Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I apologise in advance for speaking for much longer and in much more detail than I had originally intended. I was interested to hear the opening remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow. I have never driven with any alcohol in my body, as I am teetotal; I have never driven a car with a known defect; I have worn a seatbelt since the very early 1960s; and I regularly exceed the speed limit, usually in a marked or unmarked police traffic vehicle. The debate about the means both to manage speed and to enforce speed compliance remains heated but I make the generalised observation that very few people have been killed or seriously injured by a stationary vehicle—speed kills. With the creation of 20 mph zones, we will be required to consider for the first time controlling the speed of cyclists. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety has drawn my attention to the third report of SARTRE (Social Attitudes to Road Traffic Risk in Europe)(2004), which makes very interesting reading. The report is a survey of opinions of representative samples of 1,000 drivers in each of 23 countries across Europe. The results of the national surveys are shown both separately and as a comparison with the European average. The survey was undertaken between September 2002 and April 2003, and the figures offer a reliable indication of drivers’ attitudes across Europe. In a number of countries, they can be compared with the previous two SARTRE studies. The key conclusions on the views of UK drivers about speed were: 87 per cent see driving too fast as a cause of accidents; 68 per cent support the fitment of speed limiters; 75 per cent support the fitment of black-box recorders to help investigate accidents; 38 per cent have an expectation of being monitored for speed; and 78 per cent support the use of cameras for speed enforcement. In all those cases, UK support for measures is higher than the European average. It is also interesting to note that, when asked, ““Have you been caught for speeding in the past three years?””, only 9 per cent of UK drivers answered in the affirmative. Of course, it is an affront to our dignity actually to admit to committing a criminal offence. This was lower than the European average, suggesting that,   despite the criticism of enforcement in the media,   UK drivers are more likely to obey the law than their counterparts in the rest of Europe. Another interpretation could be that there are more drivers who exceed the limits but who have not been caught—yet. Perhaps that would be a good argument for random, high-visibility, mobile enforcement to complement or enhance fixed-site intervention. The long-term trend, indicated by the three studies, is that support for lower speed limits in urban areas and for the fitment of speed limiters has grown. Limiters are now required to be fitted to all new goods and passenger vehicles over 3,500 kilos. The Government must build on those studies, which conclude that there is considerable support for road-safety measures among drivers. PACTS has also drawn my attention to the three-year evaluation of the national safety camera programme—PA Consulting, 2004—which concluded that there was a 40 per cent reduction in those killed and seriously injured at camera sites. As an aside, is there evidence to show that casualty hotspots have been displaced? I do not know. The programme also showed a 33 per cent reduction in personal injury collisions and a 71 per cent reduction in breaking the speed limit at fixed sites. The result of that was a decrease of 100 in fatalities per annum and of 870 KSI. That equated to a positive cost-benefit ratio of around 4:1, with benefits of avoided injuries in excess of £221 million compared with enforcement costs of about £54 million. Pilkington, in 2005, has attempted to produce a systematic review of the effectiveness of safety cameras. The conclusions of his study, which looked at 14   observational studies of cameras around the world, was that cameras were an effective intervention to reduce road casualties. Collisions fell by between 5 per cent and 69 per cent, injuries were reduced by between 12 per cent and 65 per cent, and fatalities were cut by between 17   per cent and 71 per cent. Some will question the wide differential between the figures but it must be remembered that it covers camera sites around the world. The authors of the study make the important observation that all reviews showed reductions in accidents and injuries, thereby confirming the effectiveness of cameras. But were the authors given the opportunity to compare that to the effectiveness of random high-visibility enforcement? The third independent study to confirm the effectiveness of cameras has been undertaken by the university academics Mountain, Hirst and Maher. It concluded that speed cameras had reduced accidents by an average of 22 per cent, with a fall of 11 per cent in fatal and serious accidents and a mean reduction of 4 mph at cameras. The other area of concern in camera policy has been the apparent link between the increase in reliance on the use of cameras and the fall in the number of police. Critics of cameras have suggested that the growth in cameras has resulted in fewer traffic police officers undertaking less enforcement. However, the figures do not appear to bear out such a conclusion. In each year from 1997 to 2003, the number of drivers caught speeding by camera has increased. For the same period, the figure for drivers caught speeding by police officers fell to a low in 2001 but has been increasing markedly since. It is interesting to note that the increase in those caught by police officers between 2002 and 2003 of 43 per cent is comparable with the figure for those caught by camera—44 per cent in camera activity for the same period. It is also worthy of note that there has been a steady increase in the number of deaths on the motorway network as the number of dedicated police traffic officers has been reduced between 1994 and 2003. Where does that get us? The combination of driver attitude to speed and enforcement may explain the growing compliance with the 30 miles per hour limit identified by the DfT. Regular advertising and consistent enforcement at last appears to be reaping results and is, of course, changing behaviour in urban areas where vulnerable road users are most at risk. Being somewhat specific, I am led to believe that the roads policing section of the Police Federation of England and Wales has concerns on certain areas of the Bill. Before I go further, I remind noble Lords of my hands-on association with roads policing and of the advanced police driving qualifications that I have obtained over the years. Clause 1 refers to road safety grants yet, although the intention is to be supported, there is insufficient detail or clarity in the clause to ensure appropriate regulation or control of where the funds will be targeted. It appears that the new clause replaces Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Clause 4 refers to vehicle