§ Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough)This season intensifies all emotions. We have children around us, going over the top with excitement; loneliness becomes more intense; road accidents at this time of year become more tragic. It is therefore appropriate to discuss road safety in urban areas, because there are bound to be some tragedies throughout the country and along the way.
I have asked for this Adjournment debate because of a sad case in my constituency of a five-year-old boy called Ryan Monk, who was knocked down by a car on 11 July 1994 and was in hospital for many months, very severely injured. He may never quite regain all his capacities.
You can therefore imagine Ryan's parents' feelings, Madam Deputy Speaker, when they were told informally by the police that they were not prepared to prosecute the driver for any offence, especially as the parents had received a copy of the accident record of South Yorkshire police dated 21 July, which showed that the driver was travelling at about 39 mph on a main road that has a 30 mph speed limit. The brake marks extended 24.9 m and the accident report says that, had the vehicle been travelling at 30 mph, the braking distance would have been reduced to approximately 14 m. If the approach speed had been at or less than the permitted speed and the child had entered the carriageway at any spot between the origin of the marks and the limited braking distance, the impact would have been considerably less, and if the child had entered the road slightly outside that area, the impact would not have occurred.
Ryan's parents met me and said that they were very worried. I wrote to South Yorkshire police and was surprised to receive a letter from them saying that they had reviewed the case and were not prepared to prosecute, because
in reality, we would rarely prosecute any driver for driving at 39 mph in a 30 mph area, even based upon accurate technological evidence.Having received that reply, I pursued the matter because it seemed to me that if 30 mph was the appropriate speed limit on an especially dangerous main road in my constituency, 30 mph it should be. In that case, even though there was no question of the driver being at fault in the sense that the child ran into the road, the impact could not have occurred, had the speed limit been complied with.A comparison of braking distances shows so accurately what we all know—that the speed at which a motorist is travelling is probably the most significant factor in the severity of any accident. Therefore, I welcome the £2.5 million that the Government have recently put into the effective campaign urging people to kill their speed, not a child. If those are the facts and we are prepared to put that sort of money behind such a campaign, it should be part of an integrated programme to reduce accidents on busy roads in urban areas so that the £2.5 million is not wasted.
In pursuing the matter of the 39 mph figure with the police authority, I was told that the Association of Chief Police Officers suggests a 10 per cent. variable in its guidelines. However, 10 per cent. of 30 mph is 33 mph, not 39 mph. I understand that it is common to suggest another 3 per cent. variable in case the speedometer is wrong, and yet another 3 per cent. variable in case the 1578 police monitoring is wrong. The Government have an opportunity here to act with much greater firmness by clarifying the speed tolerance and making it clear, rather than giving so much discretion to police officers, that if it is 10 per cent., that is the tolerance that should be accepted.
When I asked what was happening to prosecutions for speeding offences in police force areas around the country, I was surprised to find a remarkable drop between 1992 and 1993, mirrored almost police force by police force—161,352 in 1992 dropping right down to 110,571 in 1993. In Yorkshire generally, the number of prosecutions dropped from 12,447 to 7,117—a remarkable drop.
I accept that the bulk of the drop in the number of prosecutions is accounted for by the increased use of fixed penalties and cameras and that that may be a more cost-effective way of dealing with people who break speed limits than prosecuting them. But using spot fines and camera checks makes it easier to be clearer about speed limits and therefore to clarify that a speed limit of 30 mph means just that.
In addition, having three sets of figures—for prosecutions, for fixed on-the-spot penalties and for motorists caught as a result of a speed camera—makes it more difficult, and unnecessarily so, to monitor the efficiency with which police deal with speeding in their areas. Simply collecting the number of prosecutions does not take account of the number of people whom the police know have committed a speeding offence but have not prosecuted.
Following on from that, my next assumption—it is possibly wrong—was that the reduction in the number of prosecutions might have been a convenient way in which to reduce the crime statistics, which, as Labour Members know, have been particularly embarrassing for the Government, as they have shown their appalling record on law and order over the past 10 years. I understand, however—I should like some clarification from the Minister on this—that motoring offences, certainly not offences such as speeding, are not counted in the crime statistics. That is the information that I have from the chief constable of south Yorkshire.
If motoring offences and speeding offences are not recognised as criminal statistics, it seems to me that the Government are saying that it is more of a criminal offence to have stolen a car than to be driving a car at a speed at which somebody could be killed or seriously injured. That is not necessarily an issue for the Department of Transport, but it is of concern to me. If somebody is sitting behind the wheel of a car and is driving outside the rules of the road, that person is a danger. If people are driving at excessive speeds, they are driving almost with criminal intent, because of the potential damage that they can do to the life and limb of other members of the public. I would like some clear answers from the Minister on that point.
