| Road Safety and Young Drivers |
 |
 |
 |
Tags: Campaign | driving | safety | vehicles
| Wednesday, 16 July 2008 00:00 | |||
 Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Alison Seabeck.]9.30 am Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): I welcome the opportunity to debate road safety and young drivers. My friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) are expected to attend the debate, and I am sure that we shall be joined later by other colleagues from east Lancashire. I congratulate the Minister, and the Government, on their record on road safety. We learn from the latest statistics that road deaths have fallen below 3,000 a year for the first time since records began in 1926. What an astonishing achievement. The figures published a few weeks ago show that the number of people killed in road accidents fell by 7 per cent. between 2006 and 2007. The long-term trend shows steadily reducing numbers of people being killed or seriously injured on our roads. Our roads, amazingly, are now eight times safer than in 1966. Road design plays its part, although we all know of killer stretches in our constituencies. Cars are designed much better than they were; universally, they have air bags. We have had Government initiatives over the years on drink-driving and “Clunk-click every trip”. Those campaigns have made a real difference. They have made us all more safety-conscious. However, one group stands out as an exception: young drivers. A fifth of all new drivers have an accident within six months of passing their test, and a staggering 70 per cent. report near misses in the same period. I am stating the obvious, but most new drivers are young. About three quarters of all new drivers are under 25. Young drivers are rarely out of the news. Only last week we saw on television the news of the tragic deaths of six young people in Leicestershire after their car ploughed into a 38-tonne lorry on a notoriously dangerous stretch of road near Melton Mowbray. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): The accident was in north-east Leicestershire, and I represent North-West Leicestershire, not far away. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be careful to say that we do not yet know, in relation to the inquest, whether the lorry ploughed into the car or the car ploughed into the lorry. It is an indicative circumstance that the accident happened in the small hours of the morning. A factor that we need to take into account, whether or not it was relevant to the accident in question, or whether there were other factors, is that although only 6 per cent. of licence-holders are under the age of 25, they account for almost a third of relevant deaths and serious injuries—albeit that the figure for those has now fallen below 3,000 a year. We need to do something. The Government have a good track record and the Minister has an excellent one, but more is needed, urgently. The carnage among young people, particularly young male drivers, is appalling. Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): That was very close to a speech, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Prentice: It was a good speech; I was very ready to listen to it. Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): It certainly was. Mr. Prentice: I do not know the circumstances and will not venture into speculation about what happened in Leicestershire. All I will say is that I grieve, and we all grieve, for those young people who lost their lives. Of course, that accident made national news, but every week—week in, week out—there is carnage on our roads. Bob Spink (Castle Point) (UKIP): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that tragically, about 14 young people are killed on our roads every week, and that young people between 17 and 20 years old are 10 times more likely to have a serious injury or be involved in an accident that results in death than him or me. Does he think that the Government should now act, in the way the Select Committee on Transport suggested, to restrict the ability of young drivers in that age group to carry other young passengers at certain times of day? Would not that save many lives each year? Mr. Prentice: Yes; I am coming on to that. It is true that young people feature disproportionately in accidents. The Transport Committee got it right when it recommended in July last year that there should be a graduated licence scheme. I am pleased to see in the Chamber the new Chair of the Transport Committee, my friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who succeeded our illustrious friend the late Gwyneth Dunwoody. Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for the period 1981 to 2004, the most common cause of death in Britain for people aged between five and 35 was motor vehicle accidents, whereas for people dying after the age of 35 it was heart attack and chronic heart disease? Does he agree that road safety should be treated as a health issue as well as a transport issue? Mr. Prentice: Mr. Hancock, my script has been stolen—I must not give way again—but I am coming to that point. I have mentioned the accidents that happen in our constituencies, and it certainly has a resonance for me when I drive around my constituency of Pendle—a large one as constituencies go—and pass roadside shrines with flowers and cards, or sometimes a football strip pinned to a tree. Even when the flowers have gone and the cards have blown away I still remember what happened. The stories that appeared in local papers are fixed in my head when I drive past the tree stump or the fence that is leaning at an angle of 30°. I remember what happened there in the place where young people died. Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree with the general conclusions of the Transport Committee on this matter: we are dealing with unnecessary carnage and tragedy, and the solution is a combination of methods, including attitude changing, skills acquisition and possible restrictions on where and how young new drivers can drive their vehicles? Mr. Prentice: Yes, I agree with the Chair of the Transport Committee. Unfortunately the Government are not prepared to countenance restrictions, and I think that that is a major problem. I am gratified that they have published what is in effect a consultation—and I hope that the contributions made in this debate will form part of the listening exercise that will inform their conclusions—but the decision was a big mistake. It is not as if the Government did not see it coming, because the Transport Committee made it very clear in its excellent report on novice drivers in July 2007 that that was what it wanted. Road accidents, to deal with the point made a few moments ago, are, as we know, the biggest killer of 15 to 24-year-olds, and more than 14 drivers and their passengers are killed on our roads every week. The Transport Committee put it starkly: “young male drivers are now the biggest killer of young women in this country.” Young men—I should say “some young men”—behind the wheel are a menace to themselves and others. I congratulate the Library on the excellent paper that it produced for this debate, but that paper told us only what we already suspected: young drivers have a high number of crashes when driving at night and on weekends, and when carrying young passengers. We know that as a fact. The early hours of the morning are the worst. I am sorry to bombard colleagues with statistics, but the statistics make the case. Male drivers aged between 17 and 20 have 17 times more risk of having an accident between 2 o’clock and 5 o’clock in the morning than all male drivers. Half of all accidents involving young people happen at night. I am listening to myself speak, and it sounds as though I am demonising young people. I am not; I am drawing attention to the facts of driving life as they affect young people. Young people aged between 17 and 20 are more likely to be in a crash where only their vehicle is involved. Here is a fascinating statistic: the probability that a young driver will have an accident is 39 per cent. higher if there is another young person in the car with them. The probability is 85 per cent. higher if there are two or more young passengers, and 182 per cent. higher if there are three or more, geeing on the driver. I do not know what it is—a rush of adrenalin or a macho thing—but the drivers lose control. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): It is not demons; it is adolescence and testosterone that lead to accidents. Thirty years ago, when I became the chairman of the Transport Committee, I discovered to my astonishment that there were more fatal accidents on one relatively quiet road between Newport and Usk than on all the other roads in the county, because of a popular club on that road. The combination of Saturday night, young men and alcohol has been killing our young people for a long time. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate about the most obvious cause of avoidable road accidents. We need radical reforms. Mr. Prentice: I am in total agreement with my friend. Road safety is rarely out of the news, as he will know. Only yesterday, the chief medical officer said, acknowledging that it was controversial, that there should effectively be a zero drink limit for young drivers. We know that 35 per cent. of drink-drivers involved in accidents in 2005 were aged between 17 and 25. That is more than a third of all those involved in drink-drive accidents. Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Prentice: Yes, for the second time, but then I really must make some progress. Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is being generous. Does he acknowledge that there may also be a risk that those young people are under the influence of drugs as well as drink? Mr. Prentice: I do not want to demonise young people, but I dare say that it is a question not just of drink but of drugs as well. Material published recently by Brake, the road safety charity, tells me that one in three young drivers admits to overtaking when they cannot see what is coming. That slapped me in the face and made me think. I thought about what Gwyneth Dunwoody said in this very place in February this year. She said that young drivers—she meant young male drivers—think that they are invincible. They may think that they are invincible, but they are not. The Government produced a consultation paper in 2001 that discussed driver attitudes, to which my friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside alluded. The consultation paper said: “The frequency with which novice drivers report...exceeding the speed limit, driving through a red or amber traffic light, and driving too close to the vehicle in front...strongly predicts the accident liability for both male and female drivers. These drivers tend to be young, male and high mileage drivers. They consider themselves better drivers than others and believe that bad consequences are less likely to result from their actions, and that they will be less serious if they do.” That is the mindset: “It’s not going to happen to me, and if it does, it’ll just be a little scrape.” There is a problem. The question is: what are we going to do about it? The Government have published a consultation paper, “Learning to Drive”, which I have in front of me. It was published in May, and it is out for consultation until 