On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just told the House—that in future it will be possible for us to question him on a range of wider issues—will you ensure that the Table Office no longer refuses questions on such issues? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would ask why Labour Members have failed to ask him such questions.

It seems that we are extending Question Time. Those in the Table Office are Officers of the House of the highest standard. They reject questions only if they go against the rules of the House—[Interruption.] Order. I am not responsible for the Minister's reply, which is the last thing for which I want to be responsible.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster listed a range of subjects—education and almost every other subject on which a question could be asked. Will it be in order for us to ask him questions about any Government brief, or should we concentrate on the co-ordination of policy? What is your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

It is not a question of my ruling. The hon. Gentleman should go along to the Table Office to find out whether his questions are accepted. The Officers of the House have wide experience of such matters and will look after hon. Members.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that as the Tory Opposition receive £4 million a year of taxpayers' money, they should be bright enough to table questions without having to beg you to tell them how to do the job they are paid to do? [Interruption.]

Order. I sense a general election coming up and I shall not be drawn into these matters.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster making a typically cheap gibe at the Opposition when he accused us of not ranging widely when questioning him. Surely, you must accept that that puts the Table Office at odds with the right hon. Gentleman. Who will win?

What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is what I have said before. He should go along to the Table Office and let it worry about the matter.

BILL PRESENTED

Prevention of Terrorism (No. 2)

Mr. William Cash presented a Bill about the Prevention of Terrorism: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2004, and to be printed [Bill 78].

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow any member of the Royal Family to marry a person of any religion or none.

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the position under the constitution, which dates back to the Act of Settlement 1701. That position is clear. If a member of the royal family—anyone in line to the succession—took it upon themselves to marry a Roman Catholic, they would automatically be excluded from the line of succession. There is no doubt about that and there is no recourse to ask permission of the monarch or anyone else. They are automatically excluded.

That provision, which is discriminatory and applies only to Roman Catholics is wrong and should be removed from our statute law. There have been numerous attempts to remove it by, for example, my right hon. Friend Lord Forsyth in another place who intends to raise the matter again today, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and many others. I am not sure whether it has happened before, but yesterday, Cardinal O'Brien, the primate of Scotland, made a public statement as a result of my moving this Bill today. He said that the provision is clearly discriminatory and a breach of the human rights of members of the royal family, and that it should be repealed. I look to other members of the hierarchy to come out of the closet, or perhaps the sanctuary, and to move the campaign forward.

Of course, one can ask whether such an act of discrimination is right. The answer is that it is clearly not right for any country to have in its constitution a prohibition that applies to only one religion. The French constitution forbids the wearing of religious dress in school, but that applies to all religions, which is quite different. The British prohibition applies only to Roman Catholics. For instance, Prince William, if he chose, could marry somebody who was Jewish or Muslim, or even an atheist or agnostic. He could even marry a satanist. That would be allowable. After all, the Royal Navy allows satanism, although not—apparently—animal sacrifices aboard ship. Is that acceptable?

Is the provision logical? It is obviously illogical. For instance, Prince William would be barred from the succession if he were to marry a Roman Catholic, but if his bride became a Roman Catholic after the marriage ceremony, he could go on to become the monarch. That is ridiculous. A male member of the royal family, if he were so inclined, could choose to contract a civil partnership with a Roman Catholic man, under recent legislation.

Out of the universe of eligible young women in Europe and around the world, the ban applies only to Roman Catholics. That infringes their human rights. Surely enough damage has been done by legislation telling members of the royal family whom they should marry. It is time to move on, let them fall in love with whoever they please and get on with it like everybody else.

What are the objections to my modest Bill? The Prime Minister has been asked about the issue on numerous occasions. He says—he cannot say anything else—that he is against discrimination, but that he has other priorities, the issue is too complicated and the Government have better things to do. But what would happen if a young prince should meet a young Roman Catholic girl? Would we have legislation rushed through Parliament by the necessary date? That would be ridiculous when we could deal with the matter now.