Before I leave the question of enforcement, it is important to say that there is room to operate much more effective monitoring, to recognise, clarify and publish the motoring offences clearly, police force by police force, and to look at that matter of public safety in the same way in which we look at other crime statistics.
I have paid a lot of attention to the question of enforcement and prosecution in connection with road safety, because I think that it is possibly the simplest, most 1579 sensible and easiest way to make a major contribution. I can remember the time when seat belts were not compulsory. There was much opposition before that legislation was enacted. As soon as the legislation was enacted, the opposition to it vanished and it made a major impact on the number of people who were badly damaged in road traffic offences.
I shall deal now, within the same theme of an integrated approach, with specific road safety measures. The Government have many ways in which they can make a positive impact on road safety. Burncross road in my constituency is a major road—the A629. It is built up on either side, as are many main roads in the outskirts of urban areas. It runs for perhaps two miles without any pedestrian crossing, without traffic lights at junctions with other roads that cross it and, therefore, without any natural break to ensure that cars travel at only 30 mph. Incidentally, that is another reason why, on roads where they have the necessary discretion, the police should make it clear that in such areas the speed limit must be adhered to. The police wrote to me as recently as April to say that 37 people had been injured on Burncross road since 1986. It clearly has an extremely poor accident record.
I recognise that local authorities, highways authorities and police authorities are working closely together to develop an approach to speed and road safety which emphasises the provision of breaks so that motorists have to reduce speed. Groups of constituents come to my surgery asking for road humps or pelican and pedestrian crossings but, when I put their case to the authorities, I am told that the prime reason why they cannot be provided, or at least not in the foreseeable future, is finance. I am aware that five or six road humps along a suburban street can cost several hundred thousand pounds. In Sheffield, about two pelican crossings are installed each year. Any other requests for such crossings have to join a queue, often for many years.
Will the Minister guarantee that there will be a redistribution of finance from the roads budget to road safety in urban areas? I am especially disappointed that Sheffield's road settlement, which it received last Thursday, does not reflect that notion. Sheffield asked for £750,000 for road safety measures but was offered only £350,000. Its road improvement budget also suffered a cut of £18,000, but without the necessary finance we can do nothing to increase the number of pelican crossings, road humps or school crossing patrols. There have also been cuts in the latter in Sheffield.
I put it on record that I welcome the reduction in spending on new roads. The fourth key criterion in road safety in urban areas is the need to encourage people out of their private cars and on to public transport. However, I cannot welcome what the Government have done to public transport in Sheffield in the past 10 years. The arguments have been well rehearsed in the House and I shall not repeat them. Sheffield had the best integrated public transport system in Europe but it has been destroyed by the deregulation legislation introduced in the mid-1980s.
I seek an integrated policy on urban road safety. The Government should back up their campaign against speed by issuing unambiguous guidelines to police authorities 1580 about what a speed limit really means and ensure that prosecutions can be undertaken simply and efficiently, with fixed penalties for excessive speeding if necessary.
Finally, the Government must back that up by redirecting the finance for road safety measures to local authorities in urban areas, and they must work co-operatively on those issues with the Home Secretary, with local authorities and with the police authorities that must enforce such measures.
§ The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)We have heard an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), articulating the view that we should reduce the road programme. That is a commonly held view, which has led me to define a new law of politics. It was Churchill who said that we are all in favour of reductions in general and of expenditure in particular. My new maxim is that we are all in favour of abolishing the road programme, except in our own constituencies. Anyone who listened to Question Time yesterday would have heard Labour Members urging the Secretary of State to build roads fast in their constituencies, because they recognised how vital those roads were to the economic regeneration of the parts of the world that they represent.
I tell the hon. Lady in passing that when I came to the Department of Transport two and a half years ago, I had the dubious pleasure of examining Sheffield's transport infrastructure. I came to the clear conclusion that nothing had destroyed the public transport infrastructure of the town so successfully as the efforts of Sheffield council. Much of what has happened there has been inflicted entirely by the local authority—in marked contrast with what is happening in other cities all over the country whose public transport infrastructure is excellent, and operates under exactly the same Government regulations as apply in the people's republic.
However, let us deal with the serious points that the hon. Lady raised about road safety. First, I am sure that the whole House would want to send young Ryan Monk our best wishes for a speedy recovery. Let us hope that he can recover as completely and speedily as possible and enjoy a happy Christmas.
Much of what the hon. Lady said about the operation of speed limits and the way in which prosecutions are brought was entirely sensible and fair, and I want to underline one or two of the points that she made. First, whoever was responsible for the accident, and whether or not the young child ran into the road without giving the motorist sufficient notice—it is not for us to judge what none of us witnessed—suffice it to say that the more slowly the vehicle that hit the child had been travelling, the greater would be the prospect of the child's surviving, and of his suffering only minor injuries.