examiners giving out fixed-penalty tickets. Although it is understandable that VOSA wants its officers to issue tickets for roadside offences, it means that the Bill will create two separate enforcement agencies—chief constables, and the Secretary of State working on behalf of the vehicle examiners. They may not necessarily be working together using the same criteria for the likes of enforcement and cautions. With separate ways of consolidating a fixed penalty fine, it is unclear how that will work in practice. Furthermore, the proposal does little to show how any follow-up inquiries over non-payment or other related offences might be pursued by vehicle examiners. There is much more—I repeat ““much more””—to enforcement than simply issuing fixed-penalty fines. Clause 10 deals with some of the inherent problems that police officers face on a daily basis with regard to the current inability effectively to police foreign or itinerant drivers who commit offences on our roads. At the moment, Section 25 of PACE has to be used but, because of the difficulties in using that section and the very time-consuming procedures involved, it is used only in extreme cases. The initiative to have a careful look at how we can best overcome those problems is to be supported. Provision contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act may go some way to overcome that problem, but the Act still omits one very important provision. An offender driver can now have his photograph taken if issued with a fixed penalty notice for not wearing a seat belt, but a photograph cannot be taken for the offence of bad driving. The logic escapes me completely. However, the Bill proposes in simple terms that a constable or a vehicle examiner can impose a fine against such a driver. That seems fine in theory but, in practice, are police officers expected to carry swipe-card and debit-card machines in their vehicles in addition to all their equipment and paperwork? Where people cannot produce a suitable card, are officers to take errant motorists to the nearest cash machine to withdraw money? It is well known that that happens elsewhere, but will it work here? I do not know. The clause proposes that, in certain circumstances, the officer may seize the vehicle or prohibit further use of it. The logic of the clause is commendable, but very careful thinking is needed on the practicalities of how it is likely to work, as it might well create more problems than it is intended to solve. I do not intend to repeat what I said in my brief contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech, except to ask my noble friend when Her Majesty’s Government will reduce the drink-drive limit. On a news item last week, a professor said that any alcohol impaired driving ability. That is well known, so when is the limit to be reduced? When will breath tests for drivers stopped by the police or involved in collisions be recommended at all times? The constabulary which carries out almost 10 times fewer breath tests than some other forces also has one of the worst accident rates in the country. Is there a connection between the two facts? I wonder. Clause 13 is about alcohol-operated ignition locks, of which we heard from others. There has to be guarded support for the idea, but more research needs to be done. What is the integrity of the system in operation and what is the impact on the criminal justice system? Can it be foolproof? Can only the driver operate the system or can a passenger lean over and blow into the lock? Will it be accurate? Clause 15 refers to a variable tier for fixed penalties. Once more, I have no intention to repeat what I said in the debate on the gracious Speech other than to say that, although there is scope to offer a lower penalty-point system for marginal excess speeding—there is not at the moment—that should not include areas limited to 30 miles an hour or lower. Indeed, the penalty should be increased to reflect the inherent danger posed in those limited areas. Clause 17 gains support for certain exemption from speed limits provided that the driver is trained and qualified to the highest standard, and that the maintenance of the vehicles is of the highest and most rigorous standard. I support that. Clause 18 is fully supported, but the new consultation on driving penalties for causing death by driving without due care might well lead to some problems in practice. Nobody is going to plead guilty where death is involved, which means going to the Crown Court. Will juries convict? I very much doubt it on the basis of the ““there but for the grace of God go I”” argument. To be truly effective, the clause should include a custodial sentence on summary conviction. That would lessen the gap between magistrates and Crown Courts and give a clear indication that the Government intended to deal with the issue in an appropriate manner. Clause 20 refers to using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. Has sufficient thought been given to the clause? What can a ““vehicle in a dangerous condition”” encompass? It might be a jagged edge on the front wing of a car driven by an otherwise law-abiding motorist who requires the vehicle for work, and thereby commits a minor offence on the scale. It might be a major or serious defect of a goods or passenger-carrying vehicle, given the nature of the danger likely to be caused and the actual use of the vehicle. Therefore, should not certain discretion be allowed, with optional not mandatory disqualification for the second offence within three years? In Clause 24, a period of disqualification can be reduced by attending a driver rehabilitation course. My only comment is that, where the very serious offence is of causing death by driving without due care and attention while under the influence of drink or drugs, the period of disqualification should not be reduced. Further, that driver should have to prove that   they have taken a DSA driving course—not a rehabilitation course—in order to regain their driving licence. Perhaps the driver should take both courses. A report published a few weeks ago by the DfT found that there was a cost benefit in fitting reflective line markings to newly registered vehicles of more than 7.5   tonnes. That has been mentioned by other noble Lords. It is sensible for seeing larger vehicles on the roads, but why only vehicles of more than 7.5 tonnes? Why should the measure not be extended to all cars and all vehicles? Any vehicle stopped without any lighting—it might be on a major road such as a motorway or dual carriageway—will cause tremendous problems if it cannot be seen and will cause other accidents. This might be a good solution. I noted from my reading of the Bill published before the election that it included a provision on the enforcement of drivers’ hours, which appears to have been omitted from the Bill before us. I hope that we will be able to correct that omission. I have already said much more than I intended, and I apologise to some worthy organisations that provided me with detailed briefings that I have been unable to address today.