Road Safety Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 20 April 2006.

Standing Committee A

New Clause 3

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

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

It is a pleasure, Mrs. Anderson, to see you back in the Chair after the Easter break. New clause 3 is quite specific: it would allow police officers to present one more category of case in court; it is in addition to those that they can present already.

When I was a young solicitor there was no such thing as the Crown Prosecution Service. When desperate motorists who faced disqualification as a result of road traffic offences asked for my representation to help them save their driving licences, I would go to the magistrates court and find the courtroom filled with others who had similar cases. The prosecutor was a police officer in uniform, who presented the cases one after the other until the whole list had been finished. That was quite common in those days.

For reasons that I understand and with which I agree, Parliament decided, through the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, that prosecutions should not be undertaken by the police but by a separate organisation, and the Crown Prosecution Service was established. From then on, most prosecutions have been conducted by CPS employees or agents. However, a small number of minor, summary-only offences, including many road traffic offences, could still be presented by a police officer. They were known as specified offences. Even those offences ceased to be specified, and they had to be handed over to the CPS in two set circumstances.

The first circumstance was when the accused pleaded not guilty. Once a trial was required because of a not-guilty plea, legal judgments and other legal issues might benefit from the presence of a qualified CPS prosecutor rather than a police officer. That is understandable. The second was when a person simply ignored the court process and did not turn up. Even so, the argument would have been that some legal judgments were required. For example, the court would have to be satisfied that the person accused of the offence knew that he was supposed to be in court, so evidence would be needed that they had received the paperwork. Next, a judgment has to be made on whether to call witnesses to prove the case or simply to serve the statements on the accused and then read them out in court. But why should we expend time and effort on people who are irresponsible enough to ignore the process? Inevitably, therefore, a CPS representative would turn up in court and read out the statements, and the case would be proved.

Under the new clause, in that second class of cases in which the procedures are ignored, the police officer can present the case to the court as the CPS would have done. To show how important it is, I shall give a case study, as it were, concerning the Metropolitan police. Although this example is of what happens in London, I stress that the problem affects all police forces; the new clause would benefit the administration of justice throughout the country.

In 2004, the Metropolitan police reorganised the way in which it dealt with road traffic offences. It formed a pan-London traffic criminal justice operation or command unit. As a result, all London’s traffic offence prosecutions go through one office. That has ended the postcode lottery of whether the police would decide to prosecute, so we have consistency, and with it come economies of scale, standardised processes and improved IT support systems.

Crucially, the police depend on a good strong partnership with the CPS and the courts. Between them, the three partners have developed a system of five specialised traffic gateway courts. All cases go through one of those five courts, and the system has resulted in an effective use of everyone’s time and the consistent enforcement of traffic law. I would argue that, if people cannot get away with breaking road traffic laws, the system also makes an effective contribution to road safety.

The police in London would like a similar model to deal with camera fines and other fixed penalty notices that have to go to court—for example, when cases are contested. The volume of work would be too much for the five gateway courts, and the police are currently negotiating for additional operations courts. Except for the specified proceedings, the CPS still has to provide the prosecution staff in all courts for all cases. As the Metropolitan police has found, however, the CPS is unwilling, because it is stretched, to devote resources to matters such as safety camera prosecutions.

The police are quite willing to provide the prosecution—except, of course, in not-guilty trials. They can prosecute the specified proceedings, except when the accused ignores the process, because there has to be proof in absence. In that situation, the court has the discretion to allow the case to be presented by a police officer, rather than a CPS prosecutor. Clearly, it is not possible to build a strategy on the hope that all courts will grant a police officer permission to do that on the day. If the new clause were passed, however, it would allow prosecutions to proceed in an orderly way. In any case, what is wrong with going that slight step further and using the law to allow police officers to carry on as they usually would and prove the case in absence? A fixed penalty notice system is good, but it must be underpinned by the ability to take people to court, which means proving the case in their absence if they ignore the process.

New clause 3 is narrowly drawn and deals only with the mischief that I have identified. It would give the police new powers and provide for new procedures, allowing the police to speed up the criminal justice system to the extent that it is in their power to do so. The Metropolitan police has used such new powers and procedures most effectively in dealing with road traffic offences, but it has alerted us to a bottleneck that it encounters at the court stage. It foresees it growing significantly, and as I said at the beginning, it will extend to other parts of the country. It is incumbent on us to remove that bottleneck, and we have the opportunity to do so today. That is why I tabled the new clause.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Conservative Members give new clause 3 a cautious welcome. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making available to me some of the briefings that he has had from various organisations. As he rightly said, the new clause is designed to tighten up procedures and end an anomaly by giving police officers rights of audience when offenders do not turn up. Where no plea has been entered, and the prosecution believes that the case could be proved at first hearing, court presentation officers should have the right of audience.

As the hon. Gentleman said, such an arrangement would have the advantage of relieving an overworked CPS. If the new clause came into effect, the CPS would deal with traffic offences only where more serious, non-specified crimes took place or where cases relating to specified crimes had been adjourned for trial. As the hon. Gentleman said, the CPS was previously needed in such cases simply because the courts were required to hear a statement of evidence. Such statements would be read out by the CPS, so the case could be presented and proved only by the CPS.

The new clause would make it the norm for court presentation officers to be used for all minor offences. It would remove the anomalous power of individual courts not to grant rights of audience. I note from the hon. Gentleman’s comments and from representations from the police that the police are pressing for the right of audience in such cases.

I looked at the contrary argument, which seems to be that a person who is absent has no defence. They would therefore require an independent prosecution, and that would be of the highest importance in such cases. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, why should the whole process be held up by people who are, in effect, thumbing their noses at the system and saying, “We are not going to attend court”? As we and the Minister have said throughout, we aim to deal with the hard core of offenders, and non-attendees at court are often the very serial offenders we are talking about.

Therefore, we give the new clause a cautious welcome. I say cautious because no one should assume from our support for extending the rights of audience in this specific case that we would necessarily support extensions elsewhere. In this case, however, such an extension would end an anomaly.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I hope that you had a good Easter, Mrs. Anderson, and I welcome you back to the Chair.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for raising this issue. I entirely understand his point and agree with his intentions, but I am afraid that for several reasons I shall advise the Committee not to accept the new clause. The first is that there is already judicial discretion about who can appear in front of the court in a routine case. Therefore, judges can, and sometimes do, allow police officers to present routine cases. The cases that my hon. Friend has identified are the sort to which judicial discretion could be applied.

The Government’s preference is that we should leave the matter to judicial discretion, rather than putting in place an automatic power to allow certain individuals to appear before a court, which would be impossible to remove without further legislation. As the new clause is drafted, there is a tension between whether an officer who is to act as a court presentation officer needs to have had a certain amount of training, and whether the court presentation officer should just follow guidance as to how he should behave. If the new clause were accepted, it would not be possible to take the power of appearance away from individuals even if things were not to work out in the way in which my hon. Friend assumes that they will, and people were to present to the court defective cases that held up its procedures.

Although it is the Government’s view that the matter is best left to judicial discretion, I hope that I will go some way towards satisfying my hon. Friend if I tell him that the Metropolitan police, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Department for Transport are working together on it. The Metropolitan police has agreed to put together information for the DCA about the rights of judicial discretion, and how it could be used to improve the presentation and efficiency of routine cases. We undertake that, when we have that information, we will do what we can to ensure that all courts realise how they might use that discretion and think about how they can improve the efficiency of presentation of cases.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am disappointed because, as I explained, the Metropolitan police has developed a system to deal consistently with road traffic offenders. On Tuesday afternoon, when my hon. Friend asked us to vote against several clauses in the Bill, he said that the laws were adequate and that we just needed to enforce them consistently and effectively. Does he not recognise that there is an inconsistency in his argument if he thinks that a whole strategy can rely on thinking, “One day the court might grant a discretion to allow the officer to present the case when he gets there.”?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

My point is that the Metropolitan police has already gone a long way towards making the presentation of such cases more efficient, using the existing law. We believe that that can go further, bridging the gap between what the Metropolitan police is doing and what it wants to do, without the introduction of the power suggested in new clause 3. I am confident that, working together, the Metropolitan police, the Department for Transport and the DCA can resolve the issue to the satisfaction not only of the Metropolitan police but of my hon. Friend, without running the risk of creating a new power that could not be removed if it turned out to have side effects that my hon. Friend does not intend.

My strong advice is that the Committee should not accept the new clause, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts my assurance that the DCA, my officials and the Metropolitan police and others will work on the matter to find a way of resolving it without the need for the new clause.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

If I may, I should like to reserve the right to come back to the matter on Report. Having listened to the Minister, I realise that I need to lobby not just his Department but the DCA. I urge him not to be so timid about changing the law that was passed in 1985. Parliament has changed it in other regards. A good example is the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which amended the Crown Prosecution Service provisions in the 1985 Act to allow, when suitable, non-legal staff in the CPS office to present cases on behalf of the CPS.

We were bold enough then to let the CPS use non-lawyers to present some of their court cases, which are more serious, obviously, than the ones about which I am talking. Surely, the matter is not a difficult one. Let us be sufficiently bold, recognise that there is a bottleneck, and make that modest amendment, because when the Bill is passed, our next opportunity to do that could be many years away. So I shall not press the new clause to a vote, but I would like to come back to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 7

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

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

Here I am again. The new clause would require that, each year, the Department for Transport report on the effects on road safety of the way that clocks are set in the United Kingdom. I have in mind that we would receive reports like that from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that commented on the way that we changed our clocks in 2004:

“In 2004, road deaths rose from 269 in October to 300 in November”,

which would have been just after we put the clocks back,

“and to 323 in December.”

That trend was the same with pedestrian deaths: there were 56 in that October, then we put the clocks back and the figure rose to 76 in November, and to 78 in December.

People who have analysed the matter year after year have shown consistently that at the end of October, when we put the clocks back and evenings become darker earlier, the casualty rates in this country go up. Clearly, there are road safety benefits from doing something different with our clocks in order to preserve lighter evenings, especially in the winter.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

My hon. Friend will know from Second Reading that I, unlike many Scottish politicians, support a move away from British summer time to allow lighter evenings and darker mornings in Britain. Is it not the case that in winter it is inevitable that days become shorter, regardless of whether we put the clocks back? Is it not possible that the increase in the number of road accidents is simply a result of that inevitable physical phenomenon?

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Greater minds than I, particularly those at the Transport Research Laboratory, have researched that matter, and it seems that casualty rates are highest at dusk. Is he asking whether, if we change the time of dusk, that casualty rate would move to the new time, or whether we would actually remove it altogether? The TRL’s judgment is that we would remove the accidents and casualties an hour later because most people make their journeys by the clock. For example, it is the time, not dusk, that determines when people finish and go home from school or work, or go somewhere before going home. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to turn this into a debate about putting the clocks forward or back, because that is beyond the scope of the Bill or the new clause.

I shall provide some background so that people understand. Currently in this country, in winter time—October to March—we are on Greenwich mean time. In the summer months—March to October—we are on Greenwich mean time, plus one hour, and moving the clocks forward by one hour in March means that we have one extra hour of daylight in the evening.

Between 1968 and 1971, an experiment was carried out. In March 1968, the clocks were put forward by one hour, and were left there until October 1971. That was known as British standard time, during which road safety was monitored. After making the necessary adjustments, the Transport Research Laboratory concluded that, per winter, during the experiment, 1,120 fewer people were killed or seriously injured on our roads. That included 230 fewer fatalities. That was, to me, quite a significant change.

There have been some further assessments of whether the effect that was seen in 1968 to 1971 would still hold good today. I asked the Minister a written parliamentary question and he confirmed that the TRL had updated its estimate of the effects of changing daylight time. He said that the conclusion was that

“there could be a reduction in road casualties of over 400 people killed or seriously injured per year in Great Britain, including 100 deaths.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2005; Vol. 439,c. 514W.]

In actual fact, looking at the research, 450 fewer people would be killed or seriously injured, which includes between 104 and 138 fewer fatalities.

We can clearly make road safety gains if we change the way in which we set our clocks in this country. If a report set out year after year the trend that every October, November and December saw a rising number of deaths on our roads coinciding with when we put the clocks back, one day the penny would drop that there is a good safety argument for not putting the clocks back. For completeness, my favourite approach would be in the winter to have GMT plus one hour, and in the summer GMT plus two hours, which people call single/double summer time.

The Bill is not the vehicle to change the way in which we set our clocks. That is a reserved matter for the whole of the United Kingdom, although I note that in the other place Lord Tanlaw suggested a pilot for three years of single-double summer time in England only, allowing the devolved authorities to join in with the experiment if they wanted. Clearly, there are wider implications than just road safety. There are many positive reasons beyond road safety for why we should make that change, but for today I am asking for the Minister to agree that there should be an annual report on the road safety consequences of what we do with our clocks in order to see whether the Department for Transport, at least, would support making that change.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I was remiss earlier, Mrs. Anderson. I welcome you back to the Chair after Easter and I trust you had a good break.

The new clause, as the hon. Gentleman has said, would require a report on the impact on road safety for 12 months and another for each subsequent 12 months, and would allow the Minister to publish those reports and lay them as and where he sees fit. It does not call for any action at this stage.

Many of us will have received a briefing from the Longer Day UK group, which makes some claims about the number of road deaths that could be avoided. It gave the TRL estimates of how many casualties could have been avoided over 25 years if we changed to what it calls the daytime-saving timetable: 20,000, starting from 1971. Unfortunately, the table that it presents for us only starts from 1975, so it is difficult to make a real estimate of whether that is right. It also brushes aside any comments about safety to cyclists that have been raised. I am sure that there is detailed methodology in it somewhere, but we have yet to see it. It also talks clearly about a number of other benefits outside the scope of the Committee’s deliberations.