8 September. When it was published, the Minister told me of the Government’s general line. He said that the Government’s “proposed approach is one based on education and incentivisation, rather than restriction...We believe the evidence supports this approach”. I am not entirely sure that it does. I reread the Transport Committee’s report on novice drivers. The evidence submitted by the Department for Transport to the Committee said: “There is little research evidence that increased formal driver training improves safety.” Obviously, formal training makes a difference—I am not suggesting that it does not—but it must be part of a basket of measures if we are to bring down the terrible toll of carnage on our roads. Mrs. Ellman: My hon. Friend is correct in pointing to a section of the Committee’s report that referred to a particular type of training, but the Committee also recommended that there should be a change in how the driving test is conducted, and that it should be possible to pass the test only if the driver has experience of driving in a wide range of conditions. That was an important part of our report. Mr. Prentice: Indeed. The Government have listened to much of what the Transport Committee said, and I do not want to suggest otherwise. What is my position? I want conditional or graduated driving licences that prohibit night-time driving, driving with passengers or driving on the motorway until competence is built up over time. I am a bit of a hard-liner in my views on this issue, unlike other issues. I want the effective driving age to be raised to 18. I am not alone in thinking that. The British School of Motoring, which was very interested in speaking to me yesterday when it found out that I had secured this debate, calls for a graduated licensing scheme, with “P” licence plates displayed on the vehicle during the probationary period. Mr. John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): If the Government are not keen on graduated driving licences, could the insurance industry take a lead? There was a pilot for “pay as you drive” insurance discouraging evening driving by young people and allowing them to have lower premiums. Young people are often discouraged from driving by high premiums because they are such a high risk. If the insurance companies were to introduce “pay as you drive” insurance to restrict evening and night driving, and driving with passengers at night, they could reduce premiums and the number of accidents. Mr. Prentice: Indeed, but it raises the question: how would that be enforced to prevent people from driving without insurance and so on and so forth? The Government propose publishing another consultation document shortly on the enforcement of driving regulations. However, it is true that the industry is looking very closely at the hon. Gentleman’s main suggestion, and I think that it will tailor its premiums to advantage those categories of drivers less likely to have an accident. I think the consultation paper picks up on that, and I know the Government are working closely with the insurance industry. I do not know how young people afford some of these premiums—of £1,000 and £1,200. Mr. Leech: More than the cost of the car. Mr. Prentice: Indeed. I just do not know how they afford it. But they do—they get the money from somewhere. Before the Member intervened on me I was talking about graduated licensing, which is not unheard of. Some states in the US have such licences, as too do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and even Northern Ireland. There is a template, and we can see how it works overseas. It does not need to be piloted. We know that it works to bring down road deaths. I mentioned Gwyneth Dunwoody earlier, who spoke in this Chamber on 7 February about her report on novice drivers. Her Committee called for some restrictions on new drivers, but unfortunately those recommendations were rejected by the Government. Her Committee also wanted restrictions on novice drivers carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 between 11 o’clock at night and 5 o’clock in the morning, which sounds draconian, but as we know from the facts that is when many accidents take place. Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an important issue in our part of east Lancashire, as we know from the Lancashire Telegraph campaign. He is now moving on to other types of restrictions, but can he confirm that as well as the graduated licences, some of those restrictions are in place in other countries? Mr. Prentice: Indeed. I was making the point that we can look to sister democracies—Canada is a very good example—to see what was advocated by the Transport Committee actually working. The Committee called for the minimum age for holding a full driving licence to be raised to 18, with which I agree. When Gwyneth was here, she said that if people flouted the rules, which they do, there should be harsh penalties including forfeiture—the car being taken away. If I had my way, it would be squashed to the size of 1 sq m and handed back to the person. There must be a real deterrent. I shall finish with a few words about what is happening in east Lancashire, where the Transport Committee’s recommendations were very widely welcomed, most notably by the major regional daily, the Lancashire Telegraph, which covers a sub-region of 500,000. When it speaks, people listen—I am not saying that because there is a reporter from the Telegraph behind me. Even the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor listens. The wasted lives campaign was launched in April 2007 and has been going ever since. I put a question to my Friend the Minister about fatalities in east Lancashire, the statistics