Road Traffic Law Enforcement

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Second Report of the Transport Committee of Session 2015-16, Road traffic law enforcement, HC 518, and the Government response, HC 132.

Deaths on our roads have decreased over the past decade following sustained efforts to improve road safety. Nevertheless, in 2015, 1,730 people were killed on our roads and 22,144 seriously injured, many of them suffering life-changing consequences. That is the background against which the Select Committee on Transport carried out our inquiry into road traffic law enforcement. Our report was published in March 2016, and the Department responded in June.

There are three strands to road safety—education, engineering and enforcement—and they cut across Departments. Our report concentrates on enforcement, but inevitably touches on the other aspects. The National Police Chiefs Council told us that its task was to act in relation to the fatal four offences: inappropriate speed, drink and drug-driving, non-wearing of seat belts and driving while distracted, which mainly refers to the use of mobile phones but also involves other aspects.

Enforcement requires detection, which is implemented by a combination of specialist officers to apprehend offenders and the application of technology. Deterrence, which includes motorists’ perceptions of the likelihood of being caught, is an extremely important aspect of traffic law enforcement. Over the years, there has been greater reliance on technology than on specialist officers. We expressed great concern about the major reduction in specialised road policing officers, the number of whom fell from a full-time equivalent of 7,104 in 2005 to 4,356 by 2014. Between 2010 and 2014, there was a 23% decrease in their number. There are regional variations on those figures, reflecting the different decisions of the 43 separate police areas overseen by police and crime commissioners. They take their own individual decisions about what they think is operationally appropriate, but all of them do so in the context of deciding different priorities against a background of a reduction in spending. There is no Home Office guidance on the issue, so those decisions are taken in individual areas.

It is interesting to note that although overall detected traffic offences halved over that period, the number of offences related to causing death on the roads, which are always reported, did not fall. That leads to the question whether the reduction in reported offences means that driving standards have improved or that detection rates have fallen. It is an important question to ask. We ask that the Department assess the impact of that drastic reduction in specialist road police officers. It is an important matter that is often not recognised.

Speed can kill. Driving too fast for conditions was a contributory factor in 7,361 accidents in 2015, 167 of which were fatal and 1,380 of which caused serious injury. That represents 11% of all fatal accidents and 8% of serious accidents. Exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor in 5,272 accidents, 222 of which were fatal, and 1,152 causing serious injury. That constitutes 15% of fatal accidents and 7% of serious accidents. Behind every one of those figures and each of those statistics lies a death or a life changed, perhaps forever.

Some 90% of fixed penalty notices imposed for breaking the speed limit were camera-detected. Speed cameras are frequently controversial. We listened to the experiences about speed cameras that have been put in different places, considered the various responses and concluded that it is important that cameras are placed where they can improve safety and that their financing is transparent, with excess revenues being invested in improving local road safety rather than financially benefiting the Exchequer or local councils. The financing for fixed speed cameras has changed in recent years. Recent changes have caused some local authorities and partnerships to remove such cameras, but they can be extremely important in improving safety, so there must be a proper assessment of where they are placed and how effective they are. We said that we felt the Road Safety Trust should review how the cameras are working and what is the most effective way to deploy them.

Motorists seem to regard penalties imposed for average speeds as fairer than those levied for speed at the moment when the camera flashes. We noted the growth of diversionary courses as an alternative to speeding penalties, with drivers paying for the courses. We asked a number of questions about those courses. We need to know much more about how effective they are. There should be more transparency about how they are financed, and more consistency in their availability across the country. Drivers pay to go on the courses, and they might pay different amounts in different areas; different courses are available in different policing and local authority areas, and it is not entirely clear how effective they are. We felt that a proper assessment should be made.

Although the Department told us that it was issuing guidance, and Highways England is also looking at the issue, it is not entirely clear what works best to make our roads safer. We felt that specialist officers should be deployed in areas where high speed causes fatalities, and that that should be combined with an educational campaign. In many areas, an educational campaign must go together with enforcement.

Recently, there has been a great deal of publicity about the horrendous deaths caused by drivers using handheld mobile phones, which falls under the category of distraction in vehicle. A driver using a handheld mobile phone was recorded as a contributory factor in 440 accidents in 2015, 22 of which were fatal and 75 of which involved serious injury. The wider category of distraction in vehicle was a contributory factor in 2,920 accidents, 61 of which were fatal and 384 of which caused serious injuries.

