Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to speak from these Benches on this important and timely Bill. First, let me state that any measures to reduce both danger and casualties on our roads are to be welcomed. We all share the same objective of improving road safety, and relatively small differences exist in relation to the means of achieving that objective. Regrettably, the need for such legislation is all too apparent. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves, as the Minister said, of the true scale of the problem facing us on British roads. The fact remains that there are still 10 deaths each day on our roads. The Department for Transport’s own figures show that 3,508 people were killed on Britain’s roads in 2003; that is 2 per cent more than in 2002. The number of people seriously injured was 33,707; while total casualties for 2003 amounted to an alarming 290,607. Provisional estimates also indicate that the number of deaths in accidents involving drink driving was 2 per cent higher than in 2002. The Minister commented particularly on that. Of course, we cannot put a figure on the trauma, distress and difficulties that such a loss or serious injury causes families and others. Were that the situation for any other mode of transport, there would be a public scandal. We can certainly do much to tackle those appalling figures. A number of measures can and should be introduced, including many that are in the Bill. However, as I shall explain, there are some serious omissions. We are happy to give the Bill our support on Second Reading, and we will give it a general and broad support in Committee. I hope that some of our suggestions might be taken on board at that stage. We can support a number of measures in the Bill, including the proposal to increase maximum penalties for various road traffic offences and the introduction of   a graduated fixed penalty scheme for various roadworthiness and other offences that will match the punishment to the severity of the offence. On this issue, the Government have adopted Conservative Party policy, which is to be welcomed. The range of penalty points that can be imposed for speeding offences is a good idea, and I am glad that the Government have seen the light. In fact, I would have two points instead of six had the scheme been brought in earlier. I declare an interest there. We also support the new measures designed to improve the enforcement of existing road traffic legislation. The Bill gives police the power to detect uninsured driving through the use of automatic number plate-reading technology and confers new enforcement powers on vehicle examiners. Again, we support any attempt to crack down on the menace that is uninsured drivers. We are happy to see driving tests made more flexible, with new powers to deal with impostors taking other people’s driving tests. After our discussion at Question Time this afternoon, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that driving tests were important. It will be interesting to hear whether he has any further thoughts about how to improve the quality and standard of driving tests. Provision is to be made to prevent foreign drivers escaping punishment in the UK by requiring them to pay a deposit where an offence is committed, which is welcome. Therefore, as I have tried briefly to outline, we are happy to lend our support to a range of proposals. My noble friends on these Benches will highlight and discuss specific measures in a little more detail during the course of the debate. However, there are other points that could have been included in this Bill. The opportunity to pass primary legislation on road safety is rare. Current trends of rising traffic levels, casualties and significant intimidation from speeding traffic means that the title of the Government’s road safety strategy—Tomorrow’s roads: safer for everyone—regrettably rings hollow for many. In short, we have before us today something of a missed opportunity. Where, for instance, is the requirement on the relevant authorities, the Highways Agency and others, to assess what steps could be taken to reduce accident rates on roads classified as high-risk, marked in black on the AA EuroRAP map? Where, for instance, are greater powers for the police to give evidence against drug drivers? We have legislation for drink but nothing particularly for drugs. Where, for instance, are the measures to cut speeding and accidents on country roads and lanes? Can we have a more sensible and practical approach to the rather vexed issue of speed cameras? There seem to be different regulations in use around the country. Indeed, while the Government are introducing a more flexible approach to penalties for speeding, many motorists would still be unduly and harshly penalised by the broad-brush approach to speed cameras at the expense of experienced road traffic professionals. We have concerns regarding the safety camera partnerships, about their role and how they are funded. If the speed cameras were operated by traffic police, it is more likely that they would be situated where they could genuinely prevent accidents. It would also mean that a higher proportion of the money paid in fines could be used by the traffic police to promote road safety. On a related issue, the Bill effectively outlaws devices that detect the presence of equipment used to assess the speed of motor vehicles and other devices that jam that equipment. I draw a distinction between those two types of device, and I have no objection to the proposed measures against the devices that jam. However, devices that detect the presence of speed equipment belong to a different category. If the Government believe their claims