---

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who has campaigned on road safety since he came to Parliament, following the example of his predecessor. I will turn to his points a little later. We should remember that, in 2004, 3,221 people were killed on the roads—just under nine a day—and there were 280,840 casualties. If that number of people were killed on our railways, aeroplanes or ferries, there would be a national outcry and the issue would take over the press for weeks. If that number of people were killed in Iraq, there would be a similar response. However, that carnage takes places on our streets, outside our homes and in our country lanes and, for some strange reason, there does not seem to be a sense of national anger. The debate has been constructive and this is an instance of when politicians must take a lead and make tough, and sometimes unpopular, decisions in the interests of the whole community. The Opposition welcome much of the Bill as a genuine attempt to reduce the slaughter on the roads and will take a constructive and, we hope, helpful stance in Committee. Although we extend that broad welcome to the Bill, we feel that it could be improved and will aim to achieve that wherever possible. It could be more imaginative and, in places, tougher. In seeking to achieve that aim, we hold it as profoundly essential that the number of tragedies on the road is reduced. We have heard numerous cases from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Tragedy is an apt word, because behind the crude statistics, human beings are dying, often in horrendous circumstances. That should be no one’s fate and we should wish it on no one—and no driver wishes it on anyone. There was a terrible story last Christmas involving the death of a 16-year-old girl who was thrown from a car that was being driven by her brother when it collided with another vehicle in Oxfordshire. One cannot begin to imagine the grief of the parents who have to live with that every day. In February, three people from one family died after their car came off the road and plunged into a nearby river. Last December, just a mile from that scene, a father and a seven-year-old also died. The local constable Mick McCready said:"““When you have just dragged three people out of a river, you want to find a way of stopping road accidents.””" That is what we have been trying to discuss constructively this afternoon. The problem involves huge numbers of people. The Minister has answered parliamentary questions that I have tabled. In 2004, there were 34.27 million substantive licence holders driving 25.75 million cars, 2.9 million vans and 434,000 lorries between them. It is pertinent to some of the clauses of which we strongly approve that the number of foreign-registered vehicles leaving the UK has rocketed from 671,000 in 1997 to 1,595,000 in 2004. We welcome measures in the Bill that bear down on serial offenders and some hard core offenders on matters such as driving uninsured vehicles. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for his powerful and clearly argued speech on a problem of which I was unaware. I hope that in Committee we and the Minister can agree on amendments that would resolve such an extraordinary problem and that would have the support of a number of police forces. As the answers to the parliamentary questions showed, the sheer number of drivers and vehicles requires drivers’ co-operation and collaboration with the authorities in order to improve road safety. With such large numbers, coercion will not work. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) who, in a long and detailed speech, argued that we need flexibility. We wholeheartedly approve of the proposals for flexibility on points, for example. However, there are profound differences in the way in which we believe road safety should be approached in order to achieve our common objective. In some ways, the Bill is a wasted opportunity. In some respects it does not go far enough, and it fails to take a holistic view of the problem. There should be a change of attitude in the way that we deal with road safety. To achieve the aim of reduced casualties requires a partnership not just between the enforcement agencies and road safety professionals, but with all road users, especially drivers. Road safety should not be an ““us”” and ““them”” problem, with one group aspiring to impose duties and obligations on another. It should be a shared enterprise. That is where parts of the Bill are wrong. It follows a long line of legislation adding to the number of controls imposed on drivers and adding to the penalties. In this context, the vexed question of speed cameras arises. Ten years ago there were 200,000 speeding fines. That number increased to 2 million last year, bringing in more than £114 million. All those revenues should be spent on road safety improvements. Whatever our opinions on the use of speed cameras, they have caused ill-will outside the House and are widely perceived as revenue-raising devices, not road safety devices. By resorting to a combination of draconian law and indiscriminate enforcement, there is a risk that we are losing the hearts and minds of drivers, when we need their co-operation to help improve road safety. I have seen reports that 1 million drivers have six or more points on their licence. It was very honest of the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) to admit that he was one of them. Those drivers are, on the whole, law-abiding hard-working people trying to go about their daily business, who have been caught. I should declare that my wife gave me a GPS device which tells me where cameras are. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am in the happy position of not having any points—touch wood. I believe that the device has made me drive better. Can the Minister clarify that devices that show where cameras are positioned will continue to be allowed?