The Bill is very narrow. It is not complicated and it would not require amending or repealing vast quantities of Acts of Parliament. In pursuit of a recent Bill, the Government had to amend 57 Acts, but my Bill would require amending only three or four. The real reason the Government have not done this before is that they think that they would have to amend the Statute of Westminster and obtain the consent of the entire Commonwealth, including Australia. However, I am assured by those who advise me that that would not be necessary. My Bill would not affect the position of the monarch and therefore there would be no need to amend the Statute of Westminster.

The argument that changing would be too difficult or complicated does not add up. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) in his place on the Front Bench. The Government pride themselves on attacking discrimination wherever it is found, so why do they allow this discrimination to exist in the British constitution of all constitutions?

They're so old-fashioned.

My hon. Friend makes his point.

The second objection is, so we are told, that the Catholic Church has a requirement that in mixed marriages—I deplore that phrase—the couple are required to bring up any children as Roman Catholics. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that one is expected to make an effort to try to bring up one's children as Roman Catholics in such cases, but one is not required to do so. Indeed, Prince Michael of Kent, when he married a Roman Catholic in 1978, was automatically barred from the succession, although he has chosen to raise his children as Anglicans. If Prince William or Prince Harry were to marry a Roman Catholic, there is no reason why their children should not be brought up as Anglicans.

Personally speaking, I am happy with the established Church. I am happy that the monarch should be Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I am happy that the monarch should be in communion with the Church of England, and nothing in my Bill would affect that. Why then do we continue to have a bar placed on marriage to a Roman Catholic by a member of the royal family?

The time for this Bill, or something like it, has now arrived. My noble Friend Lord Forsyth said, in another place, that the clause was the constitution's "grubby little secret". It perpetuates the values of 16th and 17th century Britain and religious disputes.

Otherwise, it is rather good.

The measure may be rather good otherwise, as my right hon. Friend says, but it is not appropriate. It perpetuates the myth that Catholics are disloyal. I accept that there was a problem with the gunpowder plot, but surely we could be forgiven after 300 or 400 years. The time has come to get rid of this discriminatory legislation.

I was talking to my parish priest last Sunday and he told me that the last of the Catholic Relief Acts was passed as late as 1927. I was not aware of that. Up to that date, Dominicans, Jesuits or Franciscans entering Britain had to register with the Home Office. They had some sort of control order placed on them. It is hard to believe that such measures could exist within living memory.

We got rid of those laws, so why do we retain this "grubby little secret" on our statute book? Like everyone, Catholics have the right to live in a society that is truly non-discriminatory and which values people for what they are.

The time has come to pass this Bill into law, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. William Hague, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. John Burnett, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Francis Maude, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Jim Dobbin, Mr. Stephen Pound and Mr. John Bercow.

Royal Marriages (Freedom of Religion)

Mr. Edward Leigh accordingly presented a Bill to make provision to allow any member of the Royal Family to marry a person of any religion or none: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 April, and to be printed [Bill 79].

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Since the Bill was introduced to the House of Commons, we have been considering the legislation covering arrangements for regulating translators at driving tests, and we have concluded that we ought to remedy its deficiencies. In short, we have decided, after careful reflection, that the existing law is not clear enough in this regard.

The new clause will provide a much improved framework for regulation of translation services at driving theory tests by introducing more robust conditions and better and more transparent checks on those who act as translators. It will also enable us to extend the scope of our current arrangements so as to assist candidates taking their practical driving test. The examination of a person's fitness and ability to give driving instruction and the emergency control assessment taken by disabled driving instructors are also covered.

The powers will enable the Driving Standards Agency to impose conditions on approved translators in respect of their initial and ongoing approval. It will also be able to require approved translators to produce evidence of their approval to theory test invigilators and practical test examiners and charge reasonable fees for administering the approved translator arrangements. Finally, it will be able to make information available about approved translators and publish information about their language specialisms, the geographical area covered, and so on. In addition, there will be a right of appeal to the transport tribunal in respect of the DSA's decision regarding refusal to grant approval, withdrawal of approval, and the imposition of conditions.

These improved arrangements are essentially anti-fraud measures. They will help to prevent unscrupulous persons from becoming translators in an attempt to improperly assist candidates to pass tests of competence to drive that they would otherwise have failed, thereby facilitating identity fraud. They also represent a customer service improvement. Candidates will be able to make use of approved translator services for the practical driving test and the emergency control assessment, and for examinations of fitness and ability to give driving instruction. Such services are currently restricted to the theory test.

