Not only do we have disc brakes, we have ABS and different suspension systems. The Minister referred to the impact of whacking into a 40-tonne truck—that is what happens with vehicles in the oncoming lane. Thank goodness the Minister did not have an unpleasant incident yesterday. It was probably because the traffic was flowing and there were three lanes in each direction. The danger occurs on single lane roads, with traffic flowing in different directions.

The current limit is dangerous. It frustrates drivers, and no matter how much the hon. Member for Glasgow, South would like the world to be different, it is as it is. Large numbers of car drivers are trying to pass trucks, and because of speed cameras many truck drivers are being very careful. The limit is adhered to very strictly, which is dangerous. We must consider the roads as they are. We must discuss stick and carrot; both are required. I am afraid that a constant attempt at coercion will alienate more and more drivers.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I have allowed extra time because the Whip from Her Majesty’s Opposition was also a Whip on the Floor of the House for the last Division. I have therefore allowed longer than I perhaps should. However, we should recommence our debate. The hon. Member for North Shropshire was about to sit down, and I know that the Minister wants to respond to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon).

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I was just ending my comments, as I think we have had a thorough debate. We are minded, particularly given the interesting comments made by the Minister about an option of between one and 11 penalty points, to press our amendment to a Division. It is worth getting a feel from the Committee on the point of one.

I am intrigued by the idea that there was serious discussion in the Ministry about an option of between one and 11. That would have been a clever way of catching the hard core, as we discussed this morning, while being helpful to constituents, such as that of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, who were caught with their foot off the accelerator, coasted past the sign a little too fast and got caught. We have made our case on the issue of variable limits, and we are pretty clear.

The Minister’s response about HGVs was also helpful. It is fascinating that in the 21st century we are still binding trucks by an ancient decree that goes back to the 1960s, when technology was very different. I think we dealt with that fairly well. I may or may not have converted the hon. Member for Glasgow, South on the issue of speed; sadly, he is shaking his head. I did not think that we would. We have had an interesting exchange. I adhere strongly to the view that pure speed does not kill, but inappropriate speed does. In this case, we are talking about inappropriate speed.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that speed limits should be decided more by the safety needs of a community than by the technical prowess or standard of a vehicle?

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I think that that is a most helpful intervention. That is an incredibly important point. It is exactly what I am arguing. It is sensible to set limits—we have talked about the 85th percentile—at speeds that will be accepted by the vast majority of drivers. I cited the case this morning of Park lane, which was absolutely fascinating.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

To clarify, I meant the safety requirements of the community through which a road progresses, rather than the desires of the driving community. Surely what is important when it comes to setting speed limits are the safety requirements of a village or town, rather than a speed limit based on how fast and how developed a lorry or car can be.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. There are moments when one sees the ball come up, sees an open goal and wants to whack it in.

That is exactly what I feel coming from a rural area where 40 people have been killed on the A5, a single-lane road, in the past 13 years because the road is inappropriate and the speeds are inappropriate on that road. I feel for communities. Overtaking happens on that road because of frustrated drivers. The hon. Gentleman does not have to tell me about the impact on communities. Inappropriate speed damages communities.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Is not it fair to say that no Opposition Member has suggested that if the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles were to be increased from 40 mph to 50 mph, that should override local speed limits in villages, which might be even lower than 40 mph?

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

My right hon. Friend is right. We went through those issues this morning in some detail. I am strongly in favour of varied limits. I cited the Canadian case in which limits outside schools are varied at different times of day. I think that major roads go through villages in my hon. Friend’s constituency in Yorkshire, so he will have relevant knowledge. The limit appropriate in some small villages will not be appropriate elsewhere. We did that to death this morning. We established clearly that limits should be set according to circumstances and that flexibility and variability are the name of the game.

In a last attempt to convert the hon. Member for Glasgow, South, I will say that setting an arbitrary limit on a big sign, in black writing with a red ring around it, does not solve the problem. There was a 30 mph limit in Park lane, and the average speed was over 40 mph. The limit was then changed to 40 mph and the average speed dropped below 40 mph.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I cannot remember the exact figures, but I think that it is right to say that the average speed of travel around London has not changed since Victorian times, or something like that. It is the impact of congestion, not of the judgments that people make about how fast they can go. If Park lane were clear, people would probably drive down it at 80 mph if they could. The figures that the hon. Gentleman is talking about are to do with what happens on the road. The argument is exactly the same as saying, “A speed limit of 30 mph was set across London and, look, people are not driving any faster than when they used to when they used horses and carts.” It is nonsense.