It is of great concern that fixed penalty notices for using a handheld mobile phone while driving have decreased by 90% from 167,000 in 2006 to fewer than 17,000 in 2015. The Government now state that they are planning tougher penalties, which is welcome, but those penalties will be effective only if drivers believe that they will get caught for using their handheld phone.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I saw the statistics that my hon. Friend has just cited about the 90% reduction. Could the Committee identify what caused that reduction? When I read that, I could not believe it was an accurate figure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who has chaired the Select Committee very well over the many years I have sat on it. I want to pick up on some of the points she has made in a very good summary of our work. I enjoyed taking part in our inquiry. We heard good evidence from road safety experts across the field. I agree with the general thrust of the report. The UK does have a good record on road safety, but there is absolutely no room for complacency. There are a few worrying trends on which we need to take action. I want to say a few words on drink-driving, cycling, using mobile phones, using technology to help, speed cameras, and the regional variations in enforcement policy among different police forces.

Statistics show that, in the past decade, we have made good improvements on drink-driving, but it is still an issue. The improvement is partly cultural. My father’s generation thought it acceptable to go out for a few pints and drive home. That was completely wrong, and the younger generation certainly seems to be much less tolerant of people who have a few drinks and then drive. It still happens too much, and this country has one of the highest drink-driving limits in Europe at 80 micrograms per 100 ml, whereas in most of Europe it is 50 micrograms. We noted in our inquiry that Scotland recently reduced its limit to 50 micrograms. It is probably a little too early properly to assess whether that has materially changed behaviour in Scotland, but it is certainly something we should look at.

I have always been somewhat sceptical about reducing the limit from 80 micrograms to 50 micrograms, something on which the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament conducted an inquiry. I have often felt that there is a risk of sending out mixed messages. At various times, including Christmas, the Department sensibly runs “Don’t drink and drive” campaigns telling people not to drink at all. Yet by reducing the level from 80 micrograms to 50 micrograms, we are saying it is still okay to have a little and drive. If we want to go down the road of lowering the limit, I think we should follow countries such as Finland where it is effectively zero. The limit there is 20 micrograms per 100 ml—there cannot be a zero limit because we all have alcohol in our systems for a range of reasons, such as from aftershave, perfume and deodorant, so 20 micrograms is agreed as the effective zero limit.

It was interesting to learn during the inquiry that statistics show very few people being caught for drink-driving related matters in the 50 microgram to 80 microgram range. Most people were way over the 80 microgram limit. I have a slight concern that it might not be best to focus campaign efforts against drink-driving on reducing the limit. I should like to consider wider measures for tackling it. However, I do not have a blinkered view and if, for example, evidence from Scotland were to show a marked difference we should clearly consider doing the same in England.

It is a concern that the number of cycling fatalities and serious injuries is increasing. That is probably due in part to the fact that more people now cycle, which is a good thing for health and wellbeing and environmental reasons, and for congestion. The Government are doing a lot to help promote cycling. It is not an entirely uncontroversial area, but the introduction of separate cycle lanes in London is making cycling better. However, there is an issue of enhanced law enforcement. Too many drivers pass cyclists without leaving sufficient room and are intolerant of them on the roads. That cuts both ways, however. I have seen plenty of cyclists who do not behave properly on the road. I should be interested to see better enforcement and education in both directions.

In Milton Keynes, we have a completely segregated cycle system. It was one of the design features—a system of “redways” right across the city, primarily to keep pedestrians and cyclists separate from the 60-mph grid roads. I find it incredibly frustrating that cyclists do not use them, and cause risk to themselves and other drivers by using the main grid roads. I should like slightly better education about how to behave. I did my cycling proficiency test at school. I do not know whether that is still a common feature—I understand it changed its name to Bikeability—but the Department for Transport could perhaps work with the Department for Education on promoting it. I should be interested to hear what cycling measures the Government propose.

The Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, was right to say that mobile phone use is a growing worry. It is becoming more of a menace. The idea of recording the number of cycling near-misses has been raised—the number of near-misses caused by drivers using mobile phones is quite high. I have observed it many times: a driver on his mobile phone suddenly pulls out into the fast lane, oblivious of the oncoming traffic. It has not always been an offence. A driver was shown using his phone in a film I saw the other week from the late ’80s, when there were big clunky car phones. We need mobile phone use by drivers to become more of a social taboo, as with drink-driving and not wearing a seatbelt. It should be made clear through increased penalties and enforcement that it is not acceptable, and that it is one of the growing causes of accidents.