I listened to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the experiment between 1968 and 1971, prior to the Summer Time Act 1972, when we had the extra hour in place for three years. He cited a set of numbers, which were supposedly the benefit of that experiment. However, there are other quotations. The Government have said that the method was piloted between 1968 and 1971, and that some findings estimate 2,500 deaths and serious injuries occurred each year as a result. The hon. Gentleman talked about the most up-to-date evidence from the TRL and quoted the Minister from November last year, but the Minister was probably just citing the numbers relating to the savings that were already established as a result of the 1968 to 1971 survey. Lord Sainsbury, who was answering for the Government in another place, said that the facts were that we

“would save 100 lives and 300 serious injuries each year.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 389.]

Those figures are based on the 1968 to 1971 survey, and seem to be the established numbers. There is some controversy about the numbers, and we clearly need to examine a number of other sources, not just the road safety ones. The Government say that the experiment proved unpopular at the time.

I find it difficult to support the new clause, because it is likely to be highly restrictive. If we were to think about moving to GMT plus one for the whole year, we would need to look at considerably more aspects than road safety, which would mean another report and another set of costs. The experiment has been done once before in relation to road safety and we know the facts.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are much wider implications than road safety and there are other issues to take into account, but on his point about Lord Sainsbury’s claim that the Transport Research Laboratory’s information is simply going back to the findings of 1968 to1971, I refer him to the 1998 report by Broughton and Stone from the Transport Research Laboratory, which assesses the effects of single/double summer time. It is different from the 1968 to 1971 experiment and takes into account casualty figures between 1969 and 1994. It is clearly a more up-to-date assessment and is not simply rehashing old figures.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I accept that point, but the hon. Gentleman is using a different set of numbers than those proposed during that experiment. The findings of that experiment are well founded and on that basis we would find the new clause difficult to support.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

This is probably the only time ever that I am likely to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Stafford, whose general views on road traffic matters are that we should bring back the carrying of a red flag in front of cars. I find myself with him on this issue. Approximately 400 deaths a year are caused, along with many serious injuries, by our adhering to this ridiculous ritual of putting our clocks back every autumn.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I just wanted to clarify the point: it is 100 deaths, but 400 deaths and serious injuries.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful for that clarification. In my view, if we can preserve just one life, an experiment is worth pursuing. I am with the hon. Member for Stafford on this issue. He is quite right: the new clause would not bring about a change in our hours, but he is clearly seeking to knock at the door and to get Ministers to think about making a change. For that reason, I find myself supporting him. I do not like the wording of his clause and I do not like provisions in legislation that call for unnecessary reports and bureaucracy, but I can see why he has called for it.

The argument I have heard for not making the change is that it would upset the Scots; a handful of Scots living in the north-west of Scotland would not like it if we made this change. Well, they have their own Parliament. Although this is currently a reserved matter, I would give Scotland the power to choose its own time zone. Let the Scots give themselves their own time zone if they do not want the implementation of this particular provision.

I have heard it said that the Government may have sold the pass on this issue by giving to the European Union an undertaking that we would not interfere with the time zones in force in the UK without EU permission. I hope that the Minister will confirm that there is no substance to that rumour.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

It is the first I have heard of it, so if any such commitment has been given, it was by some other Minister.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I find that partly reassuring. I hope that when the Minister responds, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), he will throw away his civil service brief and embrace the new clause. However, if he is not prepared to do that, I hope that the hon. Member for Stafford will be prepared to withdraw the motion and new clause with a view to returning to it on Report. On this subject, he will have friends in all parts of the House.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

It may surprise some people when I say that I also support the new clause, although for different reasons from those outlined by the hon. Member for Stafford.

Every year the clocks go forward, and as sure as they change, somebody in this House or the other place introduces a private Member’s Bill to embark on the same experiment as before—the sort that the hon. Gentleman outlined. Journalists go to the file marked “Time zones”, and they say, “Ah, yes. The Member for Orkney and Shetland is bound to feel concerned about this, because he lives so far away from the rest of us.”

Every year, as sure as the clocks change and the private Member’s Bill is introduced, I end up trotting down Millbank to the radio studios to explain my views on the subject. It is not because I live closer to Norway than London. That is where I take issue with the uncharacteristically ill-informed view of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). There is no north-south split; it is more east-west. I suspect that people in south-west Cornwall feel much more strongly about this than people in Orkney or Shetland, because no matter how extravagant the claims made by those who seek to visit the change upon us, nothing but nothing will make the days in Orkney and Shetland longer in the winter. I hope that nothing will change the fact that we enjoy almost continual daylight at the height of summer. I was going to say sunshine, but we are not always that lucky.

From a constituency point of view, it remains dark in Shetland in the depths of winter and does not get properly light until 9 to 9.30 in the morning. In the afternoon, it gets dark again by 3 to 3.30. The changes that the hon. Member for Stafford talks about will make no difference to that whatever.

However, there is some merit in the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, because it states that a report should be made to Parliament about the way in which we order our time zones, and the impact that it has on road safety. I fear that many claims made on behalf of change are somewhat inflated and overstated. If we had from the Minister and his Department a proper and rigorous assessment that was open about not only its conclusions but the modelling and methodology used to reach them, we would enjoy a much more informed debate. It would allow the drawing of clearer lines than those that I have witnessed over the past five years, trotting down Millbank every spring. We might all benefit as a result.

I am confident that my views are right. The report that would be produced as a result of the new clause would demonstrate as much in time.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important issue. As he observed, his proposed new clause calls on us neither to introduce nor reintroduce single/double summer time; it calls on us to do a piece of research each year and to report the findings of that research. My hon. Friend, who is a solicitor, knows that my background is that of a scientist, so as a Minister I am usually the first to leap at the opportunity to commission research, because I am occasionally given the opportunity to throw a few bob to the boys in the lab. The only reason to do research, however, is to provide answers to questions to which we do not have the answer, but we already have the answer to this question.

In my written answer to my hon. Friend’s parliamentary question, I said publicly, and I shall reiterate now, that changing to single/double summer time would have road safety benefits. It is not in doubt—the research has been done. It was done following the experiment to which the hon. Member for Wimbledon referred, and we have the report from TRL in 1998 that examined the impact of single/double summer time more closely. We know it will have road safety benefits—that is not in doubt, so there is no point commissioning any more research on it. I buy the argument and I have heard nobody either disagree with it or challenge the data.

How many lives and injuries would the change save? Something of the order of 100 lives, and something of the order of 400 people killed or seriously injured. One has to accept that, back in 1998, a slightly higher rate of people were killed or seriously injured. Since then the rate has been falling in general, so we must assume that a reduction is occurring too in the total number of people whose lives would be saved as a result of single/double summer time or who would not receive serious injuries. Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept that approximately 100 lives would be saved and approximately 400 people killed or seriously injured would be spared that fate.

However, as hon. Members said, it is not a matter for the Committee or the Road Safety Bill, nor indeed it is a matter just for the Department for Transport. It is a matter primarily for the Department of Trade and Industry, because it has things to take into account about the economic performance of the country. It is also a matter for the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which represents the interests of agriculture, although I have never quite understood why farmers are always quoted as the reason why we cannot move the clocks forward, because I would have thought that farmers could get up whenever they wanted to get up, and I assume that those who deal with livestock get up with the cows, rather than when the Government say they should.

The matters go beyond the scope of the Department for Transport and beyond road safety. If my hon. Friend wishes to campaign with those Departments for a permanent change, however, he is welcome to do so. He can quote both me and the research, and say that I entirely accept that there would be significant road safety benefits. I hope that, having taken away my commitment to back up his lobbying expeditions, he will then accept that there is no point burdening us with the need to repeat and republish the research every year, when we already accept his argument.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

My hon. Friend’s contribution is helpful and I am grateful. I have one question. The TRL report that I mentioned was from 1998, so clearly it updated its thinking, and it would be desirable if they updated their thinking from time to time in future too. Will he assure us that it should do that if it were relevant?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Absolutely. If we came to the conclusion that for some reason the research was becoming out of date, I would certainly commission an update. I suspect that if my hon. Friend and his colleagues were to begin to convince Ministers in other Departments that we should change our clocks,there would be wide consultation and all Departments would have to pitch in and explain their attitude.I would expect, in the normal course of events, thatwe would want to update the evidence as part of that debate. In the meantime, we accept that there would road safety benefits, but that road safety is not the only issue to be considered and many other things must be taken into account. The Government must take a wide view of the subject and consider the difference throughout the country, north and south, east and west, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said. Many more issues than road safety must be taken into account, but I accept that there would be road safety benefits in a change to single/double summer time.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The debate has been helpful and has clarified many things. I shall accede to the request from the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire to withdraw the motion and new clause—it is not every day that he offers to stand with me under the red flag—and save the argument for another day.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister about the value of research. It is not only scientists who value research; politicians also like to make evidence-based decisions. He is right to remind us that scientists have a role to play in providing evidence from time to time.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who agreed with the new clause for reasons other than the time issue. He reminded me why we should be hesitant about a change as big as altering an entire time zone by Act of Parliament. I shall be cautious about wanting to do that.

It seems odd that the Conservative Front Bench does not support my wish to consider the matter more deeply. On Tuesday, it argued for us to do more about level crossings. If we eradicated every death on a level crossing we might save 20 lives a year. At a previous sitting, I argued for a lower drink-driving limit, which might save 50 or 60 lives a year. The measure that we are discussing would save more than 100 lives a year. Important as the other measures are, they pale into insignificance compared with the one before us.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

We argued that we would not support another report because it would involve another set of costs.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support my argument that it is helpful to keep the research up to date so that decisions are based on evidence and fact rather than on prejudice and opinion.

I shall take the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister and lobby other Departments to try to obtain more general support for a change of time, which would have the helpful by-product of saving many lives on the roads every year.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 10

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

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

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mrs. Anderson. Sir Nicholas was in the Chair and bursting with testosterone after the Easter break. I hope that you are similarly revived.

The Minister and I attended a meeting of the all-party group on motorcycling yesterday and there was agreement on the new clause, which simply proposes that all bus lanes should be open to motorcycles as long as they move in the same direction. I shall be brief because I am conscious of the time and also of the blood pressure of the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). I shall not plough through the large report published by Transport for London on the interim results.

The bones of the report are that there is convincing evidence that the use of bus lanes by motorcycles reduces the vulnerability of motorcyclists without affecting the vulnerability of other road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. It is common sense to move motorcycles away from other road vehicles such as lorries, heavy goods vehicles and so on—not mixing traffic seems to work. Motorcyclists would be more visible to other road users, and lack of visibility is often cited as the cause of accidents. I can find no studies that indicate that the risk to cyclists and pedestrians increased when motorcycles were allowed access to bus lanes.

Motorcycles pollute less on any given commuter journey because they do not get stuck in traffic and sit with their engines idling. They do not contribute to traffic congestion, as they keep moving. Allowing them into bus lanes recognises that they are an important part of commuter transport, which I believe reflects the Government’s motorcycle strategy to promote them as a mainstream transport activity.

It is interesting to note that motor cycles in bus lanes do not slow up buses. The buses set the speed, and, as a result, motor cyclists tend not to speed. None of the local authorities that have allowed motor cycles to use bus lanes have reported safety problems, and the evidence in the Transport for London report is that there was an 8 per cent. reduction in powered two-wheeler collisions on the A23 and a 31 per cent. reduction on the A41. If we combine those figures—as a scientist, the Minister will agree with this—that is a 19 per cent. reduction in all PTW collisions. The reduction of such collisions in the control areas was0 per cent.

The Minister said on Tuesday that such a provision would be redundant because local authorities can already allow motor bikes to use bus lanes. The problem is that more oomph is needed to promote such change. The new clause would provide that oomph.

Some authorities allow motor cycles to use some bus lanes. In Bristol, the policy is city-wide, and there have been no problems. In South Gloucestershire, it covers the whole local authority area, and there have been no problems. In North Somerset, the policy again covers the whole local authority area, and there have been no problems. In Peterborough, it relates to one bus lane, and there have been no problems. In Hull, there is a trial involving one lane, and there have been no problems. In Swindon, the policy covers the whole borough, and there have been no problems so far. In Reading, all the bus lanes in the borough are covered and the problems that were expected by cyclists have not materialised. In Essex, the policy is county-wide, and there have been no problems. In Derby, where the policy applies to Nottingham and Uttoxeter New roads, there have not been any problems. In Kingston upon Thames, half the bus lanes in the borough are covered by it, and there have been no problems so far. In Sheffield, one bus lane is open to motor cyclists, but there will be two next year, and there have been no problems. In Richmond upon Thames, motor cycles are allowed to use three bus lanes, and there have been no problems. In Westminster, motor cycles can use eight bus lanes out of a proposed nine, and there have been no safety problems. That brief summary indicates that the measure does work.

The Minister will tell us that giving motor cycles access to bus lanes is allowed by legislation and is subject to local government decision. My contention is that this is a major safety measure. Also, it is a pity that part of our road capacity is underused—buses do not use the capacity the whole time. This common-sense new clause would allow all motor cyclists to use all bus lanes immediately, rather than wait for decision making by local governments. Until yesterday, I did not realise that local authorities had discretion on this.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I am mandated to speak on the new clause by my office manager. If I were not to speak on it, I would not get the same excellent service that I have always had from her. She is a biker, and she has lobbied me on this matter continuously since I was elected to Parliament in 1997.

The main reason I support the new clause is that there is complete inconsistency across the country, as exemplified by the comments by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). We must seriously consider the use of bus lanes. For example, there are bus lanes on two parallel arterial roads into Bolton town centre. Motorists can travel on one of them outside peak hours but not on the other. For a motorist entering the town for the first time, it is complete confusion. They must read the signs very carefully, but, frankly, that is not easy in congested traffic.

The same argument applies to other vehicles using bus lanes. It is necessary to review how bus lanes are used across the country. In some authorities, taxis can use bus lanes; in others, they cannot. I am arguing for consistency in the use of bus lanes, which is currently confusing not only for bikers but for other vehicle users.