Mr. Patersonrose—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before the hon. Gentleman replies, it appears to me that the Committee is regurgitating a debate that it has already had, and I hope that that will not continue.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I shall not be tempted to go further down that route. We have had an interesting debate. We think that there are merits in our amendment proposing replacing the reference to “2-6” penalty points with “1-6” penalty points. I should like to press that to a vote. I am also interested in testing the mood of the Committee on the issue of raising HGV speeds from 40 mph to 50 mph.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

May I help the hon. Gentleman? He can certainly press amendment No. 55 in due course, when the Minister has replied, but if he wants a vote on new clause 13 that must be taken much later in our deliberations.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I realise that I was remiss in not responding to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East about whether the new arrangements will apply to new drivers. Yes, they will. Of course, new drivers are off the road at six points, not 12 points, so a six-point penalty for new drivers will potentially mean that they have only one hit. To be frank, I think that that is right. New drivers who are not responsible about speed, straight after passing the test, have only themselves to blame if they lose their licence and have to retake the test.

I repeat in response to the hon. Member for North Shropshire that I am not saying that there is no merit in the idea of greater flexibility. The attractiveness that I found in a wider range of penalty points turned out to be superficial. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon also realise that that attractiveness is only superficial.

As to HGVs I ask him to ponder a new fact between now and the time when the new clause is put to the Committee. The stopping distance in metres of a truck doing 40 mph is 39 m. The stopping distance of a typical car at 60 mph, which is the equivalent speed on a single carriageway road, is 51 m. When the speed of the truck is increased to 50 mph its stopping distance is 58 m. That is seven metres further than a car takes to stop on the same road. If the hon. Gentleman can still vote to increase the speed to 50 mph he is not the man I thought he was.

Clause 18 - Speed assessment equipment detection devices

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 18, page 21, line 35, leave out ‘detection’ and insert ‘interference’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 58, in clause 18, page 21, line 37, leave out ‘detection’ and insert ‘interference’.

No. 59, in clause 18, page 22, line 6, leave out ‘detection’ and insert ‘interference’.

No. 60, in clause 18, page 22, line 23, leave out ‘detection’ and insert ‘interference’.

No. 61, in clause 18, page 22, line 33, leave out ‘detection’ and insert ‘interference’.

New clause 12—Amendment of Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 2002—

‘(1)The Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 2002 (S.I. 2002/3313) are amended as follows.

(2)In Regulation 4, after the definition of “excursion or tour”, insert—

“Fixed speed camera” means a camera of a type approved by the Secretary of State that is situated at a fixed site and that operates continuously or from time to time for the purpose of monitoring the speed of road vehicles and securing compliance with the speed limit in force at that site.”.

(3)After Regulation 58 there is inserted—

“Fixed speed cameras

59Every fixed speed camera shall—

(a)be painted bright yellow, and

(b)be clearly visible from the carriageway at which it is directed, and

(c)be adequately illuminated during the hours of darkness, and

(d)have affixed to it a clearly visible indication of the applicable speed limit.”.’.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

We turn to an issue that attracted quite a lot of press attention after Second Reading, when it was revealed that the Minister and I both have devices in our cars to advise us where speed cameras might be located. It was also revealed that, sadly for him, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South does not have one. He has six points and we have not—[Laughter.] We thought that there was a bit of a lesson there.

The Minister intervened on me in that debate. There was not a huge amount of time to go into it, but there are three possible devices, two of which we think are perfectly legitimate and one of which we think definitely is not. The purpose of our amendments is to make changes regarding the word “interference”. We do not have to spend an enormous amount of time on this, Sir Nicholas.

The device that I have has an updated memory and is effectively a global positioning system map. It tells me when, according to its memory, I am likely to approach a place where there is either a fixed camera or something called a “mobile”, and it squawks in a tiresome manner at something called a “blackspot”. I have never quite understood what a blackspot is, but I suspect that it is a section of road that is frequently patrolled by police cameras; I have not bothered to check what it is.

I do not see anything wrong with that device. There is no doubt that it has made me drive better in the two years since it was given to me as a Christmas present. I am more aware of where cameras are, and, above all, it stops me looking for them. This point was made to me by some drivers’ groups, and I touched on it in the last debate. There is a danger that when people have six or nine points on their licences, they are so paranoid about getting clocked by a camera that they frantically look for cameras everywhere. The device obviates things. It makes an audible sound—it bleeps in quite a tiresome manner—to tell me that I am within 100 yards of a fixed camera or one of the other spots I mentioned. It also has a digital monitor showing my exact speed. The variation between what the gadget and my speedometer say is interesting. The Minister has touched on this. There is quite a variance, sometimes as much as 3, 4 or 5 mph. I think this is a legitimate device; it has certainly helped me. I hope the Minister will endorse that this sort of device is legitimate.

There appears to be a second type of device, and mine may come under this category, because it occasionally starts bleeping. It did so on one occasion when I was going to an agriculture show in Cornwall, and I noticed that I was approaching a policeman with a speed gun. I have not gone into the technology of how it works, but it may count as a detector, and therefore be an illegal device, under the clause.

It seems to me that a detector of that sort, which picks up—by radar or whatever—that a monitoring gun is nearby is a good idea. We have detectors in our heads. You have them, Sir Nicholas, and so do I; they are called eyes. I think eyes are a good idea. I think seeing what is going on is a good idea. I think being told things by a detector is a good idea. I cannot see that there is anything illegitimate in having such a device in a car that informs the driver.