I would widen that, too, because mobile phone use is not the only issue. Particularly at the top end of the market, the display panels of more and more cars, which used to have just the radio and the heating controls or whatever, have screens for choosing music. Some even have web access, so web pages can be displayed, which is incredibly distracting. There must be a role for working with manufacturers to ensure that technology is used safely. As an example, a company in my constituency called Two Trees Photonics has developed a system of holograms that projects the information—the car’s speed and similar things—over the end of the bonnet, so that the driver does not have to take his eyes off the road to look at things such as satnav information. I urge the Department to work more with manufacturers and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned, to consider technology to block mobile phones when the car is in motion. To go back to the topic of drink-driving, I understand that there is also technology available that can sense the driver’s alcohol level through the hands. If it is over a certain limit, the ignition will not start. There is a big role for technology of that kind.

I want briefly to talk about speed cameras. I absolutely agree that fixed cameras have an important role to play, particularly at dangerous junctions. The Committee also considered average speed cameras. They can be valuable, but that there is a danger of overuse, and of confusion about the grace limit. Some people have said it is only 1 mph or 2 mph above the 50-mph average speed limit. Others say it is 10% plus 2 mph, so that people can go at almost 60 mph. There is a need for greater clarity about what is enforced. Average speed limits should not be used where there is no need for them. I agree that there are dangerous stretches of road where using average speed is very appropriate, even in normal circumstances. Certainly, it is absolutely right to use it to protect the workforce during motorway repair work. Too often, however, Highways England blocks off an enormous stretch of road—20 miles in some instances—when the work is happening in only a very small part of that. It increases driver frustration and the likelihood of risky behaviour. Some care should be used in deploying average speed technology.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. Notwithstanding the anomalies that he suggests exist with average speed cameras—between where it is 1 mph or 5 mph over 10% or whatever—with fixed speed cameras, we can see people slow down and immediately speeding up again when they go past them. They might go up to 70 mph, 80 mph, 90 mph, below 100 mph or whatever. With average speed, drivers do not go more than maybe 10% plus 2 mph, so they are far more effective in reducing the speeds of every driver, and motorists actually obey them, surely.

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and I agree with him. Fixed cameras have their role, for example where there is a dangerous junction, to get speeds down to 30 mph or whatever it is. That is an appropriate use of them. However, I am guilty of what he described—we slow down before the fixed camera and then accelerate once we are past it. I hold my hands up on that. Many motorists do that and I agree that average speed cameras are a better tool than fixed speed cameras to prevent that.

I do not want to detain Members much further. Lastly, there is the issue of enforcement practice around the country. The Chair of the Committee was absolutely correct to say it varies from police force to police force. In many ways, it is right that we have that local flexibility and that police and crime commissioners can adapt their policies and resources to the specific needs of their area. It also allows innovation to take place with new practices, new technology and the rest.

However, there must be a better system of collating best practice information and then sharing it with other authorities, so that the good new ideas can actually influence the whole country. The Department has a better role to play in doing that. I would not want to see everything absolutely set rigidly from the centre—it is appropriate to have some local discretion on how enforcement takes place—but, as I say, we should learn from the best. That is one of the benefits of a devolved system.

I hope this has been a helpful contribution. It was a very interesting inquiry. We are not trying to fix a dreadful problem, because this country has one of the best records in this area, but one death is too many and anything we can do to improve our safety record must be welcomed. Once again, I thank my fellow members of the Committee and the Chair for this work. It was very interesting and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gapes. There are at least two members of the Speakers’ Panel who Chair our meetings who are fellow West Ham United supporters. I know that confers no special privilege; if anything, it is probably a disadvantage. However, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon.

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart)—[Interruption.] There you go; there’s fame for you. I am not in the main Chamber, as the annunciator says; I am here in Westminster Hall. Apparently I am in both at the same time. How does that work? Well, that might make a diary piece somewhere.

As I say, I am delighted to follow the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who is the Chair of the Transport Committee, with whom I had the pleasure of serving on that Committee for a couple of years. I am very grateful for the Committee’s report. I should say that I am vice-chair of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety’s all-party group on road safety, and I am grateful to Katy Harrison for her briefing for this debate.

I begin by quoting from the opening paragraph of the summary of the Transport Committee’s report, which I think needs a little qualification. It says:

“The UK has a very good road safety record in global terms. However, the decline in fatalities in road accidents”—

I always challenge that questionable use of the word “accidents”. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South said in his comments that people speeding and people on mobile phones cause “accidents”. They do not cause “accidents”; they cause crashes, because they are making decisions deliberately, selfishly and carelessly that lead to collisions. Therefore, these things are not “accidents”; they are deliberate human mistakes and they could be avoided. Calling them “accidents” gets people off the hook, because we all have accidents, such as spilling glasses of water and all the rest of it. Crashes are not “accidents”; they are deliberate human acts.

