Young Drivers (Safety)

Debate between James Duddridge and Stephen Phillips

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was not aware of the specific figure that he has given, but I will certainly come on to what the Government might do, and what I—and indeed others—think they ought to do.

The Minister will, I suspect, know the figures I have given to the House, but neither this Government nor their predecessors have taken the action necessary to ensure the safety of young drivers on our roads, as well as that of those who travel with them and other road users. Why? I do not know. I want to hear tonight that the Minister and the Department for Transport will take a fresh look at the issue before more young lives are wiped out in an unnecessary and untimely fashion.

What can be done to make things safer? Although I accept there is a balance to be struck with social and work mobility for young people, the fact remains that we have to do something. I, and others such as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), have been extremely concerned that the Department has delayed its Green Paper on young driver safety, apparently indefinitely. Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that not only is that not good enough, but he needs to tell the House why that decision has been taken and, frankly, either reverse it or face the consequences of not doing so, and what that will mean for death and serious injury to young drivers in the future.

Graduated driver licensing exists in many other countries, and at present I see no good reason for why it does not exist here. Exact requirements vary slightly, but the main aim, which any licensing system ought to share, remains the same: to build up the ability and experience of young drivers in stages on a structured basis, to minimise the risks that they face. That means limiting the exposure of new drivers to the dangerous situations I have mentioned. Novice drivers going through graduated driver licensing could be subjected to certain restrictions and conditions, including restrictions on the number of passengers they can carry, driving at night and alcohol consumption. A graduated licence system would also go hand in hand with road safety as a compulsory part of the national curriculum in schools, where we should be teaching young people about the risks that they face as novice drivers or young passengers and how to minimise them.

Presently, we allow eager young 17-year-olds to be out unsupervised on public roads exceptionally quickly. In the UK, drivers can go from never having driven at all to being fully licensed in months or even weeks. Each year, 50,000 17-year-olds pass their driving test with fewer than six months’ driving experience. That gives them very little time to develop experience while under the relative safety of some form of supervision.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Tragically, I have raised a similar case with the Minister. One of the solutions proposed by the family in that case was a probationary period, perhaps for three years after passing the test, where the P-plate, rather than the L-plate, would need to be displayed. Does my hon. and learned Friend think that would be a good idea as part of the package of solutions?

[Stephen Phillips]

That is certainly one of the options that the Department ought to consider, along with a number of other options from many other jurisdictions, some of which I will come on to, as part of a graduated licence system. Unless we do something, we will simply continue with this epidemic of death and serious injury to young drivers in this country.

One thing that could be introduced is a minimum learning period—for example, one year—before taking a theory or practical test. All learner drivers would therefore have time to develop experience under full supervision before being allowed out alone. However, because the Green Paper has been put on hold or delayed, that is apparently not something that the Government are prepared even to consider or consult on, which is more than regrettable.

Evidence from other countries that have introduced some form of graduated driver licensing system shows that a difference can be made. Analysis of such a system in New Zealand by the UK’s Transport Research Laboratory showed that, following the introduction of a graduated driving licence, there was a reduction in car crash injuries of 23% for 15 to 19-year-olds, and 12% for 20 to 24-year-olds.

In the great state of Michigan, home to the US auto industry, research has found that young people are 11% less likely to be killed or injured on roads than their parents, thanks to their reformed system of learner licensing. In Washington state, annual deaths and serious injuries among 16 and 17-year-old novice drivers reduced by 59% after the introduction of a driving curfew between 1 am and 5 am for the first year, a ban on carrying teenage passengers for the first six months and a licence suspension for under-18s of up to six months for committing two or more violations.

Why, oh why, are we not learning from those figures and experiences, and saving hundreds of young drivers in the UK from serious injury and death every year? It is not as though calls for something to be done are new. In 2007, the Transport Committee reviewed the evidence available and called for the introduction of a graduated driver licensing system, including a minimum 12-month learner period; raising the age of unaccompanied driving to 18; a maximum blood alcohol limit of 20 mg per 100 ml of blood for up to 12 months after passing the test; a ban on passengers aged 10 to 20 years between 11 pm and 5 am for a year; and a learning programme undertaken and examined by an approved driving instructor.

The House will not be surprised that the report, as with so many good and considered Select Committee reports, appears simply to have been ignored. It is not as though such changes would be unpopular. Again, we have the research to prove it. A survey by the road safety charity Brake and Direct Line found that 87% of drivers thought that learners should be required to achieve a minimum level of experience before taking their driving test and that 81% thought that there should be restrictions on drivers’ licences for a period of time after they first passed their test. If and when the Department publishes a Green Paper, those figures will no doubt be replicated in responses, so why on earth are we not getting on with it? How many families have to go through what the Challen family has been through before the Department for Transport gets the message?

The number of young people being killed or injured on our roads unnecessarily is too high, the present position is untenable, the attitude of the Department inexplicable, the persistence of the problem inevitable and the solution readily and easily apparent. Not only can something be done; something must be done. In the name of Emily Challen, for God’s sake let us do what we were sent here to do and act now.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between James Duddridge and Stephen Phillips

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct; I was getting carried away—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has asked me to start my speech again. I can list the unions again with the correct figures. For Unison the figure was £671,000, rather than £671 million. For the National Union of Teachers the figure was £121,000. For the Public and Commercial Services Union the figure was £84,000. Those are still enormous amounts of money that, if targeted in individual areas, could have a massive impact.

There is a case for having no limits, but if we have that for charities and unions, perhaps the first organisations that should have no limits are political parties. The House has taken the view, and legislated on it, that we should limit public expenditure. Anyone who has been a student of American politics can very much see why. Colleagues in Congress, when they hear how much we spend in individual constituencies, are dumbfounded at how little money is involved. What we do not want to see in the United Kingdom are political action committees or things of that ilk rising up and campaigning on behalf of or against Governments in the run-up to elections as a proxy service.

Opposition Members disagree about Labour history, so I shall talk about it in trepidation, with great generality. The Labour party is the product of a union movement, and quite rightly that movement recognised that workers needed representation in Parliament because they were not getting a fair crack of the whip or fair representation here, but I gently say that things have moved on. The unions cannot have it both ways: they cannot give birth to an organisation that we accept in this place, and has limits on its expenditure at elections, and then spend large amounts of money themselves on those elections. That strikes me as entirely ridiculous.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I will be asking my hon. Friend to write me a cheque later, given his propensity to add zeros to numbers. Leaving that aside, he is making a very good point. Things have moved on. Is not the Bill, and specifically part 3, just about creating a level playing field? If we care about democracy, is it not right that on neither side of the House and nowhere in this country should big money be able to buy political influence?

[James Duddridge]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Under no circumstances should politicians on either side of the House prostitute themselves to big money. Time and again that has happened. I shall not be partisan and list 13 years of Ecclestone and so on. Let us take a larger chunk of time. Over the past 100 years all political parties have been guilty, and that demeans this House. A number of colleagues have said that lobbying is an important function. It is, but we need to draw the line between open, transparent lobbying and closed, dirty lobbying that involves buying influence and lots of money.

When I read through part 3, I was quite surprised, given the history of union negotiations and strikes and the importance of numbers and votes, that this basic information is not already available. [Hon. Members: “It is.”] If, as Labour Members say, the information is already available, there is no additional burden so I am sure they will support part 3.