I recently talked to the heads of technology at Renault and BMW, and also to some people from DaimlerChrysler. We know that all car companies are looking into creating more intelligent cars that give drivers more information, and what we are discussing now is probably rudimentary stuff compared with where we will be in five or 10 years. However, it seems to me that the more information a driver has, the less time he needs to spend actually assimilating information, so that, instead, he can just react to it. Interestingly, the head of technology at Renault said that cars today are rather like old Vickers Viscounts, where the driver has to do all the mechanics, absorb all the information and make the decisions. He thought that in five or 10 years’ time cars will be like an Airbus, in that the vehicle will basically be able to do things itself but the car manufacturers will give the driver all the information required so he can just make decisions.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that he is therefore in favour of intelligent speed adaptation being fitted in cars?

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am in favour of drivers being given as much information as possible, to make it easier for them to make decisions.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

ISA devices would not just give information. Potentially, they can take over controlling the speed of the vehicle; they could take that decision away from the driver. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about wanting to free up the driver so he can concentrate on the road, I presume that he is also in favour of that technology.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

That is a most helpful and important point. It is vital that the driver makes the decision. I discussed this matter at some length with the technologists from all three of those companies. Their intention is to create a car that provides the driver with information, but they were all emphatic that the decisions must be made by the driver. Otherwise the legal consequences—such as who is to blame if something goes wrong—will become extremely complex. It is a very important principle that the driver is responsible and makes the decisions, in the same way as the pilot of an Airbus is responsible for that; it could probably pilot itself, but the pilot must make the decisions.

We are talking about developments that will come to pass further down the road, and the devices we are debating will look pretty stone age in a few years, but I think that devices that either have a digital memory or actively detect are a good thing, because they help the driver. They tell the driver where other devices of a different sort are, and they remind him of the speed limits.

I am interested in how the Minister will respond to that point. Our amendments deliberately exclude devices that interfere. It must be completely wrong to have a jamming device that interferes with the legitimate surveillance activities of the police or other enforcement authorities. That is a very different sort of device, and there is no way that we would endorse that.

Our amendments are common sense, and they would improve the clause, because I suspect that as the clause currently stands what I have in my car, which is a most useful tool, would be banned. Elements of it would count as “detectors.” We shall hear from the Minister about such detectors shortly.

New clause 12 is another common-sense measure, and it picks up on an intervention by the Minister on Second Reading. It is part of the confidence debate and goes back to our discussions this morning. Are speed cameras elements of a sort of Bourbon tax farm whose purpose is to pluck as many feathers out of Colbert’s goose as it can, or are they a tool for safety, in which case they should be as visible and as loudly proclaimed as possible?

Our contention is that cameras should be seen by the public as a safety measure and should be loudly proclaimed. They should be very visible. We recommend that they be painted bright yellow. I have a constituency case at the moment involving a construction site in Oswestry with big boards around the side that partially obscure a new camera. The case has caused a huge rumpus locally. It seems quite wrong that a camera should be hidden. It is all part of trust; we must keep faith with the large number of drivers that we talked about before. They should feel that the devices are not out to get them, but there to help them. Making cameras visible will do that; hiding them will do exactly the opposite.

Cameras should be clearly visible from the carriageway at which they are directed, and obviously, if they are to be visible, they should be yellow in daylight and illuminated at night. Most importantly, the relevant speed limit should be placed on them. When I come to London, I notice that people seem unsure of the speed limits when driving on roads such as the A40 or coming off the M1. Where the limit is normally 40 mph, I see people lurching below 30 mph because they are unsure of the limit at that point. It seems a perfectly common-sense measure to put a clear sign on the camera showing the speed limit at that spot. I hope that the Committee will support new clause 12 as a common-sense measure that was partly endorsed by the Minister on Second Reading.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I mentioned on Second Reading that I would prefer detection devices to be made illegal. I shall come back to that, but I understand from what the Minister said at that stage that that is not the intention of the legislation. I notice in the explanatory notes that the Government will make a regulation clarifying that detection devices will continue to be legal and that only interference devices will be banned.

On that basis, it seems to me that amendment No. 57 is not necessary. On the other hand, it is always advisable to put into the Bill exactly what is meant. If the Government intend to continue to allow detection devices so that the Minister and the hon. Member for North Shropshire can continue to avoid speed cameras, they should accept amendment No. 57 rather than leave it up to regulations. However, that is obviously a matter for the Minister.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire must have been a hell of a salesman. He has almost convinced me that detection devices are worth purchasing. His punch line—that he has no penalty points and I have six—was almost a deal-clincher, but I shall continue to resist it. None the less, I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of people who have such devices—I exclude present company—use them as a warning so that they can slow down their vehicles when they hear the sound. For the rest of their journey, they break the law.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Good.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

The hon. Gentleman says the word “good” when I say that people are breaking the law, breaking the speed limit and endangering their own and other people’s lives. He says that that is a good thing—

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I said “good” when the hon. Gentleman stated that the device makes people drive slower to be within the speed limit. That must be a good thing. We have talked all day about appropriate speeds and keeping to limits. Here we have a device that gives an audible warning to the driver and provides information: it tells him to wake up and that he is in an area with a speed limit. That must be a good thing.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

What is not a good thing is that drivers using such devices use them to drive within the speed limit only when they know that they are within range of a speed camera. That is not safe driving.

