Dr.
Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and
Shetland for raising this important subject. I was pleased to hear that
my earlier comments rekindled his enthusiasm for Europe, although I was
not aware that the Liberal Democrats had lost their
enthusiasm for it. So far today I have discovered that the new
Conservative party is pro-Europe and anti-market, and that the Liberal
Democrats are now anti-Europe and pro-market, so things are certainly
changing in the political
sphere. The hon.
Member for North Shropshire is correct: there is merit in exploring the
idea, but both he and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree
that we cannot legislate yet, because a bunch of guys sitting around
talking is probably not a good evidential base for legislation.
Nevertheless, it is clear that black box recorders have long-term
merit. 1.45
pm
Mr.
Paterson: The bunch of guys sitting around talking was the
hon. Gentleman’s definition of current traffic investigations,
his criticism being that the investigations do not have accurate data.
He was obviously proposing that the system that he is trying to sell to
the US Government is a much more accurate data supplier, so that the
bunch of guys would not have to sit around
talking.
Dr.
Ladyman: I realise that I am slow on the uptake sometimes,
but I got the point. My point is that the present evidence for the
potential of black boxes is also largely derived from a bunch of guys
sitting around talking. That is a necessary first stage in developing
what will ultimately be legislation, but we can pose some obvious
issues that would need to be addressed before black boxes were provided
for. What would they be used for and under what circumstances would
people have access to the information on them? How would we deal with
the freedom issues that they would present? What about compatibilities
of standards—how would we make sure that we were reading them
accurately? In
principle I agree that black boxes have merits. My own vehicle has a
black box in it and I have no access to the information that it
collects. That information is downloaded to the nice chaps at Alfa
Romeo when I have my car serviced, and they use it for designing the
next generation of Alfa Romeos, which as an Alfa Romeo owner I think is
probably a good thing. What I think is a bad thing is that I have no
ability to use the data, because it might advise me on how I could
drive better, or how I could save fuel by amending my driving
habits. There is a
whole range of things that black boxes could offer, from fuel
efficiency and environmental benefits right through to accident
investigation, but we are a long way from being able to specify or
require them, and there would have to be a raft of debate on diverse
technical and freedom issues before legislating for them. I am grateful
to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for beginning that debate
and I look forward to continuing it, but I urge him to withdraw the new
clause as it has served its purpose in initiating the
debate.
Mr.
Carmichael: We learn something new every day, Sir
Nicholas. Apparently some cars already have black boxes, and when I get
back to Shetland tomorrow I shall have a look at my car to see whether
the makers of Vauxhall have afforded the same opportunity to
Vectra owners such as myself as that which has been afforded to Alfa
Romeo owners. I am
crushed that the Minister has paid so little attention to my
parliamentary pronouncements on the subject of the European Union that
he should think that any lack of enthusiasm in that respect on my
part—heresy, as some of my hon. Friends call it—is
somehow novel or
recent. As I
indicated, and as the Minister acknowledged, the new clause was
intended to start a debate. It is not my intention to press it to a
vote, and with the Minister’s assurance that the subject is
something that the Department has in its sights, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
21Road
accident investigation
service ‘(1) Within 12 months
of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall by
regulations establish a Road Accident Investigation Service
(“the service”) which
shall— (a) investigate
the causes of road accidents particularly where they result in death or
serious injury, (b) commission
and publish the results of research into the causes and consequences of
road accidents, and (c) make
recommendations to the Secretary of
State. (2) Regulations under
this section may provide for the organisation, operation and powers of
the Service. (3) The Secretary
of State may make financial provision for the
Service. (4) The power to make
regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory
instrument. (5) No regulations
shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has
been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of
Parliament.'. —[Mr.
Carmichael.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Carmichael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a
Second time. New
clause 21 moves on from some of the arguments advanced earlier in
relation to the inclusion of vehicle data recording devices. As I said
to the Committee then, the science—and it is fair to call it a
science—of road accident investigation has moved on considerably
in recent years and is a much more sophisticated branch of policing.
There is now a case for the creation of a road accident investigation
service, which would be akin to the marine accident investigation
branch and the air accidents investigation branch. New clause 21 seeks
to establish such an investigation service. Members can see from the
text that this would involve investigation
into “the causes of road
accidents particularly where they result in death or serious
injury”, and that the
service would “commission
and publish the results of research into the causes and consequences of
road
accidents”. The
service would focus primarily on the more serious road accidents. One
that springs to mind is that which involved the Land Rover that ran off
the motorway while the driver was asleep, which ran into a train and
caused multiple deaths. A degree of expertise is necessary in that
instance. It would assist also in
establishing the contribution that sleep disorders make to the number
and nature of road traffic accidents. The treatment and diagnosis of
obstructive sleep apnoea, for example, is recognised much more widely
now. The impact that it has on many road accidents is the sort of
general topic that a service created specifically to investigate road
accidents would be able to take on and give a nationwide perspective
rather than a force-by-force approach, which seems to be the case at
present. Mr.
Paterson: We already have the air accidents investigation
branch. There might be some merit in creating a road accident
investigation service, but we have our doubts over whether it would be
cost effective. Before we give our full support, we need a lot more
detail than the hon. Gentleman presented. Rather like black boxes, the
subject requires further investigation. There could well be merits in
it, but at this stage, a lot more work needs to be
done.
Dr.
Ladyman: Again, I am sure that the hon. Member for Orkney
and Shetland intends really to stimulate debate. As the hon. Member for
North Shropshire said, we have an air accidents investigation branch.