I hope that Members will accept the new clause.

We regard this new clause as sensible and necessary, largely for the reasons outlined by the Minister. Indeed, this is perhaps the first and last time that I can say during consideration of this Bill that I wholeheartedly agree with him. As a lawyer, I am aware that the law in this area is unclear, and there may be occasions when an inappropriate person is acting as a translator, and when the temptation to commit fraud could arise. Can the Minister confirm, however, that generally speaking, the fees to be paid to the translator will be passed on to the person taking the driving test, and that where that person lodges an appeal that proves unsuccessful, the costs will follow the event? In other words, will the person appealing have to pay the costs of the appeal if it fails?

Subject to hearing what the Minister has to say on those two points, we support the new clause.

I am very pleased to hear of the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for this new clause, which will enable the DSA to charge translators for being put on the approved register and ensure that checks such as criminal record checks can be carried out on them. It will also ensure that information on translators is made publicly available by, for example, putting it on the website. On the appeals system, the standard transport tribunal arrangements that obtain in many other areas will apply. However, I will examine the question of who would pay in the event of an unsuccessful appeal and write to the right hon. Gentleman on that point. I accept his welcome for this useful little new clause, and I hope that it will become part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1 — Funding of Speed Awareness and Driver Improvement Course

'(1) The Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 (c. 3) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 38 (Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.) after subsection (1)(a) insert—

"(aa) such educational or training programmes undertaken by that authority as may support the activities in (a),".'. —[Mr. Chope.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Incentives for undertaking driver improvement and speed awareness courses—

'If a person who has at least seven and no more than eleven penalty points endorsed on his driving licence subsequently successfully completes a driver improvement course or speed awareness course authorised by the Secretary of State, he shall be entitled to have the number of penalty points endorsed on his licence reduced by three.'.

New clause 3—Maximum penalty for dangerous driving—

'In Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (Prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), in the entry relating to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (dangerous driving) in Column (4) (punishment) for "2 years" substitute "5 years".'.

New clause 4—Causing death by driving whilst unlicensed—

'If a person causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class he is guilty of an offence.'.

New clause 6—Causing death by driving whilst disqualified—

'If a person causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place while disqualified from driving by order of a court he is guilty of an offence.'.

New clause 7—Speed limit on rural roads—

'(1) A maximum speed limit may be designated by a relevant authority for all rural roads in an area.

(2) Where the area is the whole of England, the relevant authority—

(a) is the Secretary of State;

(b) may designate, amend or remove a speed limit by order subject to the negative resolution procedure.

(3) Where the area is that of a highway authority, the relevant authority—

(a) is the highway authority;

(b) may designate, amend or remove a speed limit by making a traffic order.

(4) Where the area is that of a principal authority which is not a highway authority, the relevant authority—

(a) is the highway authority whose area includes the area;

(b) may designate, amend or remove a speed limit by making a traffic order.

(5) Notwithstanding the provision of other enactments no sign or other device shall be required for an order made under subsection (2) to have effect.

(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of other enactments no sign or other device shall be required for an order made under subsection (3) or (4) to have effect save one on each highway entering the area which shall be of a design and dimensions determined by regulation made by the Secretary of State.

(7) For the purpose of this section, a "rural road" is a highway to which all of the following conditions apply—

(a) no speed limit other than the national speed limit applies;

(b) street lighting is not provided; and

(c) there are no road markings in the centre of the road.

(8) Where both the Secretary of State and a highway authority have set a speed limit under this section, the lower limit shall have effect.'.

New clause 12—Speed limits for vehicles of certain classes—

'In Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits for vehicles of certain classes), in section 5(2)(b)(iii), column (c) leave out "40" and insert "50".'.

New clause 16—Speed awareness courses—

'(1) The appropriate national authority shall establish courses for offenders guilty of offences under section 17(4) or 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).

(2) The appropriate national authority may issue guidance to course providers, or to any category of course provider, as to the conduct of courses established under subsection (1).

(3) Course providers shall have regard to any guidance given to them under subsection (2).