Finally, the Minister made a very interesting intervention in which he asked the hon. Member for North Shropshire whether he was in favour of speed inhibitor technology. I wonder whether the Minister would care to enlighten us in his winding-up speech as to whether he is in favour of it.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I can be similarly brief. There is something of a divergence between the terms of the Bill, the explanatory notes and my understanding of what was said on Second Reading when the Minister summed up, although I was not present at that time. In some ways, it seems that inclusion of the Conservative amendments would more accurately reflect the position that has been explained to the House.

I am rather with the puritans on this matter, which is about signals. The Minister told us at the beginning of the sitting that a different message had to be sent to the motoring public about the acceptability of speeding. The message that I get from devices that give an audible alert when a speed detection device is in the vicinity is not that it is wrong to speed, but that it is wrong to get caught. The only consequence of such devices is an encouragement to people to drive in excess of the speed limit because they think that they can do so with impunity.

There is an interesting point of jurisprudence here as to why we obey the law. When it comes to an offence such as speeding, the principal reason why people obey the law is fear of the consequences of getting caught. Allowing such devices encourages people to think that they can flout the law but not be caught for it.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The hon. Gentleman tells us that he was not present on Second Reading. One of the points of interest raised in that debate was the fact that the information used by such devices is compiled using information provided by the Government on their website. As the Minister pointed out, the AA has published a map book that shows the locations involved. Indeed, the devices are presumably programmed on the basis that they can take information from the Government. I assume that the Government bless the idea of detection because they take the view that a repenting sinner is better than the sinner standing there. The Minister pointed out that the Bill seeks to prevent jamming devices from being used. I look forward to hearing him agree that interference is the word that should be used, rather than detection.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

That was a rather long intervention.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

As a good Presbyterian, I have views on sinners who repent, but I fear that if I favoured the Committee with them at the moment I might incur your wrath, Sir Nicholas. The hon. Gentleman is right that I was not present on Second Reading, but I was listening rather more carefully than he was to the hon. Member for North Shropshire. There are three species of device: those that jam, those that use the information and those that use some manner of radar to detect speed detection devices. It is the third species that is at issue. Nobody takes issue with the suitability or appropriateness of using information that is provided about the machines.

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

The hon. Gentleman said that the devices encouraged people to speed and not get caught. Surely the same would apply to the fact that the backs of speed cameras are now painted yellow so that they are visible. That applies the same principle as the devices. Is he against that, too?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Gentleman’s logic is correct. He is right that painting speed cameras bright yellow illuminates them, which seems to involve the same approach as the device. I have more sympathy in that regard because of the practicalities of the situation. Everyone knows that where a speed camera is in position, certain chevrons are marked on the road. That is necessary to prove a speeding charge. If that is so, it probably makes sense that the cameras are visible to some degree.

Several hon. Membersrose—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I wish to say that we are labouring a little on this subject. I am advised by the usual channels that certain progress is to be made today. We are hoping to reach clause 7. I am happy to sit here for whatever time is required, because I am merely a servant of the Committee, but I suggest that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee bear in mind what I have said.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

There are three types of devices. There is a jamming device, which prevents those seeking a reading from obtaining one. There is the detection device that will detect when a signal is about to be directed at a particular vehicle and a device that relays information that is already in the public domain. The Minister is seeking to ban the first two devices on that list. No one would argue that it is wrong to ban a jamming device, the effect of which would prevent the police from carrying out their duty. We could argue that such a device would obstruct the police in the execution of their duty. Out of interest, however, I should like to know how many jamming devices the police say have interfered with their work to catch speeding motorists during the past 12 months, because I think that such devices are pretty rare.

It is curious that the Government want to ban the second category of device, the active alert device that warns a motorist that a signal is heading his way. If a signal is intended for a particular vehicle, why cannot the motorist have something in his vehicle that tells him that that is happening? I see no difference between the warning coming from a machine that makes a beep and from a passenger, perhaps a wife, girlfriend or friend, with a pair of binoculars who says to the driver, “By the way, on the bridge but next down the road, there is a white van and a man in a yellow jacket with something on a tripod. It might be a camera.” What on earth is the difference between someone who can look ahead and advise the driver what is coming up and a little device that does the same?

I am with the Government on class A. I am not so sure that there is a good case for banning the active device B, which is just informing the motorist. As for device C, where published information is relayed through GPS, I am pleased that the Government are not seeking to ban it because it would be ridiculous to make something unlawful in a motor vehicle that is lawful for a newspaper to publish, as many do week after week.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The hon. Member for North Shropshire is right. When we discussed these matters on Second Reading, we attracted a great deal of publicity. I was thinking of suggesting that he and I should go into advertising the legal devices, as a sort of Trinny and Susannah of the motoring world—or perhaps not.