With the imposition of the congestion charge in London—it will no doubt come in in other cities—there has been a huge increase in the use of motor cycles, exemplified by the sales of them across the land. I occasionally drive in London, and it is frankly terrifying to see the way in which not only motor cyclists but cyclists zip in and out of the traffic. That must undoubtedly lead to collisions. I do not have any statistics and I have not studied the subject, but it is common sense to reach that conclusion. I therefore support the idea of allowing all motor cyclists to use bus lanes. I would go even further and impose on them the requirement to use bus lanes, to stop them going in and out between other vehicles, as we see in such an exaggerated way in our capital.

I hope that, even if the Minister urges us not to support the new clause, he will take our views back to his Department so that we can examine and rationalise the use of bus lanes.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The hon. Member for North Shropshire alluded to the fact that he and I were at a meeting of the all-party group on motorcycling yesterday. I made it clear, and reiterate for the record, that I have seen no evidence that there is any negative safety impact of motor cycles using bus lanes. Indeed, I see positive benefits to it, because as part of our national motor cycling strategy we want to make motor cycling mainstream. We see it as one way in which we can help to relieve congestion and improve social mobility, as long as we can do so while maintaining the safety of motor cyclists and other road users. Motor cycles using bus lanes would contribute to that.

Motor cycles should not be able to use every bus lane in the country, as the new clause would require them to do. I draw the line at that. I suspect that there will be some bus lanes that, because of their construction and the way in which they are commonly used in their local environment, will not be suitable for motor cycles and therefore need to be restricted to buses. Those lanes will be exceptional cases in one or two places where the local authority has a good reason not to want motor cycles in a bus lane. However, in 99 per cent. of cases I do not see any disadvantage in a motor cycle using a bus lane. Local authorities have the power to allow that to happen. It is entirely at their discretion.

I shall go on to explain how we have reached a situation whereby most bus lanes exclude motor cyclists. I want the Committee to realise that I believe that most bus lanes are suitable for the use of motor cycles.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I have been pleased to hear what the Minister has said so far, but will he put his money where his mouth is? Local authorities may indeed have discretion, but his Department should give guidance that unless there are circumstances in which it would be unsafe, as he alluded to, the default position should be that motor cyclists can use bus lanes. Will he consider changing his Department’s guidance to that effect?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The right hon. Gentleman brings me to the point that I was going to make about how we have ended up in this position. In 1997, when the document “Keeping Buses Moving”, which described the construction of bus lanes, was produced, it said that motor cycles should not normally use bus lanes. I was not involved in the production of that document, and I do not know the rationale for that. There may have been a perception that there was a threat to pedestrians from motor cycles in bus lanes, and that may have been why the recommendation was included.

To me, it would have been more obvious to point out that the people who should not be in bus lanes are pedestrians. Pedestrians should be on the pavement, not walking over bus lanes. If they do cross a bus lane, they need to take the same care as they are expected to take when crossing any road. That requires them to be alive to the possibility that not only buses but motor cycles might be in the bus lane. Nevertheless, we are discussing the position that was established in 1997, and the guidance on the Department’s website reflects that.

Since then, we have carried out a number of experiments and some local authorities have used their discretion. I understand that that discretion is used in Bristol and Birmingham. Indeed, it is used in respect of the most high-profile bus lanes for which the Department for Transport has responsibility—the M4 bus lane allows motor cycles—so we have shown that we believe that motor cycles ought to be allowed in bus lanes.

That discretion is being used in London for an experiment. It was due to finish last year, but the statisticians believed that sufficient data on accidents had not been accumulated for them to be able to draw clear conclusions, so it was recommended that it continue. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, however, the interim report shows that there is no evidence of a safety problem. In my view, the report is sufficiently convincing that we should start moving to a position whereby we remind local authorities that they have discretion, and I have taken steps to do that.

Assuming that there is no major change to the outcome of the experiment, I give a commitment that I will ensure that the guidance on the Department’s website is completely rewritten as soon as the experiment is finished, so that it is clear that there appears to be no safety risk in allowing motor cycles in bus lanes. In the meantime, we shall take steps to remind local authorities that they have that discretion.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

If the situation is as the Minister says and in 99 per cent. of cases it would be perfectly acceptable to allow motor cycles in bus lanes, would it not be more appropriate to give local authorities the power to exclude motor cycles from certain bus lanes if they thought that the safety case for that had been made, rather than giving them a power to allow motor cycles in bus lanes?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

That is the current position: local authorities have the power to exclude and the power to allow motor cycles in bus lanes. Originally, the Government guidance asked them to take the view that, normally, motor cycles would not be allowed in bus lanes. My view is that, as soon as we have the final data to confirm that allowing them in bus lanes is appropriate, we are likely to change the guidance to say that normally they should be allowed in.

However, there might still be one or two circumstances in which local authorities want to exclude motor cycles from bus lanes. For example, it might be inappropriate for motor cycles to be allowed in a bus lane leading directly to a bus station. It might be appropriate to be very strict about who is allowed in bus lanes in roads around schools, because of the way in which the roads are engineered and the layout of the roads and because of how the children—kids being kids—are likely to behave when getting off school buses. A local authority might want to exclude motor cycles from bus lanes in those areas, but my view is that, by and large, local authorities should be using their discretion to allow motor cycles in the vast majority of bus lanes, and we need to work to change the guidance to reflect that.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The Minister makes a sensible point: it might not be appropriate to allow motor bikes in bus lanes near schools and so on. However, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) made a good point, too: the inconsistency is muddling for motorbike riders. A consensus seems to be emerging between my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that it would be better for it to be the general rule throughout the country that all bus lanes are open, unless a bus lane is clearly marked as an exception. That would be much easier for motor bike riders to understand; it is a response to the point about muddle and inconsistency.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s comments, and this is a probing new clause, but when he puts statements on the website, would it not be better to switch the presumption? The presumption should be that motor cycles are allowed in bus lanes unless a bus lane is near a school, a bus depot or whatever. Those are perfectly sensible exceptions and they should be clearly marked.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I can see a practical advantage in what he suggests. At present it would be necessary for all the local authorities around the country to get out little pots of paint and put little motor cycle signs on everything to say that motor cycles are now allowed in. If excluding motor cycles is to become exceptional, it would be much cheaper to say that they are allowed unless there is a sign with a motor cycle with a red line through it. It would be much easier to identify that. I will certainly take that on board as we prepare the new guidance based on the outcome of the experiment.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

My point is the same. The lack of consistency across the country on the usage of bus lanes by all vehicles, not just motor cycles, causes confusion. When a driver is entering a very busy town, paying attention to the movement of traffic in front of him is often more important than observing the signs approaching a bus lane. I find it difficult to read the signs on the usage of bus lanes for that reason. The consistency argument is very important.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend is saying, not just in respect of motor cycles but in respect of all users of bus lanes. I find it incredibly confusing in London that some bus lanes are 7 till 7 while others are 7 till 10, 4 till 7 and 24-hour. Once a driver has missed the first sign at the beginning of the bus lane—his mind may have been on avoiding a traffic hazard—he has no idea whether the bus lane alongside him is empty at 8 o’clock at night because it is a 24-hour bus lane or because all the other drivers have also missed the sign and do not realise that they are allowed to use it. I would be interested in looking for some consistency and greater clarity in signing.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

We are having an interesting debate. My view is that we should never have 24-hour bus lanes when we do not have 24-hour buses. When in 2007 will the report conclude its work? Will the Minister give us a commitment that when he changes the guidance he will let us know by way of a written parliamentary statement?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I will certainly make a statement when we change the guidance. My understanding is that the full data should be available this summer, so we do not have to wait much longer until we can carry out the analysis. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point that there should not be 24-hour bus lanes when there are not 24-hour buses, although I am happy to say that there are 24-hour buses in London. There are night buses. I now have the benefit of a ministerial car to get me home to my flat, but before I became a Minister I occasionally had to take the night bus. It was rather like one of the Quentin Tarantino vampire films; I would wonder whether I was the only person who was not about to turn into a werewolf. Nevertheless, we have 24-hour buses in London and they should be able to run congestion-free where appropriate. That is a matter for local authorities.

I hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will be prepared to withdraw his new clause, given my assurances, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East will explain to his assistant that I am entirely committed to her cause. I perhaps cannot move as fast as she would want me to, but I am determined to ensure that she can use bus lanes at some point in the very near future.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am very encouraged by the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 14

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

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

Although I originally called for pedicabs to be banned totally, I am pleased to speak in favour of new clause 14. It seeks to apply traffic and parking restrictions to pedicabs or rickshaws and specifically to apply penalties to the owners of pedicabs. I have received petitions and met a number of organisations, including the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association. Its members have direct and daily experience of problems caused by pedicabs in London. Up to 300 pedicabs now operate at any one time in central London, and they also operate in Bath, Cardiff and, I understand, Newcastle. The problems are common throughout the country, but are most intense in London.

Pedicabs are currently not subject to parking or traffic regulations. Pedicab drivers are not tested and are not required to train. They ride and park wherever they choose. As a result, they cause obstructions for road users, taxis, buses and emergency vehicles, particularly outside theatres and restaurants in central London. They use and block bus lanes, pedestrian crossings, pavements and box crossings. They also obstruct emergency vehicle access points, which has implications for the safety not only of road users, but of the wider public.

Thus, applying parking traffic regulations to pedicabs is an urgent necessity. We seek to apply them to the owners because of the nature of the industry. Many of the drivers are employed casually and it would not be practical to apply penalties to them. It is the owners who must take responsibility—after all, they are the ones making huge profits.

As well as being untested and untrained, and often casually employed, drivers are not vetted, which of course contrasts with every other licensed taxi trade. The dangers of unlicensed minicabs have been widely recognised over the years. The same considerations apply to pedicabs. As an illustration of the dangers, it is worth noting the tragic case that concluded on 18 March last year, when a pedicab rider was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for the rape of a 23-year-old female passenger who had been in their care.

Pedicabs themselves are dangerous. No standards are applied to their construction. They are often poorly constructed and not subject to any tests, such as MOTs. The Transport Research Laboratory—the independent body used by the Government—was asked to examine one of the most common pedicabs. It concluded that, in its professional opinion, the passenger compartment would provide little or no protection in the event of an accident.

As a result of all those points of concern, Transport for London and Westminster city council, among others, have sought to regulate pedicabs and apply a licensing regime to them. Licensing has been promised but much delayed. As all parties, including the Government, agree that unlicensed pedicabs cause obstructions to road users and that the way in which they operate puts pedestrians, their passengers and other road users at risk, there is no reason to delay imposing traffic and parking regulations on them.I therefore urge the Committee to support newclause 14.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I cannot support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. Although there is clearly a problem to be dealt with, I am concerned that the new clause would in effect drive pedicabs off the streets, which is not what we should be seeking to do through the Bill. I continue to work on the issue myself, and hope to table an amendment on Report, if the Speaker considers that appropriate.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am disappointed to hear that response from the hon. Gentleman. Let us cut to the thrust of the argument. The pedicabs and rickshaws operating in London exploit a legal loophole that permits pedal-powered vehicles to operate outside the hackney carriage and private hire vehicle regulations. Their construction and maintenance is not standardised or regulated, and most of them have no insurance. The riders are often untrained and are usually overseas students being charged a fee by owners to operate them. The riders have no experience either in the operation of the vehicles or in the routes.

There is no set fee. Clearly, we are in favour of the free market, but the potential to rip off customers and exploit overseas tourists, which is bad news for London business, contrasts with the regulation of most vehicle hire in London. The green, alternative argument that is often put is a fallacy, because most of the journeys that pedicabs operate are short and could be walked. Very often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) pointed out, their obedience to traffic regulations is somewhere between zero and none. They block west end streets, they congregate at theatres, blocking roads, and there are problems with complying with red lights, which we have discussed on numerous occasions.

More importantly, this is the Road Safety Bill, so let us expand on three points made by the Transport Research Laboratory on the safety of pedicabs. It said:

“A literature review considered existing regulations and standards that could be applied to Pedicabs and found that although both construction and use regulations and the Highway Code could be applied to Pedicabs, no specific mention of them was made in either. The Pedicab tested failed to comply with certain aspects of the regulations reviewed.”

It went on to say:

“Braking and Handling trials tested the braking performance and stability of the Pedicab under various conditions. The braking performance of a laden Pedicab was found to be significantly lower than that of a car.”

Finally, as my hon. Friend said, the TRL

“concluded that the passenger compartment would provide little or no protection in the event of almost any accident.”

If there was ever a compelling case for a clause to close this legal loophole and to make registration compulsory, this is it.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Should pedicabs be licensed and properly managed? Yes, of course they should. Everywhere else in the country, outside London, they are licensed as taxicabs and local authorities control them well. We have received no requests or lobbying from anybody outside London for any changes to the existing system or law. In those areas, the pedicabs seem to co-exist happily with the local community. Inside London, I agree that there is a different problem, because currently pedicabs fall outside the licensing regime. Transport for London is intending to bring them inside the licensing regime very shortly. I hope that when it does so the problems identified by Conservative Members will be resolved.

If I may introduce a note of controversy in what until now has been a pretty consensual Committee on most issues, I suspect that the Conservative Members’ briefs were written for them by the taxi associations. Those associations do not want pedicabs to be managed or to be brought within a licensing regime. They want them off the road, because they perceive that pedicabs are taking away some of their money. The hon. Member for Ilford, North says that pedicab owners are making profits, but what does he think taxi drivers and the people who own taxis are doing?

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

rose—

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Let me finish. The hon. Gentleman has made his point; I am entitled to put the alternative case. The hon. Member for Wimbledon says that people have to pay to pull pedicabs, but how does he think most of the hackney cabs in London are financed and put on the roads? It is exactly the same situation. If managed properly within a licensing regime, pedicabs could provide an additional level of diversity in the way in which people may move around the city.