Of course, thankfully, air accidents are rare. We have, as the hon.
Member for Orkney and Shetland said, a marine accident investigation
branch, and as I am responsible also for marine affairs I am pleased to
say that accidents in that area are rare also. Therefore, the number of
accidents that come into the remits of those bodies, so that they have
to launch investigations, is relatively limited. One of the things that
theycan do after investigating an accident is make
recommendations on how to reduce the chances of such an accident
happening again. Of
course, those agencies do not deal with quite the same situations as
arise in road accidents. Road accidents result in 3,200 fatalities. I
presume that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would want all
those fatalities to be investigated, so immediately we are talking
about an order of magnitude and more work than faced by the other
accident investigation bodies. Does he also want serious injuries to be
investigated? If so, we are talking about an order of magnitude greater
again. Then there is the question of what we would do with the
information. To what recommendations would it lead, on which we could
subsequently act? If
we are not going to investigate all deaths and serious injuries, how
would we explain that to the loved ones of those whose accidents are
not to be investigated? What would we do when we find someone sitting
in our constituency surgery who says that such a service does not
appear to value the life of their husband or wife because it is not
prepared to investigate the case and does not think that anything can
be learned from their loved one’s death? All those issues would
have to be dealt with.
In addition, we already have
well laid out procedures for the investigation of accidents,
particularly where deaths occur. A national road death investigation
manual was produced in 2002 which sets out how investigations are to be
carried out. First, the police are involved. They have to take
leadership, because if fault is involved they may need to prosecute
someone. The police will work closely with local authorities and other
highway authorities to identify what can be learned from each accident.
In addition, there is the Transport Research Laboratory and the teams
working in the Highways Agency who look generally at accidents to see
what engineering improvements we could make and what lessons we could
learn that might lead to changes in road traffic offences. We already do quite a lot of
what the hon. Gentleman is seeking, but it may be disseminated over a
large number of organisations. We might want to consider in the coming
years whether the Transport Research Laboratory or the Department for
Transport are bringing sufficient focus to the investigation of road
accidents in order to lead to evidence-based changes in legislation or
engineering. That is a worthy debate to have. In my view, we are doing
that work at the moment, but perhaps we could do even more. We have to
decide whether it would be cost effective to move
ahead.
Mr.
Knight: On many major roads we see the blue traffic
monitoring cameras in use. On some motorways—for example, the
M42—cameras are in place that assist the police in detecting
serious crime and vehicle fraud. Although they are not there for that
purpose, have those cameras proved to be of use when accidents have
been captured on
film?
Dr.
Ladyman: I understand that the cameras that are under the
control of the police have been used for that purpose. Police cameras,
which are normally used for the detection of offences, would have an
evidential regime around them which would be sufficient to present in a
court. The Highways Agency’s cameras are there to help us in any
way that is appropriate. They are there to help us to monitor
congestion and to react to it. If they pick up accidents, that
information is available to the Highways Agency and the engineering
teams to see whether it can teach us anything about the
causes. I do not
know—if the right hon. Gentleman presses this point, I will have
to write to him—whether the police have ever requested footage
from the Highways Agency’s films to help them in prosecutions. I
suspect that they have and I suspect that we would make it available if
there were a properly formulated request for that information.
Certainly if any information from those cameras were suitable to help
people improve road safety we would want to use it, subject to the
practicalities of the
technology. I hope
that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will once again accept
that he has raised an issue that is worthy of further debate. This is
probably not the time for legislating on it, even if we were all to
agree that it is necessary. I hope that he will withdraw his new
clause.
Mr.
Carmichael: I was hoping that the Minister might have
talked for another five minutes. I felt that as his speech progressed
he warmed to the idea after his fairly lukewarm start. Of course he is
absolutely right that where there is a fatality or serious injury, the
bulk of the investigation is already done. He was right to
draw attention to the work of various Government agencies, including the
Transport Research Laboratory. However, investigation is needed into
whether the range of responsibilities across a diffuse range of
agencies, which may sometimes compete for resources, is in the best
interests of road safety.
I shall not press the matter to
a vote. I am pleased to have the Minister’s view on the record,
and as the science of road traffic investigation evolves, my proposal
may become an historic inevitability. I am confident that in 10
years’ time a Minister—probably not the present one,
because I hope for his sake and his sanity that he will have moved
on—will propose exactly that. Secure in the knowledge that
history will be on my side, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
23Restrictions
on new drivers ‘(1) The Road
Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 (c. 13) is amended as
follows. (2) In section 1
(probationary period for newly qualified drivers), after subsection (4)
insert— “(5)
During the course of the probationary period, the following conditions
shall apply to a qualified
driver— (a) he may not
drive accompanied by any person under the age of
21; (b) he may drive only a
vehicle fitted with a distinguishing mark determined by regulations
issued by the Secretary of State indicating that the driver is a
probationary driver; and (c) he
may not drive when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or
urine exceeds the prescribed
limit. (6) The Secretary of
State shall prescribe by regulations the size, nature and colour of the
distinguishing sign in subsection (5)(b)
above. (7) The prescribed limit
of alcohol for the purposes of section 5(iii) above
is— (a) in the case of
breath, 9 microgrammes of alcohol in 100
millilitres; (b) in the case of
blood, 20 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres;
and (c) in the case of urine,
27 milligrammes of alcohol in 100
millilitres. (8) If a qualified
driver drives in breach of any of the conditions set out in subsection
(5), he is guilty of an offence.”'.—[Mr.
Carmichael.] Brought
up, and read the First
time. 2
pm
| 