The position has been encapsulated pretty well. As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said, there are three types of devices: those that jam; those that relay information already in the public domain; and those in the middle, which detect that surveillance might be about to take place. We are all agreed that devices that jam should be illegal. The Bill makes that the case. Even if not many such devices are around yet, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire could bet his life that, were we to say that they were legal, hundreds of them would be on the market within weeks. They will be illegal; we are all agreed on that.

Most of us are agreed that devices that help to utilise information already in the public domain are a good thing. I have such a device in my car. First, it simply tells me when I am approaching an area where there is enforcement. Then it tells me when I am approaching the camera itself. If I approach an area of mobile enforcement, the device cannot tell me where the camera is; it just tells me when I am entering that zone. The rationale is that the area in question will be one where we have already actively decided that there has been a history of people being killed and seriously injured and of speeding, and that those two things are related. Therefore, we will have effectively identified the enforcement area—called a blackspot by the hon. Member for North Shropshire—as an area where there is a high casualty rate, in which we want motorists to slow down.

Allowing motorists to know that they are entering such an area of high risk and that they should slow down therefore makes sense. That is why we paint the signs yellow. That is why we insist that the cameras are yellow and that they are put where they can be clearly seen—I will come to the new clause in a moment. That is why we publish on the Department and camera partnership websites where all those areas are, and why we encourage people such as those in the AA to publish a map of where all the zones are; they identify dangerous areas where we are open about the fact that speed surveillance and rigid enforcement is taking place. So detecting devices that tell one such things are perfectly legal and will remain so.

The controversial devices are those in the middle. The rationale is that there is a speed limit on every road in this country. There is no unrestricted road where one can travel at any speed one likes. There might be the national speed limit of 70 mph, or 60 mph on a single-carriageway road, a local speed limit or the 30 mph speed limit in a restricted area. There is a speed limit everywhere. We are not going to create a situation in which people are allowed to speed everywhere except where there is a camera. The police have to have open to them covert surveillance as well as overt surveillance. Overt speed enforcement and surveillance take place in the published areas, but the police have the right—indeed the duty—to enforce the speed limit on every other bit of road as well. They can most cost-effectively do so with the ability to do covert speed enforcement anywhere.

That is why a device that detects covert speed enforcement should clearly be made illegal. That is why we have drawn the distinction. We are happy with devices that tell people where overt enforcement is taking place, because those areas have a particular purpose—to slow people down and make the location safe. We are not prepared to accept devices that allow covert surveillance to be detected. People should be following the speed limit everywhere, and that is the only tool the police have available to ensure that speed limits are enforced everywhere. That is our rationale for the distinction between the three categories.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am listening carefully to the Minister, but following the logic of his argument, he should also be arguing that we should ban all the devices. The ones that he says he accepts are also slowing down people who are not abiding by the speed limit. What is the difference between overt and covert? The logic does not seem to hang together.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The logic is that there is a speed limit on every road, and drivers should be obeying it. However, there are certain roads on which there is a higher risk than on others, and on which we know that people have routinely ignored the speed limits. That has contributed to a high accident rate. We mark those roads clearly and say, “There is enforcement going on on these roads, and we encourage you to know about it in order to slow you down.” We do not want to create a situation in which somebody can speed with impunity on every other road because he thinks that the enforcement areas are the only ones in which he can be caught. That is why the police must have the opportunity to do covert speed surveillance and enforcement, and why a device that detects that surveillance needs to be illegal. That is our rationale, and I hope that I have convinced the hon. Gentleman.

On new clause 12, we have made it clear that speed cameras need to painted yellow and installed where they can clearly be seen. That is ensured through the guidance that we issued to the road camera partnerships—the rules for overt surveillance in published locations. We are clearly not going to restrict the police to using such techniques, because they may want to have covert surveillance in place in some areas. There has been press speculation that, once the new partnership arrangements are introduced in 2007, people will be able to go back to making the cameras grey. If they do, we will regulate to stop it, but I have no reason to believe that that will happen.

The intention of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire is already covered in the instructions that we are giving to the camera partnership. There is one exception: the point about putting a speed limit on the camera. That is something that I explored thoroughly. The problem is that road traffic legislation says that the limit on restricted roads on which people have to do 30 mph is marked not by speed signs, except where they enter the zone, but by the fact that the streets are lit by lights 200 yd apart in England and Wales or, for some reason, 185 m in Scotland; I can only assume that the Scots have metricated before the rest of us. Our concern is that, were we to put what is called a repeater sign into a 30 mph area, the legislation would become moot and people might be able to argue that, as there was not a repeater sign in a 30 mph zone, they did not know the speed limit and should not be fined.