for which are probably as bad as, and perhaps even worse than, elsewhere in the country. He told me that, between 2000 and 2006, there were 22 male fatalities and three female fatalities resulting from accidents involving a young male driver—21 years old or under. However, where the car was driven by a young woman, there were no male fatalities and only one female fatality. That underlines the difference that gender makes. The problem is not with young women, but almost exclusively with young men. The Lancashire Telegraph called for a new approach, and its campaign was supported by all my colleagues from east Lancashire—the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who could not be here this morning, and my Friends the Members for Hyndburn, for Rossendale and Darwen, for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) and the Justice Secretary. I hope that I have not missed anyone out. The Justice Secretary is an influential man in the Government, and I want him to press the case with the Transport Secretary. A couple of months ago I had lunch with the editor of the Lancashire Telegraph, and I asked him how the wasted lives campaign began. He said that—these are my words, not his—he just got sickened and appalled, and dreaded going into the office on a Monday morning knowing that the paper would have to report some terrible carnage that had occurred on the roads in east Lancashire. It was his and his colleagues’ job to write them up. These are the kind of headlines that he was talking about: “Man, 24, dies in crash: garage worker battled to save trapped driver”, “Another Friday night, another senseless car crash”, “Not Again”, “It ruins lives”—so it goes on. It is an endless stream of horror stories. The six MPs in east Lancashire are all signed up to the Lancashire Telegraph campaign, and have been reported and quoted in the paper as saying so. We, the Telegraph and the people of east Lancashire want graduated licences in two parts. Part one could be granted at age 17, but with restrictions, so that a 17-year-old could not drive on a motorway without an instructor, would have to adhere to a 50 mph maximum on all other roads, and could only drive cars limited to 80 bhp—brake horsepower—which I am told is something like a Ford Focus. Furthermore, crucially, these young people could not drive with passengers aged between 10 and 25 until they passed part two, which would be taken a year later at age 18. We think that the effective age at which a full driving licence can be held should be 18. Under our proposals, drivers aged under 25 would not be able to drive between 10 pm and 6 am until they had passed the two parts of that test, unless they were supervised by a driver aged over 25. Furthermore, the probationary plates that I mentioned earlier would be mandatory. After passing part two, drivers would be restricted to a Ford Focus equivalent car and would not be allowed to carry passengers between 10 pm and 6 am for another two years. That might sound draconian, but tragedy has touched so many families in east Lancashire that we need such measures. I conclude with this thought—never a day goes by without something happening in the road safety sphere. We found out yesterday that new sentencing guidelines are to be issued and that there will be two new offences: causing death by careless driving and causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. Those offences are long overdue, and I hope that the Government bring them in soon. We have to get real about dangerous driving and careless driving, and I very much hope that the Government will think again. ...... The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jim Fitzpatrick): It is a pleasure to see you presiding over this debate, Mr. Hancock. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on raising this important issue. I wish to join him in congratulating all those associated with the falling casualty figures on their hard work: officials in the Department, the police and other emergency services, the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, local authorities, the drivers themselves, and others, including the Transport Committee, several of whose distinguished members have contributed to this debate . The Transport Committee has kindly invited me to its meeting this afternoon to discuss the new statistics, and I am looking forward to doing so. I endorse the comment by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) that this issue is, and should be, above party politics. I am reassured that hon. Members from all parties are exercised by the dreadful statistics and are interested in improving road safety. We have had two debates on this important subject in this Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) raised it last October, and the late Gwyneth Dunwoody prompted a further debate in March. The Government share the concerns expressed in this and earlier debates, and by the Select Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle said, we announced last month that provisional figures show that road fatalities fell below 3,000 for the first time last year. That is progress, but it is still a terrible toll. We are working on a new strategy designed to drive fatalities down much further in the coming years, and it must include new measures for young people. Provisional 2007 casualty figures are the best for young drivers in at least 10 years. Fatalities in accidents involving at least one driver aged 17 to 24 are down by 8 per cent. in 2007, and fatalities for drivers in that age group are down by 12 per cent. The figures are still dreadful, but I hope that we can build on that welcome improvement. We commonly speak about