I do not imagine that pedicabs will be the transport of choice for people who work in London, but they may be the occasional transport of choice for tourists, people attending the theatre, or those out for a romantic evening who feel that it would be fun to be pulled through the park. If that is what they want to do, why not allow them? [Laughter.] I probably did not phrase that very well. Never having been pulled in the park, I did not realise how that would sound until it came out of my mouth. Pedicabs can add to the diversity of transport in the city, so long as they are properly licensed and the issues about the people who pull them and the ways in which they are parked and use the streets are managed properly.

Pedicabs must follow the same rules of the road as everybody else and they are subject to police enforcement. We discussed cyclists in earlier sittings, and the police should be stopping pedicabs that are breaking the rules just as they should be stopping cyclists who are breaking the rules.

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

Licensed taxi fares are regulated, but pedicab fares are not regulated by anyone.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

That is an extraordinary statement for a Conservative to make; are pedicab fares not regulated by the marketplace? If people are being charged too much, will they not simply not get in to pedicabs? I know that the Conservative party is chameleon-like and is trying to change its image, but I did not think that it had completely divorced itself from market philosophy. Clearly that change has happened today. I hope that my colleagues will relay that message to the Prime Minister so that he can take account of it.

Certainly, pedicabs should not rip people off, and should be within a licensed regime. That is what Transport for London is trying to achieve.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The Minister is at his most disingenuous today. As we have seen throughout our proceedings, his inspiration usually comes not out of his own mouth or mind, but from some gentlemen or ladies who sit at the top table—as does most of his briefing.

We have had several representations on this point. This is not about stifling free enterprise. If the Minister wants a taxi drivers’ regime across London with no regulation, he should introduce it. That seems to be the thrust of his recent argument, although I am sure that that is not what he meant to say. This is about a group of people who currently act outside the law and potentially exploit visitors to this country. If the Minister or I were to walk this afternoon to a theatre in Westminster and decide afterwards that we wanted a ride back to the House of Commons in a pedicab, we would know the going rate for that trip, but a tourist from anywhere in the world might not know that the going rate from a theatre in Westminster to the House of Commons is not £50.

All we are trying to do is bring pedicabs inside a proper licensing regime. We have heard a lot of nonsense about chameleons and the free market, and I am sure that on reconsideration the Minister will want to disassociate himself from that burst of comedy. Let us get back to the serious point behind the new clause: the regulation of pedicabs, and correcting the loophole that exists only in London. Any fair-minded and sensible member of the Committee should want to support the clause.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

First, let me defend myself. The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, but I have used the copious packs of briefing put before me every day for precisely one clause during our proceedings. I have not otherwise referred to any of it. In any event, the officials who provide me with inspiration and briefing do so according to instructions that they were previously provided with by me and other Ministers. That is different from using a taxi association briefing, which is truly disingenuous, because it is from people who see pedicabs as competition and want them off the road.

The hon. Gentleman’s new clause argues for what I hope he accepts is the appropriate way to deal with this: for pedicabs to be properly licensed, brought within a licensing regime, allowed to compete with taxi drivers, and made to follow the rules of the road. Enforcement of those rules is a matter for the police.

Mr. Knightrose—

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Transport for London is already bringing pedicabs within its licensing regime, so new legislation is not required for that. The rest of the country seems to have managed this issue perfectly satisfactorily without new legislation, so I do not see any need for the new clause. Does the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire want to intervene?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I did want to intervene, but the Minister answered my point in that summing up. I was going to ask whether Transport for London needs any further powers from us to make that change, but he covered that point. However, I must say, in passing, that he is beginning to sound rather demob happy.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Demob happy is probably a good way of putting it. It is rather a lot of work for a Minister to have to take a Bill through a Committee by himself. It is lonely work, but I can now see the distant light at the end of the tunnel. Nevertheless, I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman’s serious point.

Transport for London has not asked for new powers to deal with the problem, and I believe that the matter can be properly managed under the law as it stands. In any event, we will not legislate to take pedicabs off the road simply to give others the free use of the marketplace. Pedicabs have a contribution to make—not a major one, I suggest—and with a proper licensing regime they will be satisfactorily managed.

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

I should like to press the motion to a Division.

New Clause 15

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

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

I am indebted to a near neighbour of the Minister’s—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—for bringing this matter to my attention. It is not particularly controversial. It is partly to do with the welcome expansion of the European Union and the enormous increase in traffic between us and the continent.

The problem is simple. We have the steering wheel on the right-hand side of the vehicle, and on the continent it is on the left. Continental trucks have no need for a wide-angled mirror on the passenger side when they are on the continent—but in the United Kingdom that is what would be the driver’s side.

The wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had a horrible experience when overtaking a Hungarian lorry on the M2 near the Minister’s constituency. She was pushed into the central barrier, and the young Hungarian driver was aghast and horrified at what had happened. His lorry was completely legal according to Hungarian regulations, but did not have a wide-angled mirror fitted to the passenger side of his lorry. As a result, he simply did not see her.

My hon. Friend had a similar constituency case, in which a man was overtaking a continental lorry in the fast lane. The lorry did not see him and pulled out. I am not sure which country the lorry driver came from, but he was professional and had a good record; he was similarly horrified at what had happened.

I understand that an EU directive will make it compulsory for all new heavy goods vehicles to have wide-angled mirrors from 26 January 2007. The new clause is simple; it would require all HGVs in this country to have such mirrors fitted. It would make it mandatory. It is interesting that Holland and Belgium have already gone down that route. They have gone ahead of the Commission and made it compulsory to fit class 4 wide-angled mirrors to all HGVs. Analysis shows that the retrofitting of mirrors has been effective. There is clear anecdotal evidence of the danger. The directive as it stands is not good enough because it would apply only to new—

Standing Committee A

New Clause 15

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

It is a great pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir Nicholas. I hope that whatever was coursing through your veins on Tuesday will galvanise you again today. I will be brief.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I should point out that the hon. Gentleman described you as “pumped full of testosterone” this morning.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am most grateful for that observation. I can only tell the Committee that I wish it were true.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am glad to see that you are still on good form, Sir Nicholas.

New clause 15 requires all vehicles, whether left or right-hand drive, to have a mirror covering the passenger side. The provision has been applied in Holland and Belgium, and there is a European directive that will bring it in and make it mandatory on all new vehicles. The new clause is a sensible measure that will be welcome. In the case I cited, the Hungarian driver was appalled by what happened. It would be a help to all drivers of heavy goods vehicles in this country, whether British or foreign.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

When I got home just before Easter there was a message on my answerphone from a constituent. He is a man whom I know very well and like very much. He told me that he was lucky to be alive that day because when driving home on the motorway he had been overtaking a lorry from Turkey which pulled out and struck his car, turning it round completely. He found himself driving at 70 mph in the wrong direction down the middle lane of a three-lane motorway. As he said, it was a frightening experience.

Once my constituent had stopped and recovered—fortunately he was not injured—he had various conversations. The first with someone who was on the spot straightaway, a traffic officer. This cadre of people patrolling our motorways to deal with just this kind of situation was one of the brilliant decisions of the Department for Transport. He also spoke to a member of the control staff at the control office for the motorways and to his insurance company. They all told him that in recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of those incidents, some with fatal consequences. His response was that surely it was the responsibility of politicians to ensure that lorry drivers using can see other road users or they should not be on our roads. That is a salutary description of a recent incident which the Minister should take seriously when considering the new clause.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I call Dr. Ladyman. I am not sure whether he is pumped full of testosterone.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Ministers are always pumped full of testosterone.

Welcome back to the Chair, Sir Nicholas, for our last sitting. This is a very important subject. I will not advise the Committee to accept the new clause, but that is not because I do not believe that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is right in identifying this as a very real issue. He talked about anecdotal evidence. We now have far more than anecdotal evidence that the problem he outlines is serious. He mentioned that it had been brought to his attention by my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).

All Kent MPs are aware of the problem. Because of the number of foreign lorries coming in at Dover or Ramsgate and driving along our motorways, we all have constituents who have had that experience. Experienced motorists in Kent are aware of it. We hang back from lorries with foreign plates until we are absolutely sure that the road is clear, and when we accelerate past a lorry we minimise the opportunity for it to start pulling out. Clearly that is unsatisfactory, but it is more complex than the hon. Member for North Shropshire realises.

Drivers of left-hand drive lorries do not have difficulties only with visibility on their right-hand side and at the rear of the lorry. Very large lorries also have visibility problems on the left-hand side and that causes difficulties when people approach on slip roads, as well as proximity problems just in front and down to the right of the cab. A car coming past may briefly appear in a mirror but may disappear when it is slightly ahead of the lorry. If the driver pulls out, he can hit the back of the car and spin it round.

Fortunately, the evidence is that such accidents are hugely frightening but not often fatal, because usually the collision forces the car to the right, and unless it hits something or is turned round, and something behind then hits it, serious injury or fatality does not necessarily result, although injuries and fatalities happen occasionally and we are starting to gather evidence to that effect. As well as our experience in Kent, The Daily Telegraph has organised a significant campaign, which it has presented to me.

How are we going to deal with the problem? As the hon. Gentleman says, a directive will require the fitting of further mirrors on new vehicles. That will come into force shortly, but it does not require retro-fitting. The difficulty with the proposal to require the UK to enforce retro-fitting is that it could not be enforced in relation to foreign lorries. We could require it for our own lorries, and when they go abroad and have the same problem on the other side of the cab it would be useful, but it would not help with foreign lorries coming into the UK.

I am pleased to say that the Commission has identified that there is a problem and has started a consultation on how to insist on retro-fitting, with comments required by 19 May. That is positive news, and I shall take up the matter both with the Commission and with my Transport ministerial colleagues in Europe, to stress to them the importance of early action.

In addition, we should look at what can be done within European rules, and I am looking at a number of options, although I have not yet made any decisions. One option that I am seriously considering—I put it no more strongly than that because there are financial considerations—is to provide a stick-on mirror. It is a flat, prismatic mirror that would stick on the inside of cab windows. We might purchase a large number of such mirrors and hand them out to all lorries entering the country at Dover and to our own British fleet leaving the country, for use on the other side of its vehicles. More work and evidence are needed to establish whether that solution would be cost-effective, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that I am taking the matter seriously, and action will follow.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Has not the Minister understated the case in respect of UK law? If our law provides that a vehicle shall not be used on a road in the United Kingdom without a mirror positioned on the passenger side of the exterior of the vehicle, surely all vehicles must have a mirror fitted irrespective of the law in the country where the vehicle comes from. We could deal with the problem quickly and under our own legal system. Will the Minister comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said about other European Union member states having taken unilateral action in that respect?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman may regret it, but in this area the Commission has competence. The structural requirements for vehicles are a matter for the EC. We can require things to be done on our own vehicles, and that is probably what the Dutch have done, but we cannot require changes to made to every vehicle entering the country. However, some things can be done.

First, we can work with the Commission to identify urgently the need for retro-fitting. I give the Committee the assurance that we will do so. Secondly, we can talk to Transport Ministers in Europe to ensure that they understand the importance of doing so. Again, I assure the Committee that I shall do that. We can also consider other techniques, which includes the possibility—I put it no stronger than that—of handing out flexi-glass stick-on mirrors at the ports, and possibly to our entire UK fleet, to deal with the problem on a shorter time scale.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Will my hon. Friend urge also on the Commission the urgent need for the retro-fitting and fitting on new vehicles of reflective tape?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I have to hand it to my hon. Friend for sneaking one in completely out of order. I have stated my views on the matter, and he knows them. I have no doubt that we will discuss the matter further on Report.

Given that the new clause would not be helpful, and would probably not be legal under European law, I assure the Committee, my constituents and the people of Kent that I recognise that it is a real and current concern for everyone, and we will deal with it as rapidly as we legally can. We hope to be innovative in how we tackle the problem. Before the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) asks me, I can say that when I decide how to deal with the matter, I shall ensure that a written ministerial statement is made to that effect so that everyone is aware of it. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will withdraw the motion.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I regret hearing that the pass has been sold to Europe. However, I welcome the tone and substance of the Minister’s remarks, as will many road users. If the Department is to give away free mirrors, my only caveat is that I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not use it as an excuse further to increase vehicle excise duty or fuel duty, claiming that it is necessary because of the extra expense involved.

When the Minister is formulating the regulations, will he consider the mirrors that one sometimes sees on new coaches? Instead of being almost level with the driver, they stick out in front of the windscreen, thereby giving the driver a view of the front of the vehicle. If such a design could be incorporated in the requirements for mirrors for lorries, it might help to solve problems with the front blind spot.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we are considering mirrors that will help lorry drivers see in front of the vehicle. It had not occurred to me that the drivers of large trucks would not be able to see in front of the vehicle, but if one can imagine sitting back from the windscreen, the angle of descent extends beyond the bonnet of the cab and there is a piece of road on which small pedestrians and children can disappear. That is a problem that we need to examine.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on catching the Minister on his blind spot and raising the matter of retro-reflective materials. It is worth reminding the Committee that the Minister said that we could not use such materials because they were contrary to European law, but the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East and I found out that the Italians have already done so.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend did indeed find out that the Italians have done that. However, they did not find out that the Commission has indicated that it requires the Italians to think again and is considering infraction proceedings against them because they should not have used those materials.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The fact is that there are Italian trucks driving around with retro-reflective material on them, and the Commission is moving towards that. It would be worth the Minister’s while, either alone or with the help of his officials, to find out what has happened in Holland and Belgium. I think that I have read that the domestic legislation applies to foreign hauliers operating in Holland and Belgium, but I could not find any documents that establish that point.

I was encouraged by the Minister’s comments. He has a constituency interest in the matter, which might be spurring him on more than anything else. That is good news. He is right to cite the fact that there are small mirrors that can be screwed on to the inside of a cab; I have managed to find some information on a supplier.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, I think that it is a pity that the Minister is not determined to crash on and push through domestic legislation. However, given the commitments that he has made and the fact that he is already well down the road on the matter, we will take his comments in good faith. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before we move on, I should say that I have added up the number of new clauses that we have still to debate, and the other matters that have to be considered before we finish at 4 o’clock. If every new clause takes as long as the previous one, we will be up against some very sharp wire. I merely advise the Committee of that.

