---

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman looks back at Hansard he will see that I have clearly set out a number of Liberal Democrat positions on the Bill. He will have an opportunity to consider our proposals in greater detail in Committee. Those proposals will be put forward by whoever is the Liberal Democrat spokesman on that stage of the Bill. We agree with the Conservatives on the proposals made by the British Red Cross. It no longer suggests changes to the practical driving test to allow first aid to be incorporated in it, but is instead considering whether there are grounds to change the theory test, and possibly the hazard perception test, to include elements of first aid. That would be sensible because, according to the Red Cross, 57 per cent. of deaths caused by road accidents happen in the first few minutes after a crash before the emergency services arrive, and up to 85 per cent. of those could be prevented if first aid were administered immediately. The Minister will be aware that on Second Reading in the other place, Lord Davies of Oldham said:"““Let me make the obvious point that we accept what the noble Lord says. We are considering extending the test to include additional first aid material.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 1609.]" I hope that the Minister is able to clarify what progress has been made on that and whether the Government’s hand will be forced, to some extent, by what is going to happen in 2008 with European Union legislation relating to commercial drivers having to demonstrate that they have basic first aid skills. I hope that the Minister can clarify another matter that was raised on Second Reading—the use of rear seatbelts for 14 and 15-year-olds. I understand that there is a gap in the provisions that could be sorted out simply by making it the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they wear seatbelts. Other Members have mentioned the conspicuousness of heavy goods vehicles. In the other place, their lordships decided to amend the Bill to include a reference to conspicuousness stating that"““The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument require the fitting of retro-reflective tape””." Will the Minister clarify, first, whether he is willing to accept that change and, secondly, whether he would be willing to accept a stronger provision requiring that the Secretary of State ““shall”” ensure that retro-reflective tape is fitted? HGVs have been involved in a significant number of accidents, which would presumably be reduced by adding such reflective strips. In 2001, there were 9,000 collisions in which an HGV was struck by another vehicle. In 34 per cent. of those cases, the HGV was struck on its side. It is not unreasonable to assume that a significant number of those accidents could have been avoided, or their seriousness reduced, as a result of fitting that tape. That would cost about £100 to £150 per vehicle—not a significant extra cost given that the retail price of a new vehicle is in the order of £100,000 and that it could make a great difference in terms of reducing road accidents and improving road safety. Given the scale of road accidents and deaths—nine per day—Liberal Democrats argue, as we did in the Lords, that there is a need for a road accidents investigations board, similar to those that exist for aviation and rail, to investigate the accidents that occur. Some of those will be one-offs, while some will not. Sometimes there will be a problem in a particular location. In other cases, it will be difficult to identify a pattern when looking at individual accidents, but by looking at the totality it may be possible to draw conclusions from them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who considered this when he was our transport spokesman, found that Sweden has a similar organisation, which noted that because Sweden is a rocky, mountainous country, there are often large rocks by the roadside or in the road. It identified that as an issue of national significance that it needed to resolve. That is the sort of matter that the board could consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath, who is proactive on these issues, has requested, possibly because he has the largest pedicab manufacturer in the country in his constituency, that we consider pedicab licensing, or at least allowing local authorities to choose to license pedicabs if they are so inclined. I am sure that many Members will have been lobbied about the issue of sleep disorders. The research shows that one in six HGV drivers suffers from a severe sleeping disorder of which they are often unaware. I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan), who is in the Chamber, for that information. I hope that she may have an opportunity to refer to it shortly. The Government could focus more attention on that matter. There is much to be welcomed in the Bill and much that we can support, but there are many issues to which we will need to return in Committee, including drink-drive limits and reduced speed limits of 20 mph and 30 mph in residential areas—a significant matter that I did not mention. It is unacceptable that the limit on unclassified roads is 60 mph, which is completely inappropriate in many cases. The Committee is the right place to discuss those issues. We therefore do not seek to detain the House further and are happy to join the Government and the official Opposition in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.