that speed cameras are sited so that they slow down traffic in places where accidents are likely to occur, it is clearly helpful for drivers to have advance warning of them, as they will then approach the high-risk sections of road at a moderate speed. The only reason to outlaw detection devices is that the number of drivers who might get caught for speeding would be reduced, with the result that the revenue generated by speed cameras would be reduced. I have no doubt that we shall return to the issue of speed cameras in Committee, but I would be grateful if perhaps the Minister could comment on whether the Government have thought again on this issue; from the contents of this Bill I wonder if they have. Given the good safety record of many motorways and trunk roads, with fewer accidents on motorways, it is surely time to consider raising the upper limit to 80 mph in certain places. Indeed, we on these Benches believe that the speed limit can safely be raised on motorways, but in other areas such as roads near schools, hospitals and parks, the maximum should be lowered to 20 mph, particularly when children are about. The limit on motorways was set decades ago when cars were less safe than they now are and when roads were less well designed. Motorways are our safest roads; road design and car design have improved over the decades since the 70 mph limit was first introduced. Research from Europe shows that where the speed limit on such roads is higher there is no corresponding increase in the accident rate. It is time that the Government moved into the 21st century and understood the realities of modern motorway driving. Again, I would be pleased to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that. There is no logical reason why the provisions of Clause 21 on the use of hand-held mobile phones should not apply to cyclists as well as to motorists. Will the Minister comment on that? Furthermore, where is the proposal championed by the British Red Cross to include first aid as part of the practical driving test? That relates to my comments that we should perhaps rethink the driving test. Some 57 per cent of deaths caused by road accidents happen in the first few minutes after a crash, before the emergency services arrive. The Red Cross believes that up to 85 per cent of those could be prevented if first aid were administered immediately. Incorporating basic first aid training as part of the driving test is a sensible step forward that would add little burden or cost to the test and add considerably to safety. I hope that the Minister can give us some positive news on that measure, as I give notice today of our intention to bring forward amendments in Committee on this issue. Equally, there is much merit in the proposal for car occupants to wear retro-reflective jackets when they leave their cars at the roadside—for example, in the event of a breakdown or accident. We often hear of people killed as they get out of their cars when they break down. Similar measures have already been implemented in Italy, Spain, Austria and Portugal. When this issue was discussed in another place, the Minister said that the Government would consider such a scheme. Again, I hope that the noble Lord can provide us with some better news on the Government’s current thinking on this issue. There are a number of other areas where we believe that we could improve the Bill to take account of modern road conditions and behaviour. Increasing speed limits from 40 mph to 50 mph for heavy goods vehicles on single carriageway roads would cut congestion and the temptation for motorists to risk a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre. Motorcycles should be allowed to use bus lanes. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that local authorities could take their own initiatives. As noble Lords will know, I am Leader of Essex County Council. The particular problem in Essex is people over 40 returning to the use of motorcycles. They have suddenly prospered in their later years but think that they are still 20. Many men are buying fast motorcycles, they do not have the reflexes that they had when they were 20 and the heaviest death toll in Essex is now among men over 40 on motorcycles. We are now taking certain measures, including courses, to try to encourage safety in that area. No doubt we shall talk about that during the course of the Bill. Penalties for causing death by dangerous driving and for driving while under the influence of illegal drugs need to be strengthened. We also believe that we need more police enforcement of our road traffic laws. Road traffic law enforcement is not included in the core responsibilities of chief constables—that issue was recently investigated by the Select Committee. We are also concerned over the decline in the number of dedicated traffic police. Figures obtained from the Government earlier this year showed a drop of nearly 3,000 traffic officers since 1997—a quarter of the total. Regrettably, we are seeing more and more technology, notably speed cameras, take the place of dedicated traffic police. If the Government are properly to bring in new road safety legislation, it can be enforced effectively only if there are sufficient traffic police, and the dramatic decline in their numbers should not continue. The Bill can be improved and we shall seek those improvements in Committee. The Bill falls short of being a comprehensive strategy. We support the endeavours behind the Bill and we shall do all that we can, in co-operation with the Government and other parties, to adopt a pragmatic, commonsense approach to these important issues—to restore a downward trend in the number of people killed and injured on our roads.