---

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

Perhaps not surprisingly, I rise to support many of the measures in the Bill, as well as the Government’s objectives of reducing deaths and serious injuries on the road by 40 per cent. by 2010, and by 50 per cent. among children. Good progress has been made on this issue, which we welcome, but as the Secretary of State said, nine people still die every day on our roads, and we need to ensure that the issue is given necessary priority. I tabled some parliamentary questions today to see how many people are working on road safety in comparison with rail or aviation safety, to find out how many resources are put into these different areas and whether we are giving the right priority to this important issue. There are some areas in which progress is not as speedy as in others. On teenagers, for instance, and particularly cyclists and pedestrians in the 12 to 15-year-old group, there are clearly problems. I welcome the fact that some specific advertising campaigns are being run to try to address that group. As hon. Members will know, accident statistics for motor cyclists have risen since 1997. More focus is needed on that area, as well as on deaths involving drink-driving, which have increased by 2 per cent. since 2002. Progress is being made, but there are areas in which we are slipping back or on which more focus is needed. The Government cannot take action soon enough on hand-held mobile phones. I am sure that all hon. Members will have witnessed improper use, whether by a lorry driver who uses his mobile phone while negotiating a narrow road or by someone driving a car with their phone jammed to their ear by their shoulder, while they steer with their free hand if we are lucky, or with their knees if we are unlucky. The message that using a hand-held mobile phone is dangerous—more dangerous, in fact, than drink-driving—has not got through. I hope that the measures before us will ensure that that message hits home. The Bill must also focus on speed, on which there is some agreement between the parties, but also some disagreement. I was interested that the official Opposition spokesman was unable to say whether the Conservative party would call for the speed limit to be increased to 80 mph. We have on record, however, the fact that in June 2005, the Conservative spokesman in the House of Lords clearly called for an 80 mph limit to be considered. We will await with interest the Conservative transport policy, which I have been told will be launched by the end of this year, and in which we will perhaps see the detail of the policy. If the proposal is to increase the speed limit to 80 mph, I shall be interested to see how the environmental aspects will be addressed. The Secretary of State has explained the reasons why he thinks that it is appropriate for a reduced number of points to be available to people who exceed the speed limit by only a ““relatively”” small amount. I am very worried about the message that that sends out. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that there was a need for consistency in Government policy. I am not convinced that saying to people, ““Well, if you exceed the speed limit by only a small amount, the number of points that you get will be lower than those given to someone who exceeds it by a greater amount”” is a consistent message. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that pedestrians or cyclists who are hit by drivers travelling at 35 mph as opposed to 30 mph are twice as likely to be killed. Sending out any message suggesting that people can get away with breaking the limit by a small amount and that that is not a problem will be a matter of significant concern.