The cost of putting 30 mph repeater signs on every mile of restricted road would be horrendous. We therefore cannot put a 30 mph sign on the camera itself. We have said, however, that the people who deploy cameras must in future either ensure that drivers can see a camera and a speed limit sign in the same field of vision, or put a speed limit on the road as a reminder. Without incurring billions of pounds of extra expense on additional speed limit signs, that was the best compromise to ensure that people will know the speed limit when approaching a camera. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

We have had an interesting and illuminating debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon; I do not quite see the logic of why it is wrong to give the driver as much information as possible. If a driver is made aware by a device that the police are around, that will probably have a knock-on effect for the rest of the day and for several weeks after, because it rattles people. I have talked to constituents in villages where there have been police checks. Such checks have a knock-on effect for years afterwards, when people say, “You want to watch out if you go to that village, because there are policemen.” That will be the impact of a detection device, and I do not agree with the Minister’s belief that people will whizz off as soon as they have gone past; the device will jolt them and remind them, as does the device that we currently have, which is basically just an electronic map.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

If the hon. Gentleman believes in the need to reduce speeding, as he said he does, does he not accept that it is essential that the police should be able to enforce the speed limit? That includes detecting and catching people who break the speed limit, but the instruments that he mentions will help criminals to evade legitimate police detection.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I do not agree entirely with the hon. Lady, and until now, I was holding back from making the obvious point that there are far fewer traffic policemen around. The number has dropped from 9,201 in 1997 to 7,103, so the belief that universal policemen are enforcing all this law is, sadly, not true.

I do not adhere to the hon. Lady’s view that detection devices are interfering with the work of the police. The police are there to make sure that speed limits are enforced. If drivers are made aware that the police are carrying out enforcement activity, that is a good thing because it will put the frighteners on those drivers. Detection devices do not, therefore, interfere with the work of the police, but they encourage drivers to be more aware of the limits, and I believe that quite emphatically.

The lesson that I have drawn from my device is that the more one is aware of the limits, the better one will drive. The more information a driver has, the better, and that ties in with the research that I picked up from the major car companies. In a few years’ time, this debate will be seen as completely ancestral, because cars will give us all the relevant information, which will be tied up with satellite navigation and all the rest of it. To be honest, I therefore do not entirely agree with the Minister’s logic, and I believe that the amendment would improve the clause enormously.

On the colour of speed cameras and so forth, I was very much reassured when the Minister said that the current ruling to the road camera partnerships is that cameras should be painted yellow. Although I take on board his point about having to print hundreds of thousands of speed signs, he might like to take another point on board. When people come into towns that they do not know and see a camera but no sign—he says that there will be one a few hundreds after, and it would be a very good idea if, as he said, the speed could be printed on the road—there is a noticeable tendency for them to slam on the brakes in case the speed limit is 30 mph. One sees that when one comes into places such as north London, where the limit is 40 mph.

As regards new clause 12, I feel better for having heard what the Minister said.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to press amendment No. 57 or will he seek leave to withdraw it?

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

On the issue of speed devices, we will not press the amendment to a vote, although we leave the matter unhappily, because we are not convinced by the Minister’s argument. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 19 - Exemptions from speed limits

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 62, in clause 19, page 23, line 23, at end insert—

‘(c)is operating blue flashing lights.’.

This is an interesting clause, and we sympathise with what the Government are trying to do, but I am concerned that it will heighten the divide between the 34 million drivers whom I have cited and those who enforce the law. I know that the clause applies to the fire and ambulance services, doctors, those delivering blood and so on, but my main concerns are about police cars.

There is a real danger of a feeling that there is one law for them and another law for us. Some of the statistics that I have dug out are astonishing. For a start, there is an enormous variation between the speeding cases in neighbouring forces. The most spectacular that I have found was in Lothian and Borders where last year 2,272 cars triggered speed cameras, but no action was taken against any officer. That cannot be doing much for the confidence of law-abiding motorists in Lothian and Borders. Of 78 unmarked cars that broke the limit, three were given £60 fixed penalties, with nine further cases outstanding.

On the other hand, in Dumfries and Galloway, which has a police force one-sixth the size of Lothian and Borders, 15 officers were fined for speeding. In the vast majority of cases, officers were exempt from fixed-penalty fines and prosecution because they were speeding in response to a 999 call or on other operational duties. Of the five Scottish forces that supplied details of police cars caught speeding, only 34.5 per cent. were fined, taken to court or still had cases pending.

Actually, Lothian and Borders had only the fourth highest rate of officers caught speeding. Essex had 3.26 incidents per officer, Bedfordshire had 2.04 and Staffordshire had 0.91, which was tied with the Metropolitan police. I dug out those figures from the Press Association.

Public confidence is a problem. The RAC Foundation said that they believed that the results showed that some forces were overusing their exemption powers. The RAC’s Kevin Delaney, interestingly enough, a policeman for 30 years, said the following:

“The exemption rules are widely misunderstood by rank-and-file officers as giving them a carte blanche exemption from the speed limit when driving a police vehicle. That is clearly wrong and suggests that something is wrong with police driver training. Forces with the lowest number of camera triggers and higher proportions of officers refused an exemption have clearly taken a stand on this.”