The Committee’s report goes on to say that the decline in road fatalities

“has slowed in recent years, and the most recent annual figures show a small increase in the number of road fatalities. The increase in injuries among pedal cyclists is of particular concern”

and that:

“While Education and Engineering are important, they cannot stand alone”—

as my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee said. The report also states:

“Enforcement must be adequate and its methods designed to ensure safety in order to continue the trend in reducing road fatalities and injuries.”

The UK’s safety record may very well be in danger, because, as was mentioned by both the previous speakers, the figures are moving in the wrong direction and the number of road fatalities is slightly increasing. Perhaps the Minister, when he responds to the debate, can confirm that the number of people being killed or seriously injured—the KSI figures—in the last two or three years is going in the wrong direction.

As was mentioned by both previous speakers, our record in global terms is excellent—we need to say that. The Minister will know that I am chair of Fire Aid, which supports the UN’s sustainable development goals on KSI reductions, particularly in the area of post-crash response, which includes exporting the British fire service’s expertise and professionalism in extracting victims from vehicles and dealing with road collisions. We are working in 30 countries around the world and taking British expert advice, training and equipment out to those countries, which are in eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

The Government signed up to the sustainable development goals, which apply to the United Kingdom and not just to other countries, to say that we want a 40% reduction in the 1.25 million people who are killed and the 20 million people who are seriously injured on the world’s roads every year. Those targets—those ambitions—apply to the UK and not just to other countries. The European Union also has KSI targets to which the Government have signed up.

That makes the decision in 2010 by the former Secretary of State for Transport to abandon the UK’s KSI reduction targets all the more disappointing. The Government’s abandonment of a clear commitment to save more lives and reduce serious injuries was not only a signal lack of ambition but a retreat from the 30-year consensus started by the Thatcher Administration in the 1980s, probably by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) when he was the Minister with responsibility for road safety. As I say, it commanded cross-party support for more than thirty years, but was abandoned because the former Secretary of State for Transport, it was reported, did not want to fail to meet the targets and consequently be accused of failure. However, not having targets basically said, “Well, we’re not really having any ambition,” which was very defeatist.

Let me turn to some of the specific recommendations in the Transport Committee’s report and the Government response. Recommendations 1 and 2 basically deal with the number of traffic police officers and the fact that their number is falling. My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Committee, said that the number of offences for causing death has not fallen, but the number of traffic offences being detected has fallen significantly.

The Government response to those recommendations says:

“The level of effective roads policing is not necessarily dependent solely on one factor, for example all police officers can enforce the law, including road traffic law, and there can be improved targeting of resources on particular problems.”

However, the Transport Committee’s report says:

“The National Police Chiefs Council…emphasised”—

in the evidence it gave to the Committee—

“that road policing is a specialist skill set and a highly technical specialism that cannot be replicated by a ‘regular front-line operational officer’.”

As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee said, the number of specialist road police officers has consistently fallen over the last decade and it is now down to about 4,300 from about 7,100. The report states:

“The total number of detected motoring offences has more than halved over the past decade”

between 2004 and 2015. The need for a skilled and adequate road policing presence remains, not least to protect vulnerable road users. My question to the Minister is this: have cuts to the number of specialised road policing officers led to fewer traffic offences being detected? Obviously, if they have, that needs to be examined.

I had a brief exchange with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South on speed cameras. I was tickled, I must confess, by recommendation 4 in the report, which said:

“Further deployment of average speed cameras (ASC), which are generally better received by motorists”.

“Better received” is a euphemism. They are better obeyed by motorists. There are some motorists out there who do not think we should have speed cameras. We beg to differ on “better received”. I might have argued for a stronger word than “received”, because speed is clearly an issue, as both my colleagues have mentioned.

Recommendation 6 states:

“We recommend that the Government monitor the placement of speed cameras by local authorities to ensure that this is the case.”

I will come back to the strong point that the Chair of the Select Committee made on devolvement to local authorities and using their expertise and technology to enforce the laws. Does the Minister have up-to-date information on how wide the deployment is of civilians in communities trained by the police in using handheld speed radar guns? It empowers local communities that think they have a problem with speeding to take the matter into their own hands and deter people from making the roads where they live dangerous.

Recommendation 15 states:

“We recommend that the Department fund research into the development and effective deployment of technology to detect illegal mobile phone use while driving.”

That point was made by the Chair of the Select Committee. The Government’s response cites the statistic that only 1.6% of car drivers were observed using a handheld mobile phone. I would like to think that that is anecdotal, because certainly in London the percentage seems to be higher. Obviously, this is a study that the Government would have undertaken. Given the serious dangers that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South pointed out, even 1.6% is an issue.