accidents—I used to do so before becoming road safety Minister—but, personally, I talk about crashes now. Paul Flynn: In her final remarks to the Transport Committee, Gwyneth Dunwoody mentioned the urgency of the matter to the Minister. I still say we are asking for urgency, a timetable, a result and a response. Will he tell us today—I am sure he will repeat many of the things said in previous debates about current plans—that the Government will take a bold decision on this matter and, taking on the possible outcry, introduce reforms that will, for the first time ever, reduce the entirely avoidable scourge of young deaths on the road? Jim Fitzpatrick: I hope that we will be able to achieve the objective that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) mentions of saving more young lives. The previous Chair of the Transport Committee exhorted us to take in account the urgency of the situation. The proposals we published in our “Learning to Drive” document were awaited by people for some time, which held up progress to this kind of discussion. However, we published that document within weeks of the debate in the Transport Committee. It is in the public domain and it will clearly allow us to arrive at conclusions. Whether we grasp the nettle to which my hon. Friend alluded—I shall come to some of the points he made in a moment—the objective is to improve the situation still further. As I said, before becoming Minister for road safety I used to talk about accidents, but now I talk about crashes. Too many people who become casualties have not followed basic rules. For example, my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle and for Newport, West, mentioned seat belts. Research suggests that road fatalities have been cut by about 1,000 every year by the requirement for wearing a seat belt, but a quarter of vehicle occupants involved in fatalities did not use seat belts. Research demonstrates that up to two-thirds of those people might otherwise survive. Car loads of young people are among those with especially low belt-wearing rates: too many pay a tragic price for neglecting to do so, and we plan a new campaign in October to address that challenge. Turning to our reforms, there is a strong case for overhauling the way in which people learn to drive and the way in which we test their skills. We must ensure that new drivers can deal with the challenge of driving alone. We know, from talking to young people, that the vast majority want to be safe and responsible, but we do not give them the tools to do so. Too many of them overestimate their abilities. They are impatient to strike out on their own, but that does not mean that they intend to be reckless or unsafe—far from it; the vast majority of young drivers are safe and responsible. The present driving test is too narrowly focused: the fundamentals go back to the 1930s. The mechanics of manoeuvring a car are important, but there is a lot more to driving on crowded modern roads. We plan a new approach based on improved education, better testing and real incentives to continue learning after the test. We want to change the driving test to base it on a new, comprehensive guide to what makes drivers safe. We want to update the theory test and the hazard perception test to encourage broader learning and test understanding of safe driving. We want the practical test to be better at assessing whether people are ready to drive unsupervised. We are considering splitting the theory and practical tests into modules, to enable learners to pass elements of the test as they learn. We want to provide people with better feedback throughout the testing process. Young people have told us that they want to learn about driving and using the road before they get behind the wheel, so we are developing a foundation course in safe road use, aimed at young people still in school. On average, learners spend about £1,500 learning to drive, which is a big outlay for young people, who are keen to get better value. Young people complain that learners do not have sufficient information to plan their training properly or to choose the best driving instructor available. We will give learners a better idea of what is required through a new syllabus, which will also help instructors and others who are helping learners to practise, and a workbook to give them a much better understanding of what they need to learn and why. We want to encourage people to demonstrate that they have driven in a wide range of conditions such as at night or in bad weather. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) raised both those points, and I will return to them when I respond, at the end of my speech, to comments made in the debate. I commend the pre-pass support scheme developed by Lancashire county council, which is just the sort of positive measure we seek to help learners and the family members who are helping them with driving practice. We want to give learners better information about driving instructors through a star rating system, so that they do not have to rely on family and friends for recommendations. We are reviewing the way in which instructors are trained and tested, before they qualify and after they are registered, to help them all to offer the best tuition possible. The practical test is seen as the end of formal learning, and learners are not encouraged to continue developing their skills. We want to create incentives to learn in new ways, both pre- and post-test, to gain bankable additional qualifications. We want to develop additional qualifications to supplement the driving licence, working with employers and insurers. Our consultation document explains why we are not proposing restrictions on newly qualified drivers. Briefly, if we have to impose restrictions on people after they have passed their driving test, we have failed to train and test them properly. I recognise that newly qualified drivers have too many accidents. Mr. Prentice: The British School of Motoring, which knows about these things, tells us that the most sensible way to reduce accidents in the newly qualified driver group would be to have a graduated licence scheme. That is what the instructors are saying. Why does my hon. Friend the Minister repudiate that advice? Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend mentions that driving organisation; he also described measures in other countries. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby spoke about the provisions in Sweden. Some countries that my hon. Friend mentioned do not have graduated licenses and those that do, which we have looked at—the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—have graduated driving systems. However, those countries have not cracked the challenge of young drivers and, although they have introduced those systems, their statistics are not going in the direction in which ours are going. We are open to argument during the consultation, but, despite the BSM’s opinion, we are not convinced that the evidence from other countries that have the types of schemes that my hon. Friend mentioned and which the Transport Committee has proposed, shows that they work in practice. That is where we are at the moment with the consultation scheme. Our consultation document explains why we are not proposing restrictions on newly qualified drivers. I recognise that such drivers have too many accidents, but many of those are down to inexperience and ineffective learning. That is best addressed by changing the way in which we train and test people. It is unfair to penalise all young people, most of whom want to be—and are—safe and responsible drivers, with measures aimed at a minority who flout the basic rules that are already in place. I accept that there is a minority who drive badly—speeding, drink-driving and driving unlicensed and un-insured. We hope to educate young people about the risks of such behaviour. However, we will not tolerate the dangerous behaviour of those who do not listen to that advice. We are talking to the police and other partners who deliver road safety about how we can tackle that minority more effectively, without imposing unfair and disproportionate penalties on everybody. We are making the consultation exercise as inclusive as possible, and it is open for responses until 8 September. We are running a series of open meetings, and we plan other events to gather the views of young people and other interested parties. Whatever the conclusion, the Driving Standards Agency is preparing plans to implement both the proposals that we decide to pursue and the way forward. That major programme of change will take several years to complete. As I said in the previous debate, young people value being able to drive and they deserve a fit-for-purpose driver training and assessment system, so that they can enjoy that important freedom safely. The hon. Member for Cheadle asked about people being tested in all conditions. Paul Flynn: The Minister has just said that that will take several years to complete. I think that that chilled the blood of many hon. Members in the Chamber, because we are calling for a measure that will come into force quickly. I think that the evidence is there. However, I do not see the evidence for improving skills that will reduce these accidents. We know that there is a particular problem involving young men drinking alcohol at weekends. That has to be tackled with the courage of previous holders of the Minister’s post, who introduced measures such as the breath test and compulsory seat belting. If we go on consulting, tragedies will keep on occurring and we will read about them in our newspapers every Monday. Is it not time for a courageous decision by Government? Jim Fitzpatrick: A moment ago, I said to my hon. Friend that we are persuaded that introducing such restrictions at a stroke will not have the effect that he suggests. The measures that we propose in our consultation document include the educational qualification, changing the way in which people are trained, the star-rating system, the professional career development scheme for approved driving instructors and examining people in a different way, all of which will take time to roll out and have to be piloted. That does not mean for a second that we are wasting any time in our efforts to push these statistics down further. The fact that the figures have been moving in the right direction for the past 12 months is encouraging, but no more than that, because for several years they hit a plateau. We know that we have some of the safest roads in the world. After last year’s statistics, we are back in second place in Europe, after Sweden. We are in contact with other European partners—particularly Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway—which have good safety records to ensure that we share best practice and information and that we use that intelligence and develop it. We are about to launch our consultation on the post-2010 strategy. Our 10-year strategy from 2000 to 2010 was to reduce by 40 per cent. the numbers of adults killed or seriously injured on the roads, and to reduce by 50 per cent. the number of children killed or seriously injured. We have achieved the reduction in child deaths and serious injuries. We are on track to achieve the reduction in adult deaths and serious injuries. We will consult on the next strategy and consider whether we should adopt the Swedish model of zero tolerance to road deaths. However, such a policy runs counter to British philosophy, which says that there is no point in setting a zero target because we know that we will not achieve it. Perhaps we should be more pragmatic. Let us set a target similar to that in Holland, which focuses on sustainable safety. We should consider whether we have a 10-year or a five-year strategy, and whether we separate deaths from serious injuries. The rates for serious injuries have been falling quite quickly, unlike those for deaths. The Road Safety Foundation raised a number of questions on the matter last week. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby and I attended a launch, with other hon. Members, which focused on road safety design and engineering particularly on rural roads, on which so many crashes are taking place, including the crash that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West mentioned at the beginning of his speech. Road safety engineering is a method of bringing such figures down more quickly. Mr. Prentice: I think that my friend is in danger of overcomplicating things. The fact is, there is a downward trend in accidents, deaths and injuries. We accept that and we have said that. The exception is young people, specifically young men. I am not asking the Minister to reveal the secret inner working of government, but has he had a conversation with the Secretary of State for Justice, my friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), about his proposals, and if he has, is the Secretary of State on board regarding his proposals? Jim Fitzpatrick: I personally have not had a discussion with our right hon. Friend. However, the consultation document has been cleared across government. It is a Government consultation document, so the Department would have been cited. Certainly the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly) meets our right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary on at least a weekly basis in Cabinet and they have direct discussions on matters of mutual interest. I know that at departmental level, official level, and at a level above my pay grade, such meetings are taking place, but I cannot say that I personally have met the Secretary of State for Justice. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Cheadle, who asked about testing in all conditions, we are considering how wider knowledge and skills can be tested, not just in the practical road test but in a modern computer-based test as well. We cannot run all driving tests at night or wait for rain and snow. However, any question about breaking up the tests is a matter for consultation. The hon. Gentleman also asked about research on the scope and status of the proposed workbook. Young people tell us that they welcome the means to structure their learning up to and after the test. That is how they learn other vocational skills, so we are considering how best to deal with that. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and the hon. Member for Cheadle both asked about Pass Plus. We recognise the need to review and reform Pass Plus, as the scheme does not demonstrate any benefit to road safety. There were some initial gains, but insurance companies are cooling towards it, because it does not provide the benefits that they expected. With regard to reduced premiums for young drivers, the insurance companies say that they are interested in the “Learning to Drive” consultation paper because if it produces safer drivers, it will allow them to reduce premiums, which are high because they have to pay out so much money as a result of crashes. That is led by the evidence to a certain extent, but insurers are fully involved and interested in the consultation. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby raised the issue of motorcyclists. I may be wrong, but, from memory, I think that 599 were killed in 2006, and 588 in 2007. We have taken some very positive steps. We set up a national advisory board, which meets on a quarterly basis. Last month, we launched a new safety rating for helmets, which will prevent about 50 deaths a year. We advise motorists on the safest helmet for their particular needs. I heard what the hon. Gentleman says about his concern about travel distances, and we will watch that. He acknowledges that what we are trying to do in the more rigorous and robust tests is to make motorcyclists safer, just as we are doing for all drivers. However, I acknowledge that most motorcyclists are victims of road crashes, not the cause. In conclusion, I return to the main issue. Hon. Members have said that we should single out young male drivers for special attention. That is not what the restrictions will do; they will restrict all young drivers, including young women. I have stressed that we are still consulting on the matter and we have outlined our recommendations. However, we are listening. This is a life-and-death issue, and I can assure hon. Members that we will continue to work across the House, within the Department and with all the agencies as hard as possible to push the horrendous figures down further. I will take the opportunity to say that we are about to consult on our post-2010 road safety strategy and would welcome any contribution from right hon. and hon. Members. Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): I thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and everyone else here for the courteous way in which the debate was handled, and for a very interesting debate. As we have the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) with us, we can proceed with the next debate. All those who are leaving, please do so quietly and speedily.
|