As the hon. Lady said, that was one of the key messages of the campaign, and I am glad that she appreciates it. It is not a matter of politics but the result of hard work by the excellent officials in the Department who produced the campaign based on the slogan, "Kill your speed, not a child". I shall say something later about how that is developing as part of our integrated approach.
Prosecutions must be a matter for the appropriate chief constable and for the Crown Prosecution Service. However, I make it clear for the record that the speed 1581 limit is the limit. Decisions about prosecutions—taken, essentially, in local circumstances, and having regard to the desirability of achieving convictions—do not disguise the fact that the limit is the limit, and remains the limit. If authorities wish to raise or lower limits, they are at liberty to do so. I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate the fact that it is dangerous to speculate on individual decisions.
I shall write to the hon. Lady about the relevance of speeding convictions in relation to overall crime statistics. I fully understand that although speeding offences may not be in the same category as other areas of criminality, I am advised that some categories of motoring offence are included in the national statistics. More to the point, though, I know that such offences can cause terrible tragedy. Indeed, if one were to try to evaluate such matters one would find that their consequences can be out of all proportion to those offences that are regarded as more serious in terms of penalties.
The hon. Lady spoke about enforcement. Let us develop that. She was right to see enforcement as an important issue, but even more important is changing attitudes and habits. The remarkably successful drink driving campaign started by telling people that drinking and driving was unlawful and that if they did it they were likely to lose their licence for a long time. That, indeed, was the case and remains the case. It is worth underlining that.
It is interesting that what changed people's habits was changing the message to a more subtle but much more powerful one. We told people that drinking and driving was anti-social and was not funny and that they might do something that would live with them for the rest of their lives. They certainly might be imprisoned, heavily fined and lose their licence, but that would be the least of the scars that they would bear. They would have on their conscience an avoidable accident which the driver allowed to happen by unwisely drinking. That remains the theme that we have adopted in this year's campaign launched on 6 December. We point out that normal, decent, law-abiding people can make an unwise decision about a Christmas drink.
Let me underline if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, that by all means people should have a great Christmas party, enjoy it and have as many drinks as they like. But for goodness sake, at the end of it they should not go anywhere near a motor car. That remains consistently good advice.
The same message applies to speed. We have used the concept of inappropriate speed in an attempt to change mental attitudes. As well as going for enforcement, which the hon. Lady is right to highlight, we should induce in motorists the realisation that speeding is not about absolute speeds. Ironically, the speeding problem is a problem of urban areas, not motorways. Proportionately, 1582 far more accidents occur in urban areas than on motorways. Through the campaign that we are running, we are trying to show motorists how they might well be operating within a legal speed limit but still be driving at a speed which is inappropriate to the conditions.
The classic example that we used is that of a vehicle travelling past a school at the time of day when children are leaving school. To travel at 25 mph may be to be travelling far too quickly. It is important to underline that. The concept of appropriate speed is difficult to get across. We may not have succeeded entirely in our last campaign. I have received letters from people who are worried that we seem to suggest that someone who is acting law fully and driving within the speed limit is none the less doing something wrong. We have had to explain that we are talking not about something that is criminal in the legal sense of the word but about something that is clearly inappropriate to the driving conditions.
As for resources, I have personally ensured that, in the past two years, we have maintained £50 million a year for local safety schemes throughout the country. I cannot comment on the amount for which Sheffield bid. Undoubtedly, it consistently bid for more than even it believed that it could spend. That money goes into local safety schemes and is effective. We have 130 20 mph schemes. I opened the 100th scheme in my constituency in Epping Forest in a rural context. It was an interesting variation of the usual urban scene. Such schemes are producing good dividends. We have achieved about 70 per cent. overall casualty reduction. Better news still, there has been an 80 per cent. reduction in child accidents. That is a good pointer to the future.
None of the measures works all the time. They all have to be seen in context. We have produced a new, user-friendly booklet entitled "Safer by Design", which includes a glossary of all the measures available to us. Speed control humps, speed cushions, chicanes, narrowings and so on all offer us an opportunity to take on even more work in speed control.
On the subject of casualty reduction targets, if the hon. Lady had been here on 25 November she could have participated in an excellent debate in which we made it clear that, although we have met our fatal and serious injury targets seven years in advance of the target date, we still have further to go. No one in the House is complacent about road deaths despite the fact that there have been fewer this year than at any time since records began in 1926. No one will be complacent as long as, sadly, approximately 80 people are killed on our roads every week. It is a challenge to us all—an all-party challenge and a challenge to both central Governmen1 and local authorities. I hope that Sheffield, as elsewhere in the country, will be willing to participate in that challenge so that we can do something about such dreadful and needless deaths.