If I may, I say hello to our civil servants. The last sentence of this part of the Government’s response says:

“Ultimately, use of such a devise”.

There is a spelling mistake, and we rarely find those in Select Committee reports and Government responses. I do not know how that sneaked in.

Will the Government consider the Transport Select Committee’s recommendation to

“fund research into the development and effective deployment of technology to detect illegal mobile phone use while driving”?

That is of great interest to me and other road safety campaigners.

My second point on mobile phone use is that RAC research shows that most offenders are offered educational courses. With the welcome introduction of new penalties by the Government, they appear to be suggesting that courses will not be offered in future. Are they now discouraging the option of educational courses for illegal mobile phone use? The key issue here, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, is detection. People do not commit offences if they think they will be found out. If they think they will get away with it, they will commit the offence. With fewer road traffic police on our roads and less visibility, more people think they will get away with it and more people will offend.

Recommendation 16 talks about how the

“vulnerability of cyclists provides a particular road enforcement challenge.”

That is a huge issue for Members from all parts of the House. Central Government and local government are making great efforts to protect cyclists more, to promote cycling and to reduce the number of people who are vulnerable when they are cycling. I got a briefing from Cycling UK, and I must confess that I baulked at one of its responses to the Government’s response. It said:

“Cycling UK would suggest that the subsequent THINK! Campaign, urging cyclists to ‘hang back’ from lorries, merely added to the perception that cycling was dangerous, whilst also blaming victims.”

I think that is nonsensical. It is absolute rubbish. When I cycle from east London into Westminster, I travel down Lower Thames Street and the Embankment. Before we had cycle superhighway 3 and a dedicated lane, whenever I approached a junction or a traffic light and had an HGV in front of me, common sense would say to me, “Hang back.” It is basic common sense for the THINK! campaign to say to cyclists, “Hang back.” For Cycling UK to say that that is patronising or reinforces the fact that cycling is dangerous demeans the campaign for better cycling. I know what Cycling UK is trying to say, but when we undermine the solid messaging from the THINK! campaign on safer cycling, it does the promotion of cycling no good at all. We all want to see safer cycling, safer cyclists and more of us.

Recommendation 19 states:

“We recommend that the Home Office commission research on how collisions or near misses are handled by the police”.

The Chair of the Select Committee majored on that and outlined why the Committee thought that that was absolutely necessary.

My last reference is to recommendations 37 and 38. I agree entirely with the Committee that devolving powers could be a way forward. I understand the Government’s anxiety, especially given the abuses of unscrupulous parking companies levelling fines and massively increasing fines for people who are guilty of not paying the appropriate parking fee. Given the advances in technology, communities expect to be protected against unsocial and criminal elements. Speeding cars in urban environments, such as in my constituency—we have a rash of it in Wapping at present—should be tackled by the police and the council. CCTV, automatic number plate recognition cameras and other evidence-gathering technology should be deployed to protect communities against those who do not care about the rest of us. Given the support of local authorities, I reinforce the point that the Chair of the Select Committee made: I do not understand the Government’s reluctance to embrace local councils as allies in the fight against illegal, criminal and dangerous activity, especially in a climate of devolution where every level of government is devolving powers to local communities.

Our fellow citizens are more likely to come up against unacceptable behaviour and illegality on our roads than probably at any other time in their lives. Too many will die and far too many will suffer life-changing serious injuries. The report is important, and I commend the Committee and all its members for bringing it forward. The Government need to do more to reassure our communities.

I do not in any way challenge the Minister’s personal commitment to having safer roads. On a personal level, I know he is totally determined to do the right thing. It is the same for the THINK! campaign and all the civil servants within the Department who work overtime to try to ensure that are roads are safer. The Chair of the Select Committee made references to education and campaign activity. Can the Minister tell us how much money was deployed on the THINK! budget last year, and how much will be deployed this year and next year? With no disrespect to the Minister, he inherited a suite of policies and decisions that fundamentally point the Government in the wrong direction on road safety. The reduction in road police, the U-turn on the Green Paper on new and younger drivers, and the abolition of KSI reduction targets, are all fundamental policies that have taken the Government in the wrong direction. We are very keen to see the KSI statistics for 2014, 2015 and 2016. I think they will suggest the Government are going in the wrong direction, and they are the only people who can change that direction. I am keen to listen to the responses of the shadow road safety Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden)—and the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

We look at all the ingredients that combine to influence road safety. On penalties for use of mobile phones, for example, it was highlighted that the number of penalties issued had fallen significantly—that is a fact—but during that time the number of people who have suddenly lost their lives in incidents in which handheld mobile phone use was considered a factor has remained exactly the same. The figure has been consistent. That tells us that mobile phone use is an ingredient, but that there is no direct causal link between one fact and another—a number of factors are in play. Do I think that enforcement matters, however? Yes, I do. I agree entirely with the principles of education, engineering and enforcement. Are we reviewing that? Yes, it is one of the many ingredients that we review constantly.