(4) Guidance issued under subsection (2) will make provision in relation to the content and approval of courses and may include provision—

(a) in relation to the criteria to be applied for identifying those to whom courses should be offered;

(b) in relation to the content and length of courses;

(c) for the monitoring of courses and course providers;

(d) in relation to the making of applications for approval;

(e) in relation to withdrawing approval; and

(f) specifying the maximum fees that a person may be required to pay for a course and by when they are to be paid.

(5) In drawing up guidance issued under subsection (2), the appropriate national authority shall consult such organisations and individuals as it considers fit.'.

New clause 19—Amendment of Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988—

'Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 shall be amended by substituting the word "discretionary" for the word "obligatory" in column 6.'.

Amendment No. 18, in clause 22, page 25, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 19, in page 25, line 30, leave out 'mobile telephones'.

Amendment No. 20, in page 26, line 2, leave out 'Obligatory' and insert 'Discretionary'.

Amendment No. 21, in page 26, line 5, leave out 'mobile telephones'.

The new clause would enable the increasing volume of funds obtained by so-called safety camera partnerships to be reinvested in education or training programmes undertaken by local authority members of those partnerships. The Government have introduced proposals for road safety grants in clause 1, but we believe that their proposals are de minimis in comparison with the potential of new clause 1.

I am pleased to say that our proposal in the new clause has been warmly supported by the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety and I understand that the Liberal Democrats also support it. In Committee, furthermore, it was not only supported but enthusiastically spoken to by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who I am sorry to say is not in his place this afternoon. He pressed the Minister hard to justify the Government's belief that the revenue raised from speed cameras should not be reinvested in education and training programmes for drivers.

We have seen expressed in some parts of the media the unfortunate idea that speed camera fines are simply a way of raising more money for the Government. Does the hon. Gentleman not worry that the new clause, which proposes to make positive use of the funds raised, could be misinterpreted by such media mischief?

I know that there are many mischievous people working in the media, but anyone suggesting that Conservative Members are proposing incentives for more speed camera offences to be detected in order to raise more money from fines would be unaware of the campaign that we have been waging against using speed cameras as "greed cameras", as I have called them in the past. We believe that there is already a clear and unexplained disparity between the revenue raised by some safety camera partnerships and that raised by others.

The hon. Gentleman may like to know the figures that apply to my own local area of Dorset. As reported in the excellent local paper, the Daily Echo, on Tuesday 15 February this year:

"Speed fines for one in ten drivers: welcome to Dorset, you're nicked".

That was the headline. The article continued:

"More speeding fines were issued in Dorset last year than in Greater Manchester—which has a population three-and-a-half times bigger."

I do not believe that the people of Dorset drive less well than the people of Greater Manchester. Rather, that statistic stems from the fact that some of the Dorset speed cameras are situated in positions that rather unfairly confront people with the full rigour of the law. I also believe that the money could be effectively spent investing in road safety education, which cannot be afforded in Dorset at the moment. Much of the revenue from speed camera fines is reverting to the Treasury rather than being made available for reinvestment in road safety purposes.

One of the ironies of the speed camera debate is that the number of people being killed on our roads is continuing to increase rather than decline. That should not be happening, because we now have much safer vehicles and many improvements have been carried out on our highways. We are achieving a reduction of speeds, accidents and fatalities at the specific site of speed cameras—that is hardly surprising—but people continue to speed elsewhere, resulting in a significant number of deaths.

I am trying to follow the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but is he not effectively advocating having more speed cameras? He acknowledges that speed cameras stop accidents, so why should we not logically deduce that we need more speed cameras further to reduce them?

Bad driving is responsible for many accidents, and that is why I have argued robustly in favour of having more traffic police. As the hon. Gentleman knows from earlier debates, we have drawn the public's attention to the fact that the number of traffic police has declined by almost 3,000—about a third—under the present Government.

We believe that the best way of ensuring good driving standards on the roads is, first, to have good driver education, including revision courses if necessary, in order to encourage drivers to achieve the highest standards on the roads. Secondly, we believe that the money invested in road safety at the moment is inadequate and could be significantly enhanced. That is one reason why we want to divert the money currently going straight to the Treasury into speed awareness and driver improvement courses. I know that that proposal is broadly welcomed by many members of safety camera partnerships. I know from conversations with people involved in the Dorset safety camera partnership that they disagree with the Government policy of not allowing surplus revenue to be reinvested in education and training programmes.