New Clause 16

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

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

I am as keen to push on as anybody. The new clause is inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who spoke with elegance and passion on Second Reading, citing some amazing cases in his constituency in which people have offended again and again, but because their addresses are false they have not been brought to justice. He has given me a quotation from Dunstable on Sunday, citing the cases of a car that was captured 81 times on the A505. He has also informed me of a motor cycle that has been used to commit 60 offences of excess speed, 61 of disqualified driving and 61 of driving without insurance.

My hon. Friend says that there is a very real problem, and he has cited the fact that there have been 1,585 dangerous driving offences on south Bedfordshire’s roads. A van has been clocked for 73 offences and a motor bike for more than 61. Cars have been caught doing 98 mph in a 50 mph limit. The police were apparently powerless to do anything because they could not track down the owners of the vehicles to a given address.

Although I have a number of quotations from a range of police forces, given the shortage of time I shall read only the most authoritative. It is from Mrs. Gillian Parker, the chief constable of Bedfordshire police, who said:

“The key areas within the Police Reform Act in relation to power of seizure are:

A vehicle is being used in contravention of section 3 of the Road Traffic Act (careless and inconsiderate driving), and its use is causing, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.

Advice has been sought from the CPS and our local judiciary, there is agreement that to apply the Section 3 test to speeding offences, that is to suggest that speeding per se also represents careless and inconsiderate driving, would be inappropriate and unlikely to succeed in court. As a result we are powerless to seize these vehicles under this legislation.”

That is what is being proposed to Bedfordshire police.

There is support for the measure from Nottinghamshire police, Humberside police, Thames Valley police, Derbyshire police and Wiltshire police. Our simple proposal is that if a vehicle is used in contravention of the Road Traffic Regulations (Special Events) Act 1994 on three or more occasions—I have taken that number out of the air, as this is a probing new clause—it can be subject to the powers set out in proposed subsection (2). My hon. Friend had a constructive meeting with the Minister, and we are happy to withdraw the motion if the Minister has some concrete proposals that would serve the purpose intended by the new clause.

There is a real problem of a small number of people—we return to the hard core, whom we have mentioned before—who are breaking the law in a grotesque manner, with extraordinary frequency, and who cannot be brought to book because they cannot be tracked down. The proposed power would be welcomed by many in the police, because it would give them the power to seize and remove the vehicles involved in such offences.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am not without sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but what would he propose doing once the vehicle had been seized? Would it not have made sense to have included provisions for the return, confiscation and forfeiture of the vehicle?

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

This is a probing amendment. I am making the case that there is a hole in the law. I am quite happy to withdraw the motion, but on the condition that the Minister is prepared to bring forward workable legislation. I am not pretending that the new clause is perfect, but a real problem has been brought to our attention by several police forces and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire. I commend the new clause as it stands, but I look forward to hearing how the Minister proposes to sort the problem, as I think he said he would when he met my hon. Friend privately.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I hope that I have taken the issue very seriously. I met the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, who was kind enough to bring with him his constituent, the police constable who had identified the problem. They provided me with the evidence as they saw it. I took the matter up subsequently with chief constable Med Hughes, who is chairman of the traffic team of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The problem in Bedfordshire had been raised with the Home Office, which took the position that the law was quite clear and that there were powers to deal with such a problem. There was a dispute about that matter.

Med Hughes and officials from the Home Office were absolutely clear when speaking to me that the law provides them with all the powers that they need, and ACPO made it clear to me that it is not asking for more powers. ACPO believes that the powers to deal with the problem are sufficient and comprehensive. If future experience suggests otherwise, it is happy to come back to us to request further powers, but at the moment its view is that it would be a mistake for Parliament to grant further powers to the police when they have perfectly adequate powers that have not been utilised properly.

ACPO believes that the problem arose from a misunderstanding in Bedfordshire about how the powers can be used. To try to deal with that, I facilitated a meeting between Med Hughes and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire at which those issues were to be explained. In addition, Med Hughes has spoken to the chief constable in Bedfordshire and explained the position to her. My understanding is that she is now satisfied that the police do have the powers to deal with the problem and that it is just a matter of police enforcement—using the powers appropriately.

I suspect that in forthcoming days there will be more discussions, and if the chief constable of Bedfordshire remains uncertain that she has the powers that she needs to deal with the problem, no doubt that will be relayed to us before the remaining stages of the Bill. However, at the moment, ACPO is quite clear that the police have all the powers that they need. There are police strategies that can be used to deal with the problem and they need to be employed in Bedfordshire and other places to crack down on it.

With those assurances and the assurance that I still have an open mind on the subject, should the advice I am receiving from the chief constables turn out to be inaccurate, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for updating us. I think that the best way of proceeding is for me to consult further my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire on whether the discussions that the Minister described have borne fruit. With the caveat that we may return to the matter on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 17

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

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

This new clause relates to hit-and-run accidents and is another attempt on our part to bear down on the infamous hard core. In 2004, 145 people were killed in 23,714 hit-and-run accidents and in 1997, 119 people were killed in 18,357 similar accidents. That is a 22 per cent. increase in the number of deaths and a 30 per cent. increase in the number of hit-and-run accidents. The number of people injured rose by 31 per cent. from 21,574 in 1997 to 28,397 in 2004. There is a real problem.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said, another aspect is that at the moment there is a strong incentive for some drivers to get away from the scene of an accident. They may have had a drink or be part of the large number of people—perhaps 1 million—that the Government have announced are driving without insurance. Our intention in the new clause is simple: to impose a strong sanction on those who leave the scene of a crime. We intend the new clause to be used when there has been an injury and other motorists are involved. At the moment, members of the hard core have everything to gain from getting away and getting off scot-free. Our intention is to provide a strong incentive to make them stay on the spot and, if necessary, help an injured person or call the emergency services and wait for them to arrive.

This is a simple provision that would change the offence in section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 from a summary to an indictable one with an increase in the penalty from six months’ imprisonment to 14 years. That would impose a severe sanction on those who attempt to get away in appalling cases when they might have injured a third party.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The Committee will not be surprised—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be—that my advice is to resist the new clause. Having said that, I entirely agree with the sentiment behind it. Hit-and-run driving is abhorrent and we need to clamp down on it. It is already an offence, punishable with six months’ imprisonment and a £5,000 fine. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the new clause would make available a raft of more significant penalties.

One of the unintended consequences would be that it would affect someone who genuinely did not know that they had been involved in an accident and, therefore, did not stop. That occasionally happens. It might not mean that they were not at fault for the accident, but they might not have realised that they had been involved—we have discussed truck drivers who cannot see what is happening on the road all around them. If someone in those circumstances failed to stop and was subsequently prosecuted, one of the side effects of the new clause would be that they could face 14 years in jail, which would be an over-reaction. However, we have said many times on previous clauses that one would expect the courts to be rational about the way they imposed such sentences, and that is the way to deal with the matter.

I am prepared to offer the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall take the matter up with the Home Office—indeed, I am already doing so—to look at sentencing guidelines, so that the existing penalties can be used more appropriately when people have failed to stop.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Two points. First, as I understand it, if no third party is involved there is currently no requirement to remain at the scene of a crime or to demand the emergency services or anyone else. In fact, the police advise people to move on as quickly as possible. Secondly, the Minister must acknowledge that under current legislation there is flexibility for courts. We are not suggesting a mandatory 14-year prison sentence for someone who inadvertently brushes another vehicle and does not realise what he has done. We intend for the very severe penalties to be restricted to the hard core who make the serious and unpleasant decision to leave the scene of a crime where someone might have been mortally wounded.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

If personal injury is involved, there is already a clear requirement to stop and report an accident. There is also a list of other circumstances in the 1988 Act under which a person is required to stop and report an accident but where only damage has been caused. The problem is not with that list, which requires people to stop and report an accident, and I do not think that anyone whom the hon. Gentleman is trying to reach with the new clause fails to realise that they have committed an offence and that they should stop.

My understanding of what the hon. Gentleman said is that he is trying to catch those people who know perfectly well that they should stop and report an accident, but do not because they think that the consequences of doing so might be worse than those of being caught subsequently, having not stopped. He is right that we need to ensure that the offences that are available for not having stopped are used sufficiently strongly to deter people from not stopping. However, allied to the offence that the individual has committed, and for which they can still be prosecuted, the additional offence of failing to stop already carries a sufficiently wide range of penalties that, if they are used appropriately by the court, can ensure that there are sufficient incentives for people not to drive away from the scene of an accident.

I offer the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall speak to the Home Office about the use of sentencing guidelines to deal with the problem.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am not entirely reassured, but I should like to reserve our position and possibly come back to the matter on Report. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 18

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

We now come to new clause 18, and we have a new face—Mr. Alistair Carmichael.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

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

Thank you, Sir Nicholas, although I am not sure that I am so much a new face as what is known in this trade as a retread, although this is the first time that I have had occasion to welcome you back to the Chair and to move the motion for a new clause.

I hope that the new clause can be dealt with in fairly short compass. The title says it all. It would empower the Secretary of State to introduce regulations prohibiting the retro-fitting—that is a ghastly word, but it seems to be the term of art used—of bull bars to vehicles. We all know what we mean by such things: they are pretty hideous appendages, to four-wheel drive vehicles in particular. In this day and age, they have limited use in the rural context. In my youth, I might have had occasion to use them, as a farmer’s son, but they are generally not regarded as being best practice for animal husbandry. I do not think even that many involved in agriculture or sporting activities would have any real clamant need for them. Certainly in a town or city they are a menace. They significantly increase the likelihood of a fatality resulting from an accident involving a motorised vehicle and a pedestrian.

As such vehicles are generally higher sprung, bull bars are particular dangerous for small children, who are more likely to be hit on the head and sustain head injuries, and for older people who are much more likely to sustain bone injuries to the hip. The time has come for us to say that there really is no need for the retro-fitting of bull bars, and I hope that the Minister agrees.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I entirely agree. I see no place for bull bars on the roads of the United Kingdom. I suppose that they may have some use if one is driving a Land Rover through the African plains chasing rhinoceroses for photographic purposes, but since there are few rhinoceroses in London or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, I can see no reason for them whatever. They are unsafe. They cause damage to pedestrians. The hon. Gentleman need not press his new clause to a Division because I can assure him that the European Union is already alive to the problem. Consultation with the EU has led to a directive that will ban the retro-fitting of bull bars. We are currently in the process of transposing it into UK law. It will become mandatory from next May, so the objective of the new clause will be achieved.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will the Minister confirm that the new directive will not have a retrospective effect wider than the problem of bull bars? For example, can he confirm that it will not prohibit the continued display of, for example, the “Spirit of Ecstasy” on a vintage Rolls-Royce?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Once again, the right hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the nub of political debate. My postbag contains nothing but letters on this very subject. I can assure him that the “Spirit of Ecstasy” does not count as a bull bar, nor will the directive ban the fitting of devices to the front of vehicles that make them safer. People may wish to retro-fit equipment to the front of their car to improve its safety to pedestrians and that will also be allowed under the new directive. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will withdraw the motion.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

If the Minister is not careful he may rekindle in me some latent enthusiasm for the European Union. In view of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 20

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

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

Although it is a fairly substantial new clause, it can again be put in a fairly short compass. It is offered by way of a probing amendment and reflects the fact that as technology advances, so must the law. We have experience of black boxes in aeroplanes. We have the experience of so-called spies in the cab—the tachograph devices for lorries. It now becomes eminently possible that similar devices will soon be available for general domestic motoring.

The inclusion of data recording devices in cars could bring significant advantages for road safety. They certainly make the investigation of road traffic accidents an awful lot easier. In my professional experience, before I came here, I saw tremendous advances in the investigation of road traffic accidents. When I started as a boy solicitor many years ago, it was a fairly crude science. It has become much more sophisticated over the years. The information available to the police from the scene of a road traffic accident is now considerable. The fitting of such devices to cars would be of immense assistance to police when investigating accidents, and would provide definitive evidence regarding the duration and speed of travel, which are important factors to establish in the investigation of crime.

I have been involved in a number of other cases in which there has been an issue about whether a car was being driven at all at a certain time. A classic example of that is that the police are following someone, but manage to lose him or her and eventually turn up at someone’s house to find that they claim to have been sitting at home all night and that, as it happens, they just had four stiff measures of Highland Park before the police arrived, which is why they are in the state in which they are in. That is all grist to the summary courts’ mill, but a somewhat unsatisfactory situation for a 21st-century criminal justice system. Surely, if the technology to establish such things is available for use, with important safeguards to ensure that it would not be misused in a way that would concern those of us who still take civil liberties seriously, I see no reason why we should not consider its introduction.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

We believe that there is real merit in having black boxes. We are probably behind America on this. I know that it sometimes irritates the Minister when I go on internet forays, but I wonder whether he has heard of the method of world crash investigation that Ricardo Martinez, the chief executive officer of Atlanta-based Safety Intelligence Systems, who is considering using data recorders, describes as BOGSAT—a bunch of guys sitting around talking, or coming up with their best guess. There is real merit in the idea of having a recording of the last five to 10 seconds of the performance of the car. All it does is use the existing technology that is used to trigger air bags and automatic braking systems and records the speed, length of time for which the brakes were applied and other factors which would have controlled the car at the time.