To go back to the big four, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the most common traffic offence is indeed speeding. We know that excessive speed kills, and I agree with the Select Committee that cameras are an important and effective technology in detecting speeding offences. We use technology in every other part of human life, so why on earth would we not use it in something as critically important as road safety? I occasionally get letters saying, “We need to remove cameras. They are an infringement of civil liberties”, or that we are unfairly targeting motorists. That is absolute nonsense. It is, however, for local authorities and local police forces to determine where cameras should be sited for their best effect.

The best effect lies, I agree, in getting drivers to respect the speed limits, not in simply generating revenue. Where a camera generates significant ongoing revenue, the local safety partnership should be asking why and whether, for example, the speed limits are clearly signed. The Government are not generally in favour of hypothecating tax revenues—we are no different from Governments of all colours over many years—but, having said that, we are working to hypothecate the vehicle excise duty to Highways England and the road investment strategy. There is not, however, a parallel between hypothecating speed fines and road safety.

I agree that there is a high level of compliance—the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) called it “obedience”, but it is compliance. That is the word we are looking for when we see the use of average speed cameras, because a marked change in driver behaviour results. That is a personal observation. He also asked if we had information from communities on local camera use and so on. I do not have that information, but I will see whether we can find some. If we can, I will share it with the hon. Gentleman.

Drink-driving is clearly a critical issue. We certainly take seriously the threat that all dangerous drivers, including drink and drug-drivers, pose to the safety of other road users. However, I must be up front and say that we have no plans to change the drink-drive limit. The rigorous enforcement of the limit and the serious penalties for drink-driving in this country are a more effective deterrent than changing the limit. We may have a higher drink-drive limit than other countries, but we also have a more successful culture of enforcement and of removing the issue than other countries.

It is also fair to recognise that we have made other changes. We changed drink-driving legislation in April 2015 to require high-risk offenders to undertake medical tests before they are allowed to drive again. We have also removed the so-called statutory option that allowed suspected drink-drivers the choice of an evidential breath test or a specimen of blood or urine, which afforded the potential for people to sober up during the time lag between the two. That option has now gone. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) is correct in saying that the average blood alcohol level for those stopped and convicted is not in the 50 to 80 mg category, which represents about 2% of those stopped. The average is in the 150 to 180 mg category. The people causing drink-drive problems pay absolutely no regard to drink-drive limits; they just do not think that the limits apply to them. The limits are not the issue here.

The Select Committee report did not explicitly consider drug-driving, but the Government’s response did, noting that drugs in a driver’s bloodstream can pose as much of a danger as alcohol. We have provided £1 million to police forces in England and Wales to support drug-driving enforcement. The evidence so far is that it has been highly successful, and for 2016 we are expecting an eightfold to tenfold increase over the previous year. When the data come out, we will be able to confirm that properly, but that is the indication thus far. We have some time to go before we get the final data, but it is clearly a successful policy.

The anecdotal feedback from police services around the country is that it has been a great addition to their toolkit, and that they have used the drug-driving laws to disrupt far more criminal activity, such as drug-dealing rings, tackling the drivers to take the rings out of circulation for a period. That is interesting. It is not exactly why we introduced the drug-driving rules, but it is a welcome side effect nevertheless. In March last year, just as the Select Committee report was being published, we launched a THINK! campaign to educate people about the dangers of drug-driving and send a clear message that it is unacceptable. A point was made about social unacceptability. We want drug-driving to be as socially unacceptable as drink-driving. We as a society are a little further back on that journey, but it is clearly the direction that we want to go in. I want everybody to know that the consequences for drug-driving will be serious.

We talked a little about mobile phone use, particularly under the heading of distractions. I know that the Select Committee welcomes the higher penalties that Parliament has approved for drivers who use their mobile phones. Whether they are calling, texting or using an app, motorists caught using a handheld device will receive a fixed penalty notice of £200 and six penalty points on their driving licence. The changes will come into effect next week, on 1 March, making it one of the toughest fixed penalties. Drivers risk losing their licence after two offences, totalling 12 points, and new drivers who reach six points in one offence will lose their licence right away and have to retake both theory and practical driving tests. Such penalties will be effective only if drivers believe that an offence will be detected.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse asked whether fixed penalty notices were still appropriate. Our police service has operational independence. It is fair to say, though, that the Government would like more fixed penalty notices to be issued, particularly at the start of this major change to the penalty regime, so that the heavy penalties are understood and widely communicated and are used to effect behaviour change, because that is what this is about. If people see others losing their licences, it will effect a behaviour change.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Does that not reinforce the point that the Select Committee made about devolving some responsibility for fixed penalty notices to local authorities and other bodies, so that there can be allies in the field to detect and punish the people who breach the regulations that the Government want enforced?