If a huge number of people in Dorset and elsewhere are being caught by speed cameras, surely the hon. Gentleman would accept that such people are committing an offence. Which other offence whose potential outcome could be the death of another person does he believe should be treated as leniently?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is being rather unrealistic about this matter. I know that he joins me in being a supporter of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, so does he not agree that we should be encouraging responsible driving, at speeds that are appropriate for all the circumstances? Just because someone puts up a sign saying, "Thou shalt travel at 30 mph," it does not necessarily mean that an objective test would find that that was the appropriate speed to travel on that part of the road.

The point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) would perhaps be valid if every speed limit in the UK were truly appropriate. Is there not an overwhelming case for carrying out a nationwide speed audit to ensure that every speed limit is appropriate?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, that is why he and I have both jointly announced such a policy, and I am grateful to him for reminding a wider audience of it. It is not dissimilar to a policy adopted in New Zealand and Australia, where each stretch of road is examined to assess the most appropriate speed limit, bearing in mind the fact that the limit must be the maximum speed at which drivers can travel in ideal conditions.

The 2003 vehicle speeds statistics for Great Britain, which were published last year, showed that 57 per cent. of drivers broke the 30 mph speed limits and 50 per cent. broke the limits on motorways. Faced with that sort of evidence, surely a more humble and less arrogant Government would acknowledge that something could be wrong with the speed limits, given that more than half of drivers admit to breaking them.

What has happened under the present Government is that the speed limits have fallen into disrepute, so that people increasingly think that the only time they need to comply with a speed limit is where it is reinforced by a speed camera. That in turn results in more inappropriate speeding on our roads. Conservative Members believe that that is a major subject to be dealt with.

Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of speed cameras, may I bring him back to the original purpose of the new clause—to release money, irrespective of what we think about the cameras, for road safety? Does he agree that another way of releasing money pertains to the ridiculous bureaucracies that surround safety partnerships? Could we not free up funds by tackling that problem? The police could be allowed to get on with it and the money would not be wasted on pen-pushing, paper-moving bureaucracies called safety camera partnerships.

My hon. Friend is right. Towards the end of parliamentary questions about one of the Government's key election campaigns, we heard the revelation that the amount spent by the present Government on advertising and self-promotion has increased fivefold during their period in office. Under speed camera safety partnerships people can reinvest the money for propaganda but they are not allowed to spend it on road safety education. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be much better if the money were invested in information and education rather than propaganda.

One of the downsides of speed cameras can be that motorists take back roads to avoid them. Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a disturbing rise in the number of fatalities on B and C roads, where cameras tend not to be sited, as they are on main roads? That is certainly a problem and a concern in my constituency. Speed cameras have been installed on the A6, so other roads are more heavily used and accidents on them have increased.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is another example of the law of unintended consequences. I do not think that when the Government put all the emphasis on speed cameras, they intended there to be more fatalities on B and C roads, but that has been the result. They thought that cameras would improve road safety, but that is not what has happened. My hon. Friend referred to what was happening in his constituency. One of the reasons why speeders on B and C roads feel that they can get away with it is that the number of police engaged on speed enforcement has been cut back so severely by the Government, as I pointed out earlier.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman mentioned speed awareness and driver improvement courses as possible beneficiaries of his new clause. Currently, when people successfully attend those courses they avoid a fine in court or penalty points on their licence, so it seems fair that they should pay the cost of the course, which makes the courses self-financing. Is he proposing to undermine that?

Many people involved in safety camera partnerships believe that the courses should be made available to those who cannot afford to attend them. From the discussions we held in Committee, I thought that the hon. Gentleman and I were on the same side on that issue. Certainly, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety supports the new clause. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is trying to argue himself into a position whereby he will not have to support it in the Division Lobby, but he will have to do better than raising that spurious objection. As far as I am concerned, the more people who go on speed awareness and safety improvement courses the better. That is why, as I have told the House before, I am a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists and encourage other people to take the advanced driving test and improve their driving standard.