The Americans seem to be further down the road than us. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ran a Ford F-150 truck into a wall at 30 mph to test a whole series of different black boxes. They are taking it seriously. The boxes are also being used in court cases. We have said that we should be careful about citing court cases, but I shall mention two. There was one in Fort Myers, in which a man claimed to be doing 60 mph, but was actually doing 90 mph. In another case, in Arlington Heights, a hearse struck a squad car and the hearse driver claimed that he had a medical condition. It turned out that he accelerated to 63 mph in the last five seconds, which was 20 mph above the posted limit. Therefore, it can cut both ways. This technical advance has merit, and I am interested to hear the Department’s official view on the measure.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for raising this important subject. I was pleased to hear that my earlier comments rekindled his enthusiasm for Europe, although I was not aware that the Liberal Democrats had lost their enthusiasm for it. So far today I have discovered that the new Conservative party is pro-Europe and anti-market, and that the Liberal Democrats are now anti-Europe and pro-market, so things are certainly changing in the political sphere.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire is correct: there is merit in exploring the idea, but both he and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that we cannot legislate yet, because a bunch of guys sitting around talking is probably not a good evidential base for legislation. Nevertheless, it is clear that black box recorders have long-term merit.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The bunch of guys sitting around talking was the hon. Gentleman’s definition of current traffic investigations, his criticism being that the investigations do not have accurate data. He was obviously proposing that the system that he is trying to sell to the US Government is a much more accurate data supplier, so that the bunch of guys would not have to sit around talking.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I realise that I am slow on the uptake sometimes, but I got the point. My point is that the present evidence for the potential of black boxes is also largely derived from a bunch of guys sitting around talking. That is a necessary first stage in developing what will ultimately be legislation, but we can pose some obvious issues that would need to be addressed before black boxes were provided for. What would they be used for and under what circumstances would people have access to the information on them? How would we deal with the freedom issues that they would present? What about compatibilities of standards—how would we make sure that we were reading them accurately?

In principle I agree that black boxes have merits. My own vehicle has a black box in it and I have no access to the information that it collects. That information is downloaded to the nice chaps at Alfa Romeo when I have my car serviced, and they use it for designing the next generation of Alfa Romeos, which as an Alfa Romeo owner I think is probably a good thing. What I think is a bad thing is that I have no ability to use the data, because it might advise me on how I could drive better, or how I could save fuel by amending my driving habits.

There is a whole range of things that black boxes could offer, from fuel efficiency and environmental benefits right through to accident investigation, but we are a long way from being able to specify or require them, and there would have to be a raft of debate on diverse technical and freedom issues before legislating for them. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for beginning that debate and I look forward to continuing it, but I urge him to withdraw the new clause as it has served its purpose in initiating the debate.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

We learn something new every day, Sir Nicholas. Apparently some cars already have black boxes, and when I get back to Shetland tomorrow I shall have a look at my car to see whether the makers of Vauxhall have afforded the same opportunity to Vectra owners such as myself as that which has been afforded to Alfa Romeo owners.

I am crushed that the Minister has paid so little attention to my parliamentary pronouncements on the subject of the European Union that he should think that any lack of enthusiasm in that respect on my part—heresy, as some of my hon. Friends call it—is somehow novel or recent.

As I indicated, and as the Minister acknowledged, the new clause was intended to start a debate. It is not my intention to press it to a vote, and with the Minister’s assurance that the subject is something that the Department has in its sights, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 21

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

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

New clause 21 moves on from some of the arguments advanced earlier in relation to the inclusion of vehicle data recording devices. As I said to the Committee then, the science—and it is fair to call it a science—of road accident investigation has moved on considerably in recent years and is a much more sophisticated branch of policing. There is now a case for the creation of a road accident investigation service, which would be akin to the marine accident investigation branch and the air accidents investigation branch. New clause 21 seeks to establish such an investigation service. Members can see from the text that this would involve investigation into

“the causes of road accidents particularly where they result in death or serious injury”,

and that the service would

“commission and publish the results of research into the causes and consequences of road accidents”.

The service would focus primarily on the more serious road accidents. One that springs to mind is that which involved the Land Rover that ran off the motorway while the driver was asleep, which ran into a train and caused multiple deaths. A degree of expertise is necessary in that instance. It would assist also in establishing the contribution that sleep disorders make to the number and nature of road traffic accidents. The treatment and diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnoea, for example, is recognised much more widely now. The impact that it has on many road accidents is the sort of general topic that a service created specifically to investigate road accidents would be able to take on and give a nationwide perspective rather than a force-by-force approach, which seems to be the case at present.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

We already have the air accidents investigation branch. There might be some merit in creating a road accident investigation service, but we have our doubts over whether it would be cost effective. Before we give our full support, we need a lot more detail than the hon. Gentleman presented. Rather like black boxes, the subject requires further investigation. There could well be merits in it, but at this stage, a lot more work needs to be done.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Again, I am sure that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland intends really to stimulate debate. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, we have an air accidents investigation branch. Of course, thankfully, air accidents are rare. We have, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, a marine accident investigation branch, and as I am responsible also for marine affairs I am pleased to say that accidents in that area are rare also. Therefore, the number of accidents that come into the remits of those bodies, so that they have to launch investigations, is relatively limited. One of the things that theycan do after investigating an accident is make recommendations on how to reduce the chances of such an accident happening again.

Of course, those agencies do not deal with quite the same situations as arise in road accidents. Road accidents result in 3,200 fatalities. I presume that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would want all those fatalities to be investigated, so immediately we are talking about an order of magnitude and more work than faced by the other accident investigation bodies. Does he also want serious injuries to be investigated? If so, we are talking about an order of magnitude greater again. Then there is the question of what we would do with the information. To what recommendations would it lead, on which we could subsequently act?

If we are not going to investigate all deaths and serious injuries, how would we explain that to the loved ones of those whose accidents are not to be investigated? What would we do when we find someone sitting in our constituency surgery who says that such a service does not appear to value the life of their husband or wife because it is not prepared to investigate the case and does not think that anything can be learned from their loved one’s death? All those issues would have to be dealt with.

In addition, we already have well laid out procedures for the investigation of accidents, particularly where deaths occur. A national road death investigation manual was produced in 2002 which sets out how investigations are to be carried out. First, the police are involved. They have to take leadership, because if fault is involved they may need to prosecute someone. The police will work closely with local authorities and other highway authorities to identify what can be learned from each accident. In addition, there is the Transport Research Laboratory and the teams working in the Highways Agency who look generally at accidents to see what engineering improvements we could make and what lessons we could learn that might lead to changes in road traffic offences.

We already do quite a lot of what the hon. Gentleman is seeking, but it may be disseminated over a large number of organisations. We might want to consider in the coming years whether the Transport Research Laboratory or the Department for Transport are bringing sufficient focus to the investigation of road accidents in order to lead to evidence-based changes in legislation or engineering. That is a worthy debate to have. In my view, we are doing that work at the moment, but perhaps we could do even more. We have to decide whether it would be cost effective to move ahead.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On many major roads we see the blue traffic monitoring cameras in use. On some motorways—for example, the M42—cameras are in place that assist the police in detecting serious crime and vehicle fraud. Although they are not there for that purpose, have those cameras proved to be of use when accidents have been captured on film?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I understand that the cameras that are under the control of the police have been used for that purpose. Police cameras, which are normally used for the detection of offences, would have an evidential regime around them which would be sufficient to present in a court. The Highways Agency’s cameras are there to help us in any way that is appropriate. They are there to help us to monitor congestion and to react to it. If they pick up accidents, that information is available to the Highways Agency and the engineering teams to see whether it can teach us anything about the causes.

I do not know—if the right hon. Gentleman presses this point, I will have to write to him—whether the police have ever requested footage from the Highways Agency’s films to help them in prosecutions. I suspect that they have and I suspect that we would make it available if there were a properly formulated request for that information. Certainly if any information from those cameras were suitable to help people improve road safety we would want to use it, subject to the practicalities of the technology.

I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will once again accept that he has raised an issue that is worthy of further debate. This is probably not the time for legislating on it, even if we were all to agree that it is necessary. I hope that he will withdraw his new clause.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I was hoping that the Minister might have talked for another five minutes. I felt that as his speech progressed he warmed to the idea after his fairly lukewarm start. Of course he is absolutely right that where there is a fatality or serious injury, the bulk of the investigation is already done. He was right to draw attention to the work of various Government agencies, including the Transport Research Laboratory. However, investigation is needed into whether the range of responsibilities across a diffuse range of agencies, which may sometimes compete for resources, is in the best interests of road safety.

I shall not press the matter to a vote. I am pleased to have the Minister’s view on the record, and as the science of road traffic investigation evolves, my proposal may become an historic inevitability. I am confident that in 10 years’ time a Minister—probably not the present one, because I hope for his sake and his sanity that he will have moved on—will propose exactly that. Secure in the knowledge that history will be on my side, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 23

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

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

This is my last new clause. I give credit to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—other hon. Members have a more distinguished pedigree of involvement with it than I have—for the drafting of the new clause. It was stimulated by an apparent change in the pattern of new drivers, the age at which people pass their driving tests and the consequences that that seems to be having for road safety.

It is clear that young people are taking the driving test later than ever before and that fewer young drivers are taking it. We can only speculate on the reasons for that. I suspect that as more and more young people go into tertiary education, the greater burden of personal debt is having an effect on the number who are prepared to take on the expense of learning to drive and, when they have acquired their licence, the cost of a car, particularly the cost of insurance. However, the proportion of young people who are involved in serious road traffic accidents is rising dramatically and during the recess the AA Motoring Trust published stark figures for the period to 2004.

There is a fundamental difference between my approach and that of the Government. Competence and ability to drive stops being assessed on the day on which someone passes their test. I suggest—this is borne out by my personal experience and no doubt that of others—that there is a period post-test when people continue to learn significantly and acquire the degree of competence at which they plateau. The new clause recognises the practicality of that. Subsection (2) of the new clause would add to section 1 of the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 a new subsection (5):

“During the course of the probationary period, the following conditions shall apply to a qualified driver—

(a) he may not drive accompanied by any person under the age of 21”.

I am delighted that I can fall back on this being a probing amendment, because I can see practical difficulties with that requirement, although it has been the experience of some states in America that such measures have been introduced quite effectively and caused a marked reduction in road deaths among young people. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will have done internet research into the matter at some stage. I will be sad and disappointed if he has not.

More importantly, there is the proposal that a probationary driver should drive only a vehicle

“fitted with a distinguishing mark determined by regulations”—

‘P’ plates, so to speak.

Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman about the business of a probationary driver not being accompanied by someone under the age of 21? I presume that the authors of the new clause had in mind the idea that a new driver is necessarily a young driver. It is possible that someone could pass the test in their mid-20s or 30s. The new clause would prohibit that person from taking their son or daughter in the car with them. Surely we would not want that.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. The reason for including the requirement was to raise the point, on which I should like to hear the Minister’s views, of the pattern of road traffic accidents that is emerging. As fewer young people are passing their driving test, the incidence of road traffic accidents involving a car with four, five or even more young people in it is becoming more pronounced. Such cases predominantly involve young people under the age of 21. We should consider that and debate it, so we needed to include it in the new clause. I can understand that there are some practical considerations, but we cannot just ignore the fact this is an emerging type of road traffic accident. We will have to address it either by these means or at a later stage.

I suspect that the person who holds the driving licence and has the car is becoming the nominated driver for the evening more often. That puts him under greater pressure from his peers to take a measure of alcohol before driving, which contributes to the incidence of accidents following the pattern that I outlined. That is why we suggest in proposed new subsection (7) that for the probationary period, the alcohol limits to be allowed would be roughly a quarter of the current level—that is, 9 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of breath, 20 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood, compared to the current level of 80 mg, and 27 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of urine. In the year or so after a person has passed a driving test, before he acquires greater competence and becomes more accustomed to using a car, the impact of alcohol and the level of impairment of his driving is more acute.

I said that the world is changing. Patterns of driving and road traffic accidents are changing and providing us with new challenges. We must start discussing them in order to keep road traffic law relevant for the circumstances on our streets and roads today.

Several hon. Members rose—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am very happy to call the hon. Member from north of Hadrian’s wall, Mrs. Rosemary McKenna.

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

I have been described in many ways, Sir Nicholas, but that is a new one.

I feel strongly about the subject and disagree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on a lot of the points that he raised. Many, many young people are involved in serious road accidents. Only last weekend, an 18-year-old girl was killed on a road beside Loch Lomond. Without making any assumptions as to the cause of that accident, it is another indication of the problem. On the same weekend, four young people travelling in one vehicle were killed in Aberdeenshire. There are serious concerns, but the new clause will not address them.

I am particularly concerned about the under 21-year-olds. My three sons were ready and able to sit their driving tests the minute that they were eligible to do so. Part of the enjoyment and pleasure of driving, which we all share, is being able to travel with our friends, and there are many responsible young people who take driving seriously, enjoy it very much, and understand that they must be extremely careful. The new clause would not address the problem at all.

To judge under 21-year-olds to be more dangerous than other groups is unfair. However, I understand that we must acknowledge that some young people get behind the wheels of extremely powerful cars without being able to control them. That is part of the problem: the power of the car. Young people learn to drive in fairly sedate driving school vehicles and are eligible immediately to get behind the wheels of powerful cars. I am extremely concerned about parents not accepting their responsibilities. Many of the accidents happen in parental vehicles. They allow their children to take their BMWs or Mercedes on to the roads without any restrictions. Even new drivers aged over 21 would not be able to control such cars. Therefore, the power of vehicles must be considered.

I agree with the assertion that there should be a distinguishing mark for probationer drivers. It would encourage other road users to have a bit more consideration and to be more aware. Saying that, I always drive as though the people round me are going to do the stupidest things possible and, therefore, I make allowances for that. However, it is something that we cannot always do, and not everyone does.

Nowadays, most young people organise driver rotas; they nominate a designated driver, so if three or four of them are out for the evening, one of them drives. I do not see any grounds on which we should permit them to have any alcohol or drugs. We should say that for the first two years, they should not have any alcohol when they are driving and, therefore, they will be much more able to control their vehicles. Saying that it is all right to drink a certain amount would be condoning young people having a drink when they are driving, which is not right. I want better training before the driving test and a system of continued review after it.