[Andrew Jones]

I will come to the local enforcement of moving traffic offences, but the hon. Gentleman’s underlying point is correct. Do we need alliances? Progress on road safety issues is achieved by campaigners—they often lead the way—local government, national Government and various agencies, such as Highways England and High Speed 2, which have road safety budgets, all working together. That is how we have made progress as a country, and I see that as the way forward, too.

I certainly want to ensure that we get this message across, and there will be a strong THINK! campaign to warn drivers as part of the launch of the changes on 1 March. We are also working with the police on an enforcement campaign, but prevention is better than cure, and we have the opportunity through that advertising campaign to make clear the risk that drivers take. I want to make using a handheld mobile device at the wheel—including texting—as socially unacceptable as drink-driving. I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside is absolutely correct that technology can help. Indeed, I will meet mobile phone companies next week and have already met other technology companies. Technology is moving pretty fast in this area. I am not normally at the cutting edge of technology, but I am happy to learn and I certainly see that technology can help here.

Seatbelts were mentioned. We recently had the 50th anniversary of seatbelt legislation, and I do not think any other single policy has generated a better return in terms of improving road safety than seatbelts. I am pleased that compliance with seatbelt wearing remains very high. The awareness-raising work that has been done over a long period has clearly struck home, and wearing a seatbelt is now automatic for the vast majority of us. However, we are not complacent, and we will conduct a roadside survey later this year to establish whether there has been any significant change from the last time we conducted a survey, which was 2014.

Many colleagues mentioned vulnerable road users. It is a tragedy that three cyclists were killed on London’s roads in just a week earlier this month—two of them in just 12 hours. I will come to that later, but the stories that one learns are truly tragic. All road users have a responsibility to those with whom they share the road. That responsibility is all the greater to road users whose mode makes them more vulnerable. London leads the way on cycling, ensuring that goods vehicles are properly equipped for seeing other road users and keeping them apart. We believe that decisions about restricting vehicle movement are best taken locally, although we recognise that having different standards in different places could be operationally quite difficult for road users.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse highlighted the THINK! Hang Back campaign, which actually had two strands. He mentioned the strand for cyclists, but there was a further strand of communication targeted at HGV drivers, including through trade organisations. That campaign was developed because research revealed that around 30% of cyclists were unaware of the dangers of being on the inside of an HGV that might turn left. Given that so many people thought that was a safe space to be in, we were quite robust in some of our communication to get the message across. There was no suggestion of apportioning blame—that is obviously ridiculous. We are trying to make people aware and get them to take responsibility for themselves and other road users. I made the point earlier that people have a responsibility to those with whom they share the road.

On fixed penalty notices and diversionary courses, the Sentencing Council has announced that penalties for people found guilty of serious speeding offences will increase on 24 April. Most speeding is not wilfully over the posted limit, and in such cases a fixed penalty notice is often the best way to remind drivers of the need to monitor and control their speed. The last increase in fixed penalty fines for speeding was in 2013. We keep them under review. Where there is a clear case for change, as with mobile phones, we have acted and will continue to act.

Police officers have discretion to decide how to dispose of an offence. Where an officer believes that the driver will benefit, the offer of a diversionary course is an effective way to proceed. What we are seeking to do is to change behaviour. The police officer makes a call on how that might be best achieved and we want to maintain the operational independence of our police.

As the Committee noted, we are evaluating the national speed awareness course, the most widespread of the diversionary courses that are offered. We hope to complete that work later this year. The Committee recommended that the costs of diversionary courses be standardised. I have some sympathy with drivers faced with a range of different costs for the same course, without any explanation for the variation. However, I can also see that the cost of delivery will vary from place to place. Where courses are delivered by an external provider, contractual commitments may need to be taken into account. For the time being, therefore, we do not intend to mandate a single national charge for each type of course.

The Government’s response to the Committee’s report noted the objective of 188,000 vehicle compliance checks this year. So far, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has checked 167,555 vehicles at the roadside, so it is well on track to meet that target. It has also found just over 20,000 serious defects and offences, which is well ahead of where it expected to be at this point in the year. We are therefore confident that the agency will meet both targets by the end of this financial year. The London industrial HGV taskforce uses the combined powers of the two bodies to target those identified as at the biggest risk of non-compliance. That targeting is working well, but we have not yet been able to develop similar programmes in other parts of the country.

