Health and Safety Executive

Debate between Jim Shannon and Meg Munn

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Meg Munn]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That situation will be properly investigated and whatever was wrong put right, which is exactly what the Health and Safety Executive does, and does extraordinarily well. That is something of which we should all be proud.

Many of our major companies take great pride, not just in reducing accidents to a minimum but in seeking to carry out their business without any accidents at all. That is not just good for their employees but saves on business costs, making sense for everyone. Unfortunately, that approach does not extend sufficiently to those who employ drivers for a living. Astonishingly, when I first wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the matter, he replied that obstructive sleep apnoea in lorry drivers was not a health and safety issue. When I wrote again, he replied in more detail:

“medical fitness to drive is a matter on which the DVLA rightly takes the lead...HSE generally maintains that meeting DVLA requirements will satisfy the test of what is reasonable”.

I do not accept that meeting Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency requirements is enough to meet the Health and Safety Executive’s aim of requiring employers to take steps to reduce risks to as low a level as is reasonably practicable. In addition to the work that the DVLA and the police do on road safety, the Health and Safety Executive has an important role to play in influencing more employers and trade union safety representatives not only to be aware of the dangers of undiagnosed sleep apnoea, but actively to encourage screening.

I suspect that the Minister will tell me that the police, the DVLA, the Department for Transport and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency adequately ensure enforcement of the legislation, but I do not accept that. Given the cost of driving accidents, in lives and money, I ask the Minister to take this matter to her Department and look at it again.

Currently, employers have the legal responsibility, and I will continue—with, I am sure, Members such as the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson)—to press more companies voluntarily to adopt the approach of Allied Bakeries, but the Government can make a positive change and ensure that the Health and Safety Executive’s expertise is brought to bear.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall. Does she feel perhaps that the findings of the report that she has presented today should be made known to the devolved Administrations, for example the Northern Ireland Assembly, where the matter is a devolved one? The findings of the report would be important for those Administrations, so that they could also bring, or enable, legislative change, to prevent such tragedies.

[Meg Munn]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Nowadays, lorry drivers increasingly drive not just in their own countries but abroad, and we know that the European Union has been considering this matter. It is absolutely right that the devolved Assemblies should consider the issue in their Parliaments and ensure that they, too, address it.

Before I allow the Minister to respond, I want to make my fundamental point, which is that the Health and Safety Executive is a great body, which does a good job. It could do so much more in addressing the nearly two thirds of fatalities at work that happen not in the areas that the executive currently covers, but on the road.

My strong representation is that although other organisations, the police, the DVLA and the Department for Transport consider certain aspects of the matter, no one is doing the kind of proper forensic investigation of such accidents that would mean that information could be fed back into guidance and really begin to make a difference. The consequences of lorries crashing into people are horrific, as our constituents would testify, and I would like the Government seriously to consider the matter. I do not expect the Minister to wave her magic wand today, but I urge her to go back to her Department and have a good look at this.

Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jim Shannon and Meg Munn

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Meg Munn]

That is precisely my point. If the Government had set out to undertake proper consultation, the suggested changes could have been tightly focused and would have reassured, instead of increasing bad feeling and suspicion about the Government’s intentions.

[Jim Shannon]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the Chancellor has said that the suspension will be a temporary measure, but that the Treasury may “learn lessons” from this experiment? What lessons does she think the Government may learn?

[Meg Munn]

If the Treasury decides to come forward with that, the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) will no doubt express his strong view that it has no merit whatever.

The Association of Convenience Stores has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members already. Its poll showed that Sunday trading liberalisation is unpopular: 89% of the public were opposed to further change in the law and, as we have heard, a survey of more than 20,000 USDAW members conducted after the March Budget announcement found that 78% opposed the suspension of Sunday trading laws during the Olympic games. As it is, 51% already come under pressure from their employers to work Sundays, and 73% said that they would come under more pressure to work on Sundays if shops were allowed to open for longer. Shop workers deserve the right to enjoy the Olympics just like everybody else.

Tennis

Debate between Jim Shannon and Meg Munn

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Meg Munn]

I welcome that; such work is important, but it still has not achieved the participation that it should. The barriers to more people playing tennis must be addressed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Sport is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and although we are talking about England, I want to add to the debate an example of what has been done there. The Ulster branch of Tennis Ireland’s initiative over a weekend last summer introduced 508 people to tennis with the support of councils, tennis clubs and private enterprise—Asda’s sporting chance programme sponsored it. That is an example of how, with promotion and encouragement, we can get more people involved and other people to help.

[Meg Munn]

It is good to hear about that, because we must address the barriers to more people playing tennis.