We must consider the power of the vehicles that young people are driving, parental responsibility in allowing young people to drive their cars, and continued training and monitoring for new drivers. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister’s response.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Sir Nicholas. You missed the Minister describe himself as demob happy—[Interruption.] Well, shall we say that he agreed that he was demob happy? It was probably why he maligned Conservatives as pro-European and anti-market, which is about as accurate as describing his party as socialist.

The principle behind new clause 23 is one that we support. The idea of a graduation after completion of a driving test to encourage continued and increasing competency should be supported. The idea of a graduation from provisional through probationary to full, and perhaps even to an advanced licence, would be an extremely useful approach to road safety. We have no problem with the principle behind the new clause.

The substance of the clause itself causes us a number of problems and they have been adequately described. The hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden) and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East (Rosemary McKenna) talked about the problem of age. I will not reiterate their points. The second area where we take issue is alcohol. We would need a much greater discussion about what would be appropriate. The Committee has already had some serious discussions about some and none at all. We have also debated whether it is just over or just under which is causing the problem as opposed to being a long way over.

We have discussed the problem of serial offenders. We have also talked about how the reduction in the number of police officers on our roads has made detection of drink-driving and enforcement of the law more difficult. That would render subsection (7) pretty much unenforceable. Although we would support the principle of a graduation in licence, we certainly could not support the new clause.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Again, I understand that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is trying to stimulate a debate. He acknowledges himself that there are many deficiencies in his new clause; it would create a number of anomalies. I will not go through those. I will address my brief comments to the principles involved. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East (Rosemary McKenna) that this is an important issue, but it needs to be dealt with properly.

We can all accept that there is a threshold in our lives before which being involved in activities with our peers encourages us to be more reckless. After that threshold, involvement with our peers encourages us to be less reckless. The problem with young drivers, as opposed to newly qualified drivers, is quite often they get into trouble when they are with their peers and the normal social controls that we all have over our behaviour break down. That is when people sometimes become irresponsible. However, not all young people are like that, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Many are very responsible. It would be very unfair to restrict their ability to use a motor car for increased social mobility.

Somehow we have to devise a set of arrangements that will help us address the real problem. I do not believe that the real problem is newly qualified drivers. Newly qualified drivers should learn, as we all should learn, that learning to drive is a lifelong experience. Even once we have been driving for 30 years we can still improve our driving and we should challenge ourselves to do so. Clearly, in the first years after getting a driving licence, people are on quite a steep learning curve. However, because we have such a stiff driving test and a high hurdle before people get their licence, they are already quite well up that learning curve.

Evidence is put to me that such and such a country—Australia, some states in America, for example—has had great benefits from probationary periods for new drivers, but we are not comparing apples with apples. In such countries, they may have a very easy test to get through because they have large rural communities and they want people to pass their test easily in order to increase their social mobility. Therefore, people are low on the learning curve once they pass their test and have a lot more to learn about how to drive. In some places people are allowed to get a driving licence at the age of 15 for social mobility reasons.

In this country, people have to be 17 before they can get a driving licence. They have to go through a very rigorous test. The principle that we follow here is that to get through that test a driver should already be fully qualified. It is a very different situation from that in those other countries. We have to get across the message that learning to drive is a lifelong experience and that in the first few years after passing the test people learn most rapidly.

We must provide people with tools to help further learning and encourage them to take the pass-plus test, perhaps with incentives in their insurance bills. We must ensure that the Driving Standards Agency gears up the material that it produces to help people to continue to learn how to drive and be safe on the roads. We need to explore all those avenues before we start to think of much more restrictive legislation which, frankly, would be very difficult to enforce.

Until we have clear evidence that we need such legislation, I am loth to go down that route, but I assure the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that I am aware of the issue of young, newly qualified drivers. Actually the issue is more to do with young drivers than newly qualified drivers; many of the accidents and fatalities that we read about in the papers happen to kids in their early 20s after they have already been driving for three years and are well outside their probationary period. There are serious things to be done in education and in improving training provision for drivers as they prepare for their test, but at this stage I am not convinced that probationary periods and draconian restrictions on social mobility are the right way to go.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

As I said, the issue between us was that the Government believe that significant learning stops at the point of passing one’s test and they are not prepared to take any interest thereafter. I am disappointed that, from what the Minister said, that still appears to be the case.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East—south of the Pentland firth, as I see it—said that she disagreed fundamentally with the new clause and then went on to agree violently with most of it. The point about 21-year-olds is well made, though, and I have made it clear that I shall not labour it.

A restriction on engine size might very properly be included in a probationary period, however. Allied with the display of a distinguishing mark, it would not cause any particular problems of enforcement. In fact, it would be one of the more easily enforced provisions in road traffic law—easier than those on driving without insurance or without an MOT certificate, which generally become apparent only after some other road traffic infraction.

My principal concern remains that the changing patterns of driving produce challenges of their own which will have to be addressed. I shall not force a Division today, not least because our debate may allow the House to express a view more broadly on Report. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 28

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

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

We think that there is a compelling case for the new clause. Statistics show that when pedestrians are more visible there are road safety gains. Of all road fatalities, 45 per cent. happen in darkness, and 21 per cent. of all the fatal casualties on roads in 2004 were pedestrian casualties. Some 559 pedestrians were killed or seriously injured in 2004 on footways or verges as a result of road accidents, and in the same year 147 people were killed in accidents on motorway hard shoulders. It is clear that pedestrians are vulnerable, and it would be a good thing for them to be more visible.

Approximately 40 per cent. of drivers involved in an accident with a car driver or passenger who has unexpectedly been forced to leave a car say that they did not see the victim. In 2002, 28 per cent. of accidents involving a car and a pedestrian could be attributed either to the driver looking but not seeing the pedestrian, or to the person who was hit wearing dark or inconspicuous clothing.

I shall briefly examine other countries. In 2003, 115 people were killed or seriously injured in Spain while working at the side of the road, repairing their vehicle or getting in or out of their car. To reduce that number, it is now mandatory for people getting out of a car at the road side to wear a retro-reflective vest. Similar action has been taken in Italy, Portugal, Austria and, most recently, Israel. The measure is being seriously considered in Sweden, which the Minister and I happily visited before Easter.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents advises that pedestrians wear something that will make them conspicuous, particularly in conditions of poor visibility. The US Department of Transportation has shown that reflective clothing increases the visibility of a pedestrian by a factor of five. In a study that it carried out, it found that wearing a retro-reflective vest increased the distance at which a driver could see a pedestrian by about 159 m. The evidence is compelling. There is a European standard, EN471, for the design of reflective clothing. We recommend in the new clause the use of that standard.

The total cost of road accidents in the UK in 2002 was £17.76 billion. Highly visible reflective vests complying with EN471 cost as little as a fiver, and given that the Minister thought that it was good value to spend a tenner to change from paper licences to photographic licences, I am sure that he would agree that there is merit in motorists having £5-worth of reflective vest in their car in case they have to get out at the road side.

I am always worried about the blood pressure of the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), so I will not go through all the anecdotal history showing that reflective vests would have had merit. However, it is worth quoting the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), who said last March when discussing the previous Road Safety Bill that

“anything that helps the motorist and their passengers to remain safer after an accident or when they have had to stop for whatever reason is worth considering.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1451.]

So the Government have acknowledged that there is merit in the suggestion. Our contention is that, given the investment that a driver has to make in a car—in servicing it, insuring it, fuelling it and everything else—£5 is not an exorbitant sum. There would be real merit in having a reflective vest when a car breaks down or when a passenger has to get out. They would be a lot safer and more visible to oncoming road users.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I do not want to detain the Committee for too long, but I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire. I dislike unnecessary regulation and red tape, but where issues of safety are concerned we should examine the experiences and practices of other countries to see whether they are worth following. As my hon. Friend said, the law in Spain, which I have seen in operation, is that if a person stops his vehicle and leaves it for whatever reason—from what I have seen, that is usually owing to a breakdown, a flat tyre or another mechanical problem—he must don a reflective jacket. That is a valuable aid to road safety.

I have been involved in two near misses while driving with headlamps on and someone with dark clothing has been standing in the carriageway. On one occasion it looked as though the man was admiring his vehicle rather than trying to repair it, and if he had been wearing reflective clothing I would have seen him at a much greater distance.

What assessment has the Minister or his officials made of the effectiveness of the provision in other countries? It was as a result of a speech that I made when we discussed the previous Bill that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands, said that she was willing to examine what had happened in other countries and to consider the benefits with a view to revisiting the matter. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether an assessment has been made.

The Minister referred to a box in his car and said that he had no idea what was in it and, by implication, no idea what the contents meant. At first, I thought he was referring to his red box, but he made it clear that he was referring to a black recorder box. If he cannot give us an answer today and my hon. Friends do not press the new clause to a vote, I hope that he will tell us on Report what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the provision where it has been tried.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

When I proposed that we should have photo identity licences at a cost of perhaps £5 or £10 I was accused of introducing a stealth tax, yet here we have a Conservative Front Bencher suggesting a further stealth tax. People would not have to keep just one £5 piece of equipment in their car. If they had a five-seater car, presumably they would have to keep five pieces of equipment in it. The hon. Gentleman’s stealth tax would be five times higher than the one that he accused me of introducing.

There is no legal distinction between parking at the road side and stopping at the roadside because someone has broken down, so careful consideration would have to be given to the drafting of such a provision. The hon. Gentleman’s arguments are right. A pedestrian is much safer if they can be seen. Of the 3,000-plus accidents that result in death in this country every year, a relatively small number involve people who stop their car at the road side and get out of it. A much higher number are pedestrians who are struck by cars. A logical extension of his argument is that he would like legislation to require all pedestrians to wear reflective clothing. We already make it clear that wearing reflective and light-coloured clothing is good practice for children. It is certainly good practice for adult pedestrians and for motorists who are at the road side because they have broken down. We deal with that in the highway code and in other guidance that we issue to motorists. However, it is a big leap from good practice to compulsion.

I am not prepared to accept the new clause and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman tabled it as a probing amendment. However, I am prepared to say to him and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire that we will continue to monitor experience in other countries that introduce such legislation. If clear evidence starts to emerge that it would have the beneficial effect that they believe it would have, we would look again at the need to legislate. In the meantime, we will continue to use education campaigns and the guidance that we issue to motorists to make it clear to them and to pedestrians that wearing light-coloured and reflective clothing is sensible and that motorists should include some reflective clothing in their car in case they break down. That is part of the guidance that we already issue, which is different from legislating. We shall look at any evidence that emerges and perhaps return to the matter.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am not hugely encouraged by the Minister’s response. Later on, Sir Nicholas, you and I will be driving up the motorway and whether we wave an ancient paper licence at an oncoming juggernaut if we happen to break down on the M6 or the M1, or a brand new, glossy photo licence, it will have no impact on the oncoming driver. If we get out wearing a reflective coat it will have an impact. The Minister should not muddle up the two.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell me how many reflective coats he has in his car. As he is so convinced by this argument, presumably he is doing it voluntarily.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

That is a perfectly good and fair point. I have not purchased one yet, but I am hoping that the price will come down. The statistics came from the Minister’s Department. I said that 559 pedestrians were killed or seriously injured in 2004. That is from table 31 of the Department for Transport’s report “Road Casualties Great Britain 2004”, published in September 2005. The other figure of 147 people killed in accidents on the hard shoulder of motorways comes from the Minister’s written answer on 16 October 2005.

We do not support extra cost or extra regulation, but we support regulations that ensure that motorists have tyres with a certain tread depth. That costs motorists quite a lot of money. If a car’s tracking goes wrong, one has to throw away quite an expensive tyre much earlier. We support such regulation. For £5, this is not a huge investment. It is compulsory to have triangles in the back of the car in case of a breakdown. I am partly encouraged by one or two of the Minister’s comments which I will analyse carefully when Hansard is printed. On that basis, we will not push the new clause to a vote. We will hold back our thoughts until Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 29

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

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

The issue is whether a blanket ban on people who suffer from diabetes from driving a certain class of vehicle makes our roads safer. We contest that it does not. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that the ban on people who suffer from diabetes and have insulin treatment from driving group 2 vehicles makes our roads any safer. Current regulations stipulate that they are not allowed to apply for a group 2 licence which is needed to drive vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes or, indeed, most passenger service vehicles. This is a blanket ban. It would seem to us that the appropriate way forward is to have fair assessments, which would be done individually, and to end this discriminatory law.

The evidence comes from the body of scientific research dating back over the past six years. The first comes from “Diabetes and driving: towards equitable, evidence-based decision-making by MacLeod, K. M. (1999)”. It states:

“available evidence suggests that increasing the driving restrictions imposed on all insulin-treated diabetic drivers is unlikely to result in a significant improvement in road-safety”.

The study “Insulin-treated diabetes and driving in the UK by Gill, G., Durston, J., Johnston, R., MacLeod, K. & Watkins, P. (2002)” states:

“Over the last decade, however, it has become increasingly clear that such arbitrary restrictions may be unfair and even potentially discriminatory... there is no convincing evidence that diabetic drivers on insulin treatment as a group are more likely to have traffic accidents than their non-diabetic counterparts.”

Most recently, last year a study by Mills et al reported:

“Research into road traffic accidents and diabetes found no significant difference in the rate of collisions between people with diabetes and people that do not have the condition.”

It has been a feature of international driving regulations that people who were insulin-treated for diabetes had to suffer the blanket ban. However, over the past few years, including last year in the United States, that blanket ban has been repealed in favour of individual assessments. The Minister will know that in the House of Representatives in the United States, the Secretary of State for Transport’s honorary advisory panel commented:

“relating to persons with diabetes, to allow individuals who use insulin to treat their diabetes to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. The revised final rule shall provide for the individual assessment of applicants”

and not for a blanket ban.