On the cross-border enforcement directive, in our response to the Committee report, we stated that we would attempt to influence the European Commission to amend the directive in the future. Quite a bit has happened in policy in this area over the last few months. The purpose of the directive was to support member states in the investigation of eight different kinds of offence committed by drivers when driving in other member states and the legislation mandates sharing information about vehicle keepers. However, the UK prosecutes only drivers for the offences in question—a point that was made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside. There is nothing in the directive that obliges member states to compel their citizens to admit liability or to name the driver.

Parliament has seen our explanatory memorandum on the European Commission’s review of the directive, which recognises that there is an issue for member states that have driver liability in place. We have some support from other member states on the topic and we continue to press for change.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South made an important point about sharing best practice. We feel that there is a role for the Department in sharing best practice. I have attended and spoken at roads policing conferences, which bring together enforcement leaders around the country. The sharing of best practice is not just carried out in this part of our departmental activity, but is spread much more widely.

We made clear in the Government’s response to the report that the devolution of parking enforcement has not been without considerable concerns from motorists—a point that was noted by the Committee in its 2013 report, which expressed concern about the way in which local authorities used CCTV for parking enforcement. There have been concerns about revenue raising, penalty levels and the number of penalty charge notices issued. In response to that, new legislation was enacted in March 2015 to restrict the use of CCTV for parking enforcement. I received a letter in the last few days from a councillor suggesting that the powers be granted so that they could use them precisely for revenue raising. That is not quite what we were seeking—this is about safety and behaviour change.

Against that backdrop, the Government remains to be convinced about the case for giving authorities the powers to enforce moving traffic contraventions. I am not keen to see local authorities installing a raft of new cameras on yellow box junctions and elsewhere, only to see penalty charge notices issued. Equally, I have seen freedom of information requests, often from the media, that indicate that some councils have made large sums of money from some specific box junctions. We therefore have no plans to change the current position to give local authorities outside London greater enforcement powers, and in that context we do not consider it appropriate to give London further powers either. However, I have met the Local Government Association to discuss the issue, and will continue to do so to see if we can find areas on which we agree.

I will highlight a few of the questions from hon. Members. Is this a matter for cross-departmental activity? Yes, of course it is. One only has to see the Treasury’s positive response to road safety issues, with a £175 million budget announced in the autumn statement to tackle the top 50 problem roads in the EuroRAP assessment, or the way the Ministry of Justice is consulting on increasing sentencing. Do we have a publication date for CWIS—the cycling and walking investment strategy? I cannot give the House a specific date yet, but I can say that it will be published very shortly.

I am aware that the Government have signed up to the sustainable development goals. I am actually very keen to see us share some of our expertise and insights to help other countries to learn from the journey that we have been on over many years. I have spoken at conferences with representatives from many countries around the world, and I have said repeatedly that, if somebody would like information from my Department, we will make it available. We are happy to help as they go on the journey that we have been on. Equally, I am also happy if we can steal ideas, too; I am acutely aware that not all ideas will come from this country. I do not really mind where the ideas come from, so long as we make some progress.

A number of points have been made on whether to have targets. If other countries wish to have targets, that is obviously fine, but frankly I do not think that we need them. I do not think that targets have a direct cause and effect on policy in quite the same way that some colleagues here do. I do not need a target to tell me that this is an important issue or to bring forward ideas and initiatives: I just do not think it is related. We are bringing forward ideas because this is an issue that matters. It is simply not the case that policy is as simple as publishing a target and then seeing a cause and effect like that. We have seen many other areas of Government policy in which targets have even had a perverse effect—most notably in health targeting. We have no plans to introduce targets, but we have plenty of plans to continue what we are doing to make our roads safer.

The Select Committee report noted that effective enforcement was one of the three E’s, and a necessary adjunct to the engineering and education initiatives that help to deliver our road safety initiatives. The report also noted that road users should know that infringements will be detected. I agree, and I hope that I have demonstrated to the House that the Government take road safety seriously. I am grateful for the comments about my personal commitment to the subject from colleagues across the House. It is actually the first policy area upon which I commissioned work when I became a Minister, which I hope gives an indication of my personal commitment to it.

I am acutely aware of the importance of this issue. Behind every statistic is a shattered life or a shattered family. I have met many such families, and those are hard meetings, but they spur me on to do more in this area. It is clear that we have taken and are taking action. We have some of the safest roads in the world, and I will work to make them ever safer.