We heard similar words from Neil Greig, who is head of policy in Scotland for the AA Motoring Trust:

“I think the vast majority of motorists understand that marked police cars responding to emergencies may be required to break the speed limit. But the number of exemptions given to police in some forces does concern me.”

There seems to be an inconsistency in the way in which the forces perform. I had a spectacular case in West Mercia where an officer was caught doing 159 mph in an unmarked police car, and he was caught by his own on-board video recorder.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

What car was it?

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Perhaps my right hon. Friend wants to buy one. It was a new unmarked Vauxhall Vectra GSI. Apparently, it was being tested—that was the explanation. That does not seem sensible and cannot be a good idea. I have the highest possible regard for West Mercia and I spend a lot of time defending its right to continue as a force, but that sort of case damages the reputation of law enforcement.

Our amendment is simple and I will not waste a lot of time on it. We say simply that emergency vehicles, when driving above the speed limit, should have blue flashing lights. That is not much to ask, and it might help with public perception. We fully understand that there are times that do not pertain to normal drivers when those working for the fire, police or ambulance services, or those making blood deliveries have to go at top speed, above the legal limit. Under those circumstances there should be a blue flashing light so that all drivers are aware and can get out of the way of a 159 mph flyer.

I hope that the Minister has listened to my points. There is great variation in the way that police forces behave, and we are asking for a modest amendment to the clause to allow for a blue flashing light to show where those vehicles are and to allow the public to get out of the way.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I think that when the hon. Gentleman talked about a car doing 159 mph he almost made a sale to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. Love died, however, when he heard that it was a Vauxhall.

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and he is quite right that that type of case—or at least the way it was reported—caused a lot of furore and upset a lot of people. There was a feeling that there was one rule for them and another for the rest of us. That is why we think that it is appropriate to have a clause in the Bill specifying when somebody is exempt from a speed limit. It clarifies, for example, that the officers involved must be in pursuit of their duties or in legitimate training. They cannot just be getting back to the station because someone told them that the kettle had been put on—there has to be a legitimate purpose.

I also understand what the hon. Gentleman was trying to get at with his idea that officers should have a blue light on. The point that I would make to him is that covert surveillance is an important part of what serious crime officers now have to do. Sometimes they have to engage in covert following of people who break the speed limit. If we were to require them to put a blue flashing light on their car, every time they were following some bad guys, I suspect the bad guys would pretty soon figure it out and do something about it.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister will be aware that paragraph 66 of the explanatory notes referred to the amendments that were made to the Road Traffic Act 1988 by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. At the time of writing the notes, the amendments that were made by the 2005 Act had not been brought into force. Will the Minister say whether that is still the case, and whether his Department or the Home Office have any plans to bring them into force?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I do not immediately know the answer, so I shall either write to the Committee, or if inspiration comes to me later I may be able to provide it. Nevertheless, I hope that I have given sufficient explanation to the hon. Gentleman as to why we need to give discretion to the police, sometimes, to break the speed limit without their lights on. Those occasions should be very limited and should only apply to officers who have been trained for that purpose and are in pursuit of a serious objective. I expect chief constables to enforce that policy rigorously among their staff.

If it is of any further reassurance to the hon. Gentleman I can tell him that I am meeting Meredydd Hughes, the chief constable responsible for road policing, in the near future, and I undertake to remind him that Members expressed concern about the issue.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am indeed reassured by what the Minister said. It would be particularly helpful if he put it across to his colleagues in the Home Office, and to the police, that the extraordinary variation in the way the police allow their officers to transgress is unfair. I understand the circumstance he mentioned when it would not be appropriate to operate blue flashing lights. On condition that he puts the message across, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I wonder if you can advise me how I can bring it to the attention of the Committee that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 amendment to section 87 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 came into force on 1 January 2006?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The Minister has done a splendid job. He has done what he set out to do and I hope that it is noted by all members of the Committee.

Clause 5 - Giving of fixed penalty notices by vehicle examiners

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 5, page 3, line 24, at end add—

‘()Schedule 1 shall not come into force until regulations introducing a code of practice for vehicle examiners have been produced by the Secretary of State and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

()It shall be a defence to any offence notified by a vehicle examiner to show that at the relevant time the examiner was in breach of the code of practice.’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in clause 62, page 59, line 24, at beginning insert—

‘Subject to Section 5’.

No. 35, in clause 10, page 8, line 2, leave out ‘or vehicle examiner’.

No. 36, in clause 10, page 8, line 3, leave out ‘or vehicle examiner’.

No. 37, in clause 10, page 8, line 6, leave out ‘or vehicle examiner’.

No. 38, in clause 10, page 8, line 11, leave out ‘or vehicle examiner’.

No. 39, in clause 10, page 8, line 14, leave out ‘or vehicle examiner’.

No. 40, in clause 10, page 8, line 16, leave out ‘or vehicle examiner’.

No. 41, in clause 10, page 8, line 21, leave out ‘or vehicle examiner’.

No. 42, in clause 10, page 8, line 22, leave out ‘or vehicle examiner’.

No. 43, in clause 10, page 8, leave out lines 33 to 35.