It is our contention, therefore, that the scientific evidence provides no conclusive reason for the maintenance of the blanket ban and that we should move to a system of individual assessment. The new clause would put that into effect.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

It always amuses me to watch steam coming out of the ears of the Conservative Members when I tell them that things are banned by the European Union, so I am going to enjoy myself again. The new clause would be illegal under European law, and before the hon. Gentleman gets all huffy about that—his right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire has popped out for a moment and is, therefore, spared this—it was a European law to which his Government before 1997 agreed.

The simple fact is that there is a risk of people with diabetes controlled by insulin going into diabetic shock. Therefore, it is felt that they should not be in control of vehicles over a serious weight. The matter is being considered, however, by a medical panel of the European Union, with the view to seeing whether a rational way of determining those who have good control of their diabetes and, therefore, are not a risk can be established. In the UK, we will be informed by that work and will contribute our views to those discussions.

Having encouraged the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause on the grounds that we could not possibly accept it, I hope he will at least accept that we understand the point that he is trying to make. There may be people who have well controlled diabetes who are being treated unfairly by not being allowed to drive, and if we can do it safely, we would want, at some point in the future, to come to a conclusion whereby we can allow them to have driving licences for those types of vehicles. However, that will only happen when we can absolutely and fairly determine who those individuals are, that it would be safe for them to have such a licence, and we can agree those measures with the whole of the European Union, which thanks to the previous Conservative Government has competency on the issue.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Despite the Minister’s initial remarks, I was pleased to note that he must have listened to some of what I have said. A lot of the scientific evidence that I quoted made the point that there had been movement in the past decade in gaining knowledge, and, therefore, anything that happened before 1997 was a decade prior. My point was that there has been movement in the scientific evidence, which no longer suggests that a blanket ban is necessary.

Rather like retroflective strips on lorries, I look forward to the European Union coming to an occasional sensible decision. Also, I look forward to the medical panel producing a conclusion in line with many other parts of the world, that an individual assessment would be acceptable. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 31

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

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

The new clause addresses a problem that hauliers brought to my attention. It may seem obscure—not many people know about it—but it kills approximately seven people a year. It happens when a driver hitches the tractor unit of a semi-articulated trailer to a stationary trailer, often in a yard.

When the airbrakes have no air, they are applied. Therefore, a parked trailer in the yard will be safe and secure with the brakes on, because there is no air coming through. When the tractor unit is reversed up, the driver will sense a big clunk as the big, greasy black disc—the fifth wheel—connects to the coupling on the trailer. What should happen then is that the driver applies the handbrake so that the whole unit of tractor and trailer is connected. Sadly, that often does not happen. Instead, with the trailer airbrakes still not connected, and because the driver feels that the unit is stable, he jumps across the catwalk and connects the suzie hoses that introduce air to the air brakes. Immediately, the air brakes come off. At that point, because the handbrake is not applied and the air takes the trailer brakes off, the whole unit begins to move. For self-preservation the driver should sit tight, but all too often he jumps down, frantically scrambling for the cab to try to apply the handbrake in the vehicle. Alternatively, the whole unit runs backwards and crushes someone else in the goods yard.

It seems extraordinary that that happens and yet is not a matter of huge public contention, because I am told that up to seven people a year are killed in that way. The solution that we propose is terribly simple. The proposal is to fit an alarm to every heavy goods vehicle so that when the driver jumps down from the cab without the brakes on, an alarm goes off—a simple, common-sense solution.

I am all for reducing costs to hauliers, but retrofitting a kit for £100 on a rig that may cost £100,000 is not unbearable. DAF, Mercedes-Benz and Scania are now fitting such devices as standard, and the new clause has real merit because it would save lives. The problem is an ongoing one that has had very little public attention, and I hope that the Minister has listened carefully and will take action.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the issue to my attention, because it was not one of which I was aware. When I first read the new clause I could not quite see his point; I thought that he was seeking an audible warning if a driver leapt out of the cab when driving along the motorway. Further investigation has led me to conclude that there is a problem.

The problem can be resolved voluntarily. The hauliers who have gone to him can solve it in a number of ways: either by retrofitting the equipment in their vehicles, or by issuing instructions to their staff to follow a certain protocol, such that when hitching a trailer or working around a vehicle the staff should personally check to see that the parking brake is applied. Both measures would provide a resolution.

As the hon. Gentleman said, I understand that the devices are fitted as standard to some vehicles, and perhaps we need to encourage that for all new vehicles. However, the sort of regulation that he suggests cannot be introduced unilaterally in the United Kingdom; it would have to be a matter for European-type approval. We need to work with the Commission and with European colleagues to make them realise the benefits of including the provision in future changes to regulations. I am certainly prepared to raise it with them and to put it on the agenda if it is not already there.

With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am pleased that we have brought some new information to the Minister’s attention and that he understands the problem. Given that the competence is a European one, and given his assurance that he will raise the matter at European level to see whether it can be pushed through, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 32

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

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

I repeat that Conservative Members do not like extra regulation. I often say that I came into politics to see fewer politicians, less regulation, less government and less taxation. However, there are some areas of activity that increase rapidly and the Government must keep up with that. One is the phenomenon of the growth of stretched limousines. It is estimated that in 2003 there were only 3,000, but there are now more than 11,000 and their number is increasing by 50 per cent. a year. What is worrying is that almost all of them are not built as stretched limousines but are standard cars that have been chopped in half and stretched.

Under current law, stretched limousines should carry only up to eight passengers no matter how large they are. That is the legal maximum number of passengers that can be carried by hired vehicles, but some carry as many as 28 passengers. Advertisements often say that they can carry 16 to 18 passengers and increasingly they carry a large number of children or ladies going to hen parties—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh—perhaps they are becoming demob happy—but 28 people in a 40 ft limousine weigh up to 6.5 tonnes. The brakes, steering, suspension and tyres are inadequate for such substantial weights and the inspection regimes are not being respected. Such vehicles probably burn out their brakes within 6,000 or 7,000 miles and should probably be inspected every 10 weeks or so, but they are not.

Stretched limousines represent a booming sector of the economy and we are all in favour of growth, but if the legal limit on the number of passengers in a hired vehicle is eight, there is a major safety problem.

Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)

The hon. Gentleman listed some of the dangers of those vehicles. Does he accept that another danger is that if there were a crash or even worse a fire, it would be difficult to get a large number of people out of the vehicle quickly?

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The hon. Gentleman is spot-on and I was about to mention that it would be impossible to get 28 people out of one of those vehicles quickly. Touch wood, there has not yet been a major incident, but the increase in their number and the fact that they are almost all converted from standard cars means that they are a nightmare waiting to happen.

A couple of good points have been made to me. The staff of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency usually work from Monday until 5 o’clock on Friday and are not on the streets in the evenings and at weekends when most of the limousines are operating. The legal limit at the moment is up to eight passengers and the new clause would introduce a simple regime with a category of limousine that can carry up to 16 passengers.

I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the new clause—this growth area has popped up very recently. It should not be suppressed—we are all in favour of the market and an expanding economy—but it is reasonable to bring these vehicles within sensible regulation. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East was spot-on when he said that getting people out of stretched limousines in case of a fire must be one of the biggest worries.

The matter is attracting a little press attention, and I should like to end the Committee on an interesting note, which is wholly irrelevant but shows how big the vehicles can be. I have no idea what size of vehicle you intend to drive back to Macclesfield, Sir Nicholas, but you might consider matching the largest vehicle, as recorded in “Guinness World Records,” which is a 100 ft, 26-wheeler that has a swimming pool, a helipad and a putting green. That shows the potential growth in such vehicles.

I hope that the Minister will examine our seriously considered new clause, because this area needs the Government’s attention before a horrible accident happens.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The hon. Gentleman is giving me ideas.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Given the hon. Gentleman’s comments about your testosterone levels, Sir Nicholas, there is another Member of the House, who is not in Committee, who may be interested in your getting ideas about driving back to Macclesfield in a stretch limousine with 28 women on a hen party.

This is an important issue, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. I must tell him that I have had representations on both sides of the argument in recent weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) brought to my attention the case of a limousine operator in her constituency who was taking the opposite view: that the regulations need to be changed to allow people to get a licence for operating stretched limousines with large numbers of people in them.

There are clearly issues to be resolved, but I shall explain to the Committee my understanding of how the law works. If the vehicle is going to carry up to eight passengers, it can be licensed by the local authority as a taxi or as a private hire vehicle. If it is the latter, if can be used only for pre-bookings. If it is a taxi then it can be used to ply for trade in the same way as other taxis. That is a matter of local authority competence.

If an operator wishes their vehicles to be operated with more than eight passengers, they have to get them licensed as public service vehicles. To do so, they first have to get a type approval indicating that the vehicles are safe for carrying more than eight passengers. Very few stretch limousines have that certification, and they are therefore not legally usable for carrying more than eight passengers. Some can be designed to be safe enough, and some can be retrofitted for the purpose, but the standard stretch limousine that we see around the country—my daughter and some of her friends used one to take them away from primary school when they left last year—is not considered safe for more than eight people. If they are licensed at all, it should be only as a private hire vehicle or a taxi.

Many people have imported such cars in the hope of using them for more than eight passengers, but to do so they have had to sign a piece of paper to say that they understand and will stay within the law and the limitations on use of the vehicle. If they do not do so, they cannot plead ignorance, because they signed that piece of paper when they imported the vehicle. It is then a matter for the police to enforce the law.

The issues to consider are, first, that the police are not enforcing the legislation properly and, secondly, that some local authorities allow licences to be granted for limousines as private hire vehicles while others say that they are not safe at all. That is forcing some operators to operate without any sort of licence in those local authority areas. How will we deal with that, as it is a matter of local authority discretion? We have been consulting, and we shall shortly publish guidance on how local authorities should make decisions about which vehicles can and cannot be licensed. I hope that it will provide local authorities with much greater clarity about what they should and should not license, and how they should deal with those issues. I hope that those assurances will encourage the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Some of those vehicles cost about £100,000, so carrying eight passengers is simply not viable. Properly maintained and looked after, they are safe with up to 16 or 18 people. We propose a regime in which they will be allowed to run with 16 or 18 people. If we just say—blanket—that they can have only eight, they will not be viable, and I am afraid that many people will carry on illegally. We are trying to create a legal framework, so that if the vehicle is maintained, they can get a return on their £100,000 by carrying 16 to 18 passengers in safety.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

There is a legal framework already. If the vehicles are safe, and a person can obtain a certificate to that effect, they can register them as public service vehicles. In that case, they can operate them with more than eight people. The reason why they cannot operate them is that they cannot get the certificate, and that is because the vehicles are not safe to operate in that mode. The existing legislative arrangements, with improved guidance, might be the way of resolving the problem.

Since this might be my last opportunity to address the Committee, Sir Nicholas, would this be an appropriate time to say one or two thank yous?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

May I suggest that we leave them for a bit? We have a little more business to conduct. I would certainly seek to call you on a point of order, however, which I suggest you raise.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. In that case, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The Minister’s explanation was most helpful. We shall consult further, and possibly return to the provision on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Schedule 1

Cases to which regulations may apply

Immobilisation

Offences connected with immobilisation etc.

Removal and disposal of vehicles

Offences as to securing possession of vehicles

Disputes

Authorised persons

Application of Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)

Interpretation

Supplementary provisions about regulations

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Sir Nicholas, I offer my thanks to you and Mrs. Anderson for the skilful and patient way in which you have steered us through this Committee. It has been a testosterone-packed performance from yourself, Sir Nicholas, and, according to the hon. Member for North Shropshire, from Mrs. Anderson, too.

The Committee has been very enjoyable. That has been made possible by all members of the Committee from all parties. We have had an enjoyable exchange of views. I have very much enjoyed the comments from all parties, the support of my hon. Friends and the constructive criticism of Opposition Members. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has valiantly stood up for those who have vintage Bentleys and other very nice cars, and other Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers have sought to put their views skilfully and constructively.

I thank also the Clerks and Hansard for all their work, my officials for all the support that they have given me, and my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush (Mr. Slaughter), for the support that he has offered me. I have very much enjoyed the experience.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I gather that there will be a Division shortly. If the concluding ceremonies, which I always enjoy, are kept brief, we will conclude in time for Members to go downstairs to vote.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I am delighted to see that whatever is coursing through your veins, Sir Nicholas, is still working. I will be brief and robust.

Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for the manner in which you chaired the Committee. I would be grateful if you could pass on the Opposition’s thanks to Mrs. Anderson as well. I thank the Minister for the way in which he answered most of our questions. We have further work to do on Report and look forward to revisiting some of the issues and perhaps making further progress.

I thank my own team for their backing and hard work over recent weeks. I particularly want to thank the Clerks who were presented with a kaleidoscopic variety of ideas that we picked up in the course of the Bill’s progress. I thank them for the manner in which they interpreted them and turned them into workable new clauses and amendments.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) and myself may I echo the points made about your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas, and that of Mrs. Anderson? I also thank the Clerks, the officials who have supported us and the Hansard staff. I agree with the hon. Member for North Shropshire and the Minister that the Committee has been exceptionally good natured. I am delighted that we managed to cover all our business with some 54 minutes to spare. It is a good advert for self-regulation.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

From the Chair, I thank those who have spoken for their generous comments about me and my co-Chairman, Janet Anderson. It has been a pleasure to chair this Committee. I congratulate all those involved on the constructive and orderly way in which the Bill has been debated. I, too, thank the police, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for their contribution to our orderly proceedings. Picking up the remark of the hon. Gentleman, it shows that with constructive programming, where genuine consultation has taken place, there can be full debate on all important matters. I can only congratulate all involved. It has been a pleasure and I will pass on your good wishes to Mrs. Anderson.

Finally, I thank the Clerk, who is so essential and who, on a couple of occasions, pulled me back when I was rushing forward in an aggressive, testosterone-charged way. I am grateful to the Clerk’s Department for the support it gives not only to the Committee, but to the Chairman.