As one of those who, because of the unsatisfactory nature of their driving, are not eligible to be members of the institute, may I ask my hon. Friend to give us his view on some information brought to my attention by a constituent the other day? In some parts of the country, when one is issued with a speeding fine one has the alternative of taking an advanced motoring or similar course, but that option is not available in other areas. What would my hon. Friend say to my constituent about the fact that there are different penalties for the same offence within the United Kingdom jurisdiction?

I would tell my hon. Friend's constituent that I hope that new clause 2 will be drawn to his attention. My hon. Friend's point conveniently enables me to commend the virtues of that proposal, which says:

"If a person who has at least seven and no more than eleven penalty points endorsed on his driving licence subsequently successfully completes a driver improvement course or speed awareness course authorised by the Secretary of State, he shall be entitled to have the number of penalty points endorsed on his licence reduced by three."

Our reason for proposing the new clause was the discussion in Committee, from which it emerged that access to a driver improvement or speed awareness course that led to a reduction in the number of penalty points was controlled by the magistrates court. Thus, for example, if someone had been issued with three fixed penalty notices and nine points they would be unable to attend such a course, with a consequent reduction in their penalty points, unless the matter was referred to the magistrates court. We thought that an unnecessarily bureaucratic way of addressing the issue. Surely we should encourage as many people as possible who have got into bad habits and who would benefit from a driver improvement or speed awareness course to take such a course. That is the reason for new clause 2, whose provisions would address the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituent about injustice and inequity.

As for my hon. Friend's aspiration to be as good a driver as the best, I suggest that one way of doing that would be to go in for one of the courses run by the Institute of Advanced Motorists. He would not have to go the whole way, so to speak, but he could join one of the institute's local groups, which would identify any bad habits that he may have got into. He would be a superhuman driver if he did not have some bad habits. As we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the institute, this is an appropriate time for Members to commend it and promote its virtues.

On that point I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He might also advise his hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that if he were a tad embarrassed about taking a driving course in his constituency, he could take an IAM course in London.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The course could be undertaken on a wholly confidential basis—without commitment, as they say. Indeed, such a course could include people such as Mr. Speaker if they wanted to join it. I know that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is as enthusiastic a supporter of the IAM as I am.

I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will make warm and welcoming noises about new clause 2. It addresses a lacuna that we identified in Committee. What could possibly be wrong with encouraging people to improve their own driving and thereby benefit from a reduction in penalty points in the circumstances set out in the provision?

New clause 3 is on a slightly different topic. It would raise the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from two years to five years. I hope that the Government will accept it almost without demur, because I understand that such an increase in the maximum penalty for dangerous driving has been Government policy for some time. However, they have rather kicked into touch their review of road traffic offences involving bad driving. The Government commissioned the Halliday report in May 2003, yet it was produced for public gaze only on the last day that we considered the Bill in Committee—so it was hardly on the fast track. The result is that the Government have been able to avoid legislating on, and changing the penalties for, road traffic offences involving bad driving.

New clause 3, and one or two of the other new clauses to which I shall address my remarks shortly, is meant to ensure that the Bill deals with issues on which consultation has effectively taken place. The Government have said publicly that they support an increase in the maximum penalty for dangerous driving, which is currently two years' imprisonment, but under my proposal it would be five years instead, thus mirroring the increase from 10 to 14 years that has taken place in the maximum period of imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving.

I may be unduly cynical, but I suspect that the Government's inhibition relates to the fact that such a proposal could result in a lot more people going to prison. Hon. Members who believe that bad driving is dangerous—indeed, it can be lethal—do not wish the number of available prison places to dictate policy. We believe that the policy should be established by Parliament—that we should establish what we think are the appropriate penalties and offences, and that the appropriate number of prison places should be made available.

My hon. Friend's assumption is correct. The Government admit on page 30 of their document "Review of Road Traffic Offences involving Bad Driving" that the proposals that he is talking about

"could create an additional demand for about 800 prison places."

It continues:

"The great bulk of these would result from increasing the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from 2 to 5 years' imprisonment, to which the Government is already committed, when resources are available."

Does he not think that if the Government are already committed to that, they should get on with it? They can find enough resources to advertise Government programmes. Why cannot they find the