Road Traffic Law Enforcement

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Iain Stewart

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Westminster Hall

[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.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Iain Stewart

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I am sorry, Mr Williams, as that comes as a bit of a surprise in that I was anticipating other colleagues to be called to speak before me. However, I am grateful for the opportunity.

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

In the interests of clarity, I should say that my ambition is to speak in the second debate. I hope that this brief interruption gives the hon. Gentleman time to get his paperwork in order.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Given the number of colleagues who have been able to attend, and given other business in the House, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to make a substantial contribution to the second debate, given that we have three hours in which to discuss both reports.

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Williams. It is a pleasure to see you presiding over our business. I also welcome the 17th report from the Select Committee on Transport, “Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (ATOL) Reform”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chairman of the Committee, eloquently outlined in introducing the report, the air travel trust fund has its origins in the 1970s, but in March 2012 it registered a deficit of some £18.5 million. She mentioned the fact that in 1992, 98% of holidays were covered by ATOL, but in recent times the figure for the market in package holidays, which were the original target for the protection scheme, has fallen way below 40%.

As my hon. Friend also outlined, protection is not just good; it is essential. When companies fail, citizens may be abandoned, and certainly distressed. Responsibility is then on the Government to rescue them, and ultimately the taxpayer must foot the bill. That cannot be right. If people are able to enjoy holidays abroad, there must be some responsibility on them, as well as the organisations that get them to their destination, to ensure that they are covered for returning home. The previous Government were addressing the need for reform, and this Government have carried that on, as well as the need to close the deficit, balance the fund and provide future protection in the light of how bookings are made in the 21st century.

A helpful briefing from the Association of British Travel Agents says in respect of the modern way that people book holidays that

“robust evidence exists to prove that airlines can and do fail financially. Since 2000, 46% of monies paid out from the ATTF on failed ATOL holders can be attributed to the knock-on effects of airline insolvencies.”

It continues:

“In the last three years alone, 51% of all claims on the ATTF can be attributed to monies paid out following failures of ATOL holders as a direct result of airline insolvencies”.

That reinforces my hon. Friend’s point about the modern way of booking holidays.

I shall refer to some of the recommendations in the Committee’s reports, and to the Government response, to reinforce what my hon. Friend said. Recommendation 2 says that additional consumer protection is needed, and in respect of consumers the Government responded

“so they can make alternative arrangements for financial protection, if desired.”

The essential question here relates to many of the points made by my hon. Friend and to the Committee’s recommendations. As she said, only four consumers responded to the report. We had an exchange about consumer awareness of whether they are protected. People want to book the best holiday at the cheapest price, and they may not recognise whether those holidays are ATOL protected. Therefore, the Government’s comment in response to recommendation 2—that consumers

“can make alternative arrangements for financial protection, if desired”—

is somewhat inadequate. We do not want people to want to be rescued; we want them to help to pay for the cost of being rescued, because if they do not, the rescue is down to the Government and the taxpayer foots the bill.

That theme is continued in recommendation 7. The Government responded:

“When a consumer does not receive a Certificate, they will know that they will not be covered by the ATOL scheme”.

However, I am not sure that the consumer will know about that if they do not receive a certificate. It is clear that a lot of people, over recent years and decades, have been stranded, thinking that they were covered, without realising that they were not, because they did not understand the scheme.

Subsequently, the Government say that they

“will consider with the CAA… suggesting information that should be provided to consumers about financial protection every time that a flight is purchased.”

Our point of view, and the theme of the Committee’s report, is that everybody should be protected, and a way must be found to ensure that that protection is included in the price of the holiday.

Finally, the Government’s response to recommendations 5 and 9 states:

“The requirement that those organising and selling package holidays should have in place provision for refunds or repatriation in the event of organiser insolvency comes from the PTD.”

In our view, the position is straightforward: the Government need to ensure that consumers are protected, even against themselves.

Competition within the travel industry is fierce, with many great holidays on offer from airlines, travel companies, package holiday companies, and all manner of individual organisations and collectives, and the Committee is asking a number of questions that the Government need to address. My hon. Friend detailed those issues in her opening remarks, covering the scheme’s history and asking the Minister a number of questions that I know he will respond to in due course, because they are outstanding from the Committee’s report. I have reinforced some of those questions, because they are fundamental to the well-being of the scheme.