No. 44, in clause 11, page 9, line 18, leave out ‘or vehicle examiner’.

No. 45, in clause 11, page 9, line 21, leave out ‘or vehicle examiner’.

No. 46, in clause 11, page 9, line 39, leave out ‘person’ and insert ‘constable’.

No. 47, in clause 11, page 9, line 40, after ‘requirement’, insert ‘must be in uniform.’.

No. 48, in clause 11, page 10, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am well aware how, at this hour, harmony can descend into acrimony. We have all had a long day. The Minister has probably had the longest day of us all, as I understand he had an early-morning meeting and then oral Questions, so Opposition Members are grateful to him for his emollient and conciliatory approach. I hope that that will continue until the end of our proceedings. I hope not to delay the Committee too long.

Amendment No. 13 would require the Secretary of State to introduce a code of practice for vehicle examiners. That is necessary if vehicle examiners are to have the powers envisaged by the clause and schedule 1. I think that we all accept that anyone employed as a vehicle examiner will have a broad and fairly detailed knowledge of motor vehicles, but why should such a person have any knowledge or experience of the rules of evidence or the need for justice and a sense of fairness when interfacing with members of the public?

A code of guidance would also focus the vehicle examiner’s mind when he is carrying out an examination. For example, I would argue that a vehicle examiner who is examining a vehicle by the roadside should not carry out any test for which that vehicle is exempt under the MOT testing regulations. The Minister may envisage, for example, that in future vehicle examiners will have the power to conduct emission checks. I am sure that he is aware that motor vehicles constructed before 1975 do not have the gases from their exhaust analysed. It is merely a visual check: is the vehicle belching out black smoke or is it not? If it is not, it has passed the test. One wonders, therefore, what code the vehicle examiners will operate under.

I hope that when the Minister replies he will say that he envisages a code of practice being in place. For example, a vehicle may be found to be defective and a member of the public may indicate to the vehicle examiner some genuine, mitigating facts. If a motorist is stopped by a police officer, after the interview with the motorist has been concluded, the officer will make up his notebook, which may be used in any subsequent court proceedings as a contemporaneous record of his discussion with the driver of the vehicle. In the absence of a code of practice, there will be no duty on a vehicle examiner to behave in a similar way.

When and where will the vehicle checks be carried out? Again, there should be some guidance to those carrying out the tests that, as far as possible, they should avoid adding to congestion by carrying out the checks on main arterial routes, particularly during holiday periods, certainly in parts of my constituency.

During the passage of earlier legislation that gave traffic wardens more power, the Government conceded the force of the argument that there should be a code of conduct for traffic wardens, which I think is about to be published. If vehicle examiners are to be given this greater power, they too should be subject to a code of conduct. It could act as a check list to the vehicle examiner, it could ensure that he follows a set routine when examining a vehicle and dealing with the motorist and it could include a requirement that anything said by the driver at the scene is recorded.

On Second Reading I asked the Minister a question that he did not answer. I hope that he will answer it today. If the Bill passes into law in its present form, will the vehicle examiners have the power to stop vehicles?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

They already have the power to stop vehicles. The anomaly is that although they can stop vehicles at the moment, they must call a policeman if they want to issue a penalty notice or take proceedings against someone. The clause simply fixes that anomaly. They will not only be able to stop vehicles but to issue penalty notices. When doing so, they will have to follow the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as policemen do.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

So the Minister is saying that in contrast with current practice—a police officer causes the motorist to pull off the road, perhaps into a lay-by, to have his vehicle examined—after the passage of the Bill, a police officer will no longer need to be present.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

In the case of heavy goods vehicles, particularly foreign lorries, which cause concern to many of us in this place, a Vehicle and Operator Services Agency officer normally pulls over the vehicle and inspects it. The policeman needs to be there only if a penalty notice is to be issued.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The Minister’s answer reinforces the need for a code. In the present situation, a police officer is standing by to listen to what is said and observe how the vehicle is examined and how the motorist reacts. If the checks are to be carried out in the absence of police, what duty will the vehicle examiner be under to record accurately what the driver might say when it is put to him that his vehicle is defective? As the courts tend to view with suspicion a mitigating fact that is raised in court but was not raised at the scene of the crime, vehicle examiners ought to be under some duty to make a note of any remarks made by the driver that relate to the offence with which he is likely to be charged. Will the Minister tell us how on earth that requirement can be implemented if guidelines are not to be introduced?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I share many of the right hon. Gentleman’s misgivings. The crossover between offences within VOSA’s remit and those that are the responsibility of police officers should not be underestimated or blocked in any way. It is often the case, for example, that an initial stop relating to some construction and use regulation, which is the sort of thing that VOSA officers look for, will bring other matters to light—perhaps driving without insurance or while disqualified. Surely such matters would require the immediate input of a police officer. To divorce the police and VOSA in that way causes me some misgivings.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, VOSA officers presumably will not be under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 obligations. Will the Minister confirm that? In Scotland, given that we do not have PACE, all officers will be subject to the same duties of fairness.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.