I am sceptical that the LTA can achieve the surge in participation that we are all talking about and all want. In my experience, lasting involvement is often achieved by local people coming together and deciding to do something, by people getting involved for not just two weeks, during Wimbledon or when something is first there, and doing something that continues and enables people to take up a sport, which, as I said earlier, they can keep on playing well into their 60s, 70s and even 80s. For instance, a group of parents might want to do something for their children, or a group of women might want to get together and get active, while having fun. What prevents people from seeing tennis as the way to do that is the lack of courts and equipment, and probably most difficult to overcome is the sense that tennis is a sport for better-off people, with too many children and adults seeing it as elitist and not for them.

An organisation that has set out to change things is Tennis for Free, which starts from a simple point of view. If children want to play football, they get their ball, find a patch of grass, put down a couple of jumpers and start playing. It costs them nothing. Charging to use tennis courts has helped the decline in participation, by making tennis too expensive for many people to play, and councils need someone collect the money. The result across the country has been poor-quality tennis courts that become underused and fall into disrepair.

Tennis for Free works with schools, tennis clubs and local authorities. It uses public park court facilities to create tennis communities. It provides free equipment and a free two-year coaching programme, run by qualified coaches and available to young people and adults of all ages, standards and abilities.

Eyesight Tests (Drivers)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Meg Munn

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to have secured a debate on eyesight regulations for drivers, especially as we are in the middle of national eye health week. As I speak, an event to mark the week is taking place in Parliament, and in my home city of Sheffield a wide range of organisations is holding an awareness day in the city centre. South Yorkshire police, in conjunction with the Sheffield Royal Society for the Blind, are focusing on the issue that brings me here today: the importance of good sight for driving and, in particular, drivers who do not realise that their sight is deteriorating.

I have been engaged on the subject for some time. I was contacted by my constituent Joy Barnes, whose niece tragically died in a road accident caused by a driver whose eyesight was not up to the necessary standard. Joy’s niece, Fiona Buckley, was just 43 when she died. She was born with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, so spent much of her adult life in a wheelchair. Fiona worked in the city centre Shopmobility service and in the Royal Hallamshire hospital as a welcomer. A bubbly person, she enjoyed a lively social life and, in her younger days, was an accomplished swimmer, later becoming an avid photographer and Scrabble player. Her family describe Fiona as a generous and courageous spirit.

At 10 pm on 6 December 2008, Fiona was crossing the road, with her friend Kay Pilley walking just behind. Witnesses said that the car approaching did not attempt to overtake or brake, but ran straight into them, and Fiona was thrown over the vehicle. She suffered a major head injury and her pelvis, spine and leg were broken. Six weeks later, she died in hospital from multiple organ failure. Kay suffered head and knee injuries and was treated at hospital; she could not remember what had happened.

Police officers subsequently tested the 87-year-old driver’s eyesight, and found that he could not read a car number plate from the required distance of 20.5 metres. He was later found to have cataracts in both eyes, which had probably been there for some 18 months. A doctor said it would give him “foggy or hazy” sight that could have rendered Fiona almost invisible to him. He also suffered from age-related macular degeneration, which blurs the central vision. With his right eye, he could see only from 6 metres what people with good vision can read from 24 metres. The driver admitted causing death by careless driving, but the judge decided not to punish him for killing Fiona. The driver was given only three penalty points. Fiona’s aunt, Joy Barnes, speaking on behalf of her wider family said:

“Fiona’s death hit us all hard. The driver should not have been on the roads with such poor eyesight and it is a travesty that nothing is done to make sure that drivers meet a minimum standard of sight. If this driver had been made to have a sight test to keep his licence then Fiona would still be with us.”

During the current driving test, the examiner gives the driver three chances to read a number plate, from 20 metres for vehicles displaying the new-style plate or 20.5 metres for old-style plates. Following that, the drivers of cars, small vans and motorbikes need not take any form of eye test for the rest of their life, unless they voluntarily report that they have a serious vision impairment to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Once drivers have reached the age of 70, in order to renew their licence they are asked to confirm that they have acceptable vision, but they are not required to prove it.

The Department for Transport has been consulting on the medical standards that should apply to eyesight tests for safe driving. Astonishingly, the Department is proposing that the testing distance should be reduced from 20.5 metres to 17.5 metres. The Sheffield Royal Society for the Blind is extremely concerned that any relaxation in the requirements could be detrimental to road safety. Can the Minister give me details of the evidence that was considered before reaching that proposal? What is her evidence to suggest that such a test is adequate in any way?

The current eyesight test is simply no longer fit for purpose. In contrast with the tragic death of Fiona Buckley, it is not possible to attribute many road accidents directly to poor eyesight. Eyesight is often only one of the factors that might be involved; others include the time of day, the weather, the condition of the road and tiredness. However, it is common sense that poor vision will impair any driver’s performance, even taking into account all other conditions.

The distance number plate test has been in place since the 1930s and is outdated. It has remained unchanged, despite increased numbers of vehicles on the road and developments in road safety standards and clinical technology. It is not scientifically based and does not reflect modern day knowledge of vision. The number plate test also only measures visual acuity—put simply, the ability to see at a distance. It does not produce consistent results and can be affected by environmental conditions. Drivers can fail the test in different lighting or weather conditions. Several scientific publications have questioned the accuracy and reliability of the number plate test as a method of screening visual acuity. Also, it does not test visual field—put simply again, the ability to see around while looking straight ahead. Visual field loss can advance significantly without a person becoming aware of a problem. For instance, glaucoma is a condition that someone can have and yet pass a number plate test with insufficient field vision.

The current system also requires self-reporting and therefore relies on individual drivers being aware of the required standard, realising that they do not meet it and knowing that not notifying the DVLA of any problem is a criminal offence. However, many drivers do not notice what can be a gradual change in their vision, remaining unaware that they fall below the required legal eyesight standard.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I can suggest one method of checking everyone’s eyesight, including mine. I register an interest as a diabetic—type 2 of course, controlled by diet. If people visit an optician every year, the optician tells them about their eyesight. Might that be a method whereby people can check if their eyesight is deteriorating?

[Meg Munn]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about what could be done if the current system, which puts the onus on the driver, continues. I will argue, for good reasons, that an eye test should be a requirement.

Many people with glaucoma do not have any symptoms until the condition is quite advanced. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance advises that once vision loss becomes apparent, up to 90% of optic nerve fibres might already have been damaged. The general manager of Sheffield Royal Society for the Blind, Steve Hambleton, said:

“when people are diagnosed with an eye condition that impacts upon their ability to drive safely, the onus is on the driver to notify DVLA. We encounter too many people who do not do this and continue to drive. In these days of data protection etc., it is extremely difficult if not impossible for organisations such as ours to advise DVLA of our concerns.”

Last month, I attended the launch of the UN decade of road safety, which was addressed by the Secretary of State for Transport. The UK has a proud record: Great Britain had the fourth fewest road deaths per million people, we have been in the top five performing countries throughout the past decade and we were in first place in 2009. Yet on eyesight testing, we are lagging behind many countries and many of our neighbours in the European Union. The EU has recently published directives to standardise driving licences and to harmonise European standards. The UK lags behind best performance of most other European countries in assessing drivers’ vision. A report released only this week outlines that a majority of EU member states assess visual acuity and visual fields in advance of issuing a first full driving licence. The UK is among the minority that requires no further assessment of vision throughout a driving career.

The 2006 and 2009 EU driving licence directives continue a long path to harmonise driving licences with the overall aim of improving road safety and facilitating enforcement throughout EU countries. Is the Minister really content to see our otherwise excellent record on road safety lag far behind the best practice of our near neighbours? Given that the EU directive recommends a visual field of at least 120 degrees, how can the number plate test be sufficient to comply?

The only way to make sure that drivers continue to have adequate vision is to make eyesight testing mandatory at regular intervals throughout the time they hold a licence. Drivers should have to provide regular proof that they have had their eyes tested by a medical professional and that they meet minimum standards for visual acuity and visual field. That should happen at least every 10 years, coinciding with drivers renewing their photo driving licence. That would be a simple and inexpensive step that would vastly improve the eyesight of drivers throughout the UK. I also recommend that when drivers reach the age of 70 and have to self-certify that they are fit to drive, they should be required to submit evidence from an appropriate professional that they have a safe and legal level of eyesight.

The present inadequacies must be addressed. That view is supported by the Optical Confederation, which represents 12,000 optometrists, and the 6,000 dispensing opticians and 7,000 optical businesses in the UK. Those organisations and many others concerned with road safety have submitted their concerns to the Department for Transport's consultation. Will the Minister report on the outcome of the consultation, and when will the Government respond to it?

Having good eyesight is one of the most basic requirements for safe driving. It is widely recognised that 90% of sensory information when driving comes from vision, which underlines the importance of always driving with good eyesight. Being an experienced and skilled driver who is aware of the dangers of the roads is simply meaningless if one is unable to spot hazards in time. Research shows that one in six drivers cannot see well enough to pass a very basic eyesight test. People who are reluctant to give up their driving licence cannot be relied on to inform the authorities if they have eyesight problems.

Making the changes that I suggest would have public support. In vox pop interviews this morning, my local radio station, Radio Sheffield, spoke to five people—only a few, but four of the five thought that those changes were sensible and saw no problem with them. BRAKE, the road safety charity, released a survey, which no doubt involved a few more people than the five in Sheffield, showing that 75% of drivers support compulsory eyesight testing for drivers every five years.

Continuing with a system of drivers self-reporting any problems that they may have is not the answer. Poor driver eyesight kills, and every death is devastating to the people involved. The Government should act on the professional advice, which commands support among drivers, and change the driving test to ensure that all drivers can see what lies ahead of them while on the road.