The scheme has been reformed in recent years, and that continues with the amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill moved by the Minister in the House on Tuesday. Clearly, the Government are indicating that they will continue with that reform and that, in due course, they will hold a consultation on future reforms. Comments made to me and to the Opposition suggest that there is keen interest in continuing the reform process and in making progress. If I remember correctly, the Minister said in the House on Tuesday that a further consultation is due in the spring, but the question from the industry, consumer groups and the Committee is, when is it likely to happen and can it be expedited?

This is unfinished business, going back many years. We began with it in government, and it is great to see the coalition continuing with it. We want the situation reformed, the deficit bridged, and the fund to be in surplus, not in excess, with enough to cover any contingencies. The whole travel industry—airlines and travel operators—wants exactly the same thing. There is agreement that progress has been made over recent years, but work remains to be done and I look forward to the Minister outlining how he intends to finish the job.

Transport (CSR)

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Iain Stewart

Thursday 25th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Iain Stewart]

I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There will be competition between high-speed rail and short-haul aviation, and I would like the United Kingdom to be part of a Europe-wide high-speed network, so that it is feasible to travel by rail from Birmingham to Paris or Frankfurt. However, it is an inescapable fact that the demands on medium and long-haul air travel will increase and, until an engineer comes up with a solution, we cannot yet take trains across the Atlantic or other expanses of water.

As part of the Transport Committee’s inquiry, we visited Birmingham airport a few weeks ago. The people who work there are excited about the High Speed 2 line, because the journey time from the London area to Birmingham airport will be less than 40 minutes. That opens up the prospect of having longer-haul flights from Birmingham and relieving the capacity pressures on south-east England airports. That might not be the only answer, but it is the sort of long-term consideration that transport planning should include.

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

Can I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks that he accepts the principle that the UK needs an international hub airport, as well as airports that function for shorter haul, and that he believes Heathrow is very important to the UK economy?

[Iain Stewart]

The United Kingdom certainly needs a hub airport in the broadest sense. I will not go into the relative merits of all the options in this short debate, but if my right hon. Friend the Minister wishes to promote me to the Government, I would be happy to make such decisions. At the moment, I am afraid such decisions are above my pay grade and that of the hon. Gentleman.

We need to think strategically about what we want the long-term aviation policy of the United Kingdom to be. That might involve Heathrow—although from all the evidence I have seen, I suspect not—or a broader south-east hub and Birmingham, Manchester or other airports in the United Kingdom. The point is that such a long-term view should be considered in conjunction with other strategic projects, such as high-speed rail.

If I may anticipate the comments that I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) will be sharing with us in a short time, we should consider specific transport projects in different locales around the country. There are exciting projects in the Leeds area involving trolley buses and other local schemes, which should also be factored into this country’s long-term planning. As a small aside, I shall mention that it is my hon. Friend’s birthday today. As a birthday present, perhaps the Minister can announce something helpful on the Leeds trolley bus scheme. However, I shall not press that matter any further.

In this country, we are poor at long-term transport planning. Part of the problem is that the tenure of Secretaries of State in the Department for Transport has been very short. Let us consider the average time for which Secretaries of State have served in the past. In the 18 years of Conservative Governments between 1979-1997, there were 12 Secretaries of State for Transport. Under the previous Labour Governments, there were seven Secretaries of State in 13 years—they did not last much longer on average. Transport needs to be pushed up the priority list in government. Again, it is way above my pay grade to determine ministerial appointments and tenure, but I hope that an individual is given the necessary time in post and the flexibility to develop a long-term view.

Those are the main points I wish to put on the record. I have the great pleasure of representing the Transport Committee at a European conference on transport and infrastructure this weekend. I am not a great fan of most things European, but Europe has had a comprehensive, strategic transport plan since 1990. I would like us to replicate that domestically in the United Kingdom. The settlement that my right hon. Friend and her colleagues have secured is, as I have said, very welcome in the context in which we operate. I hope that it will be a sound basis on which we can build a truly long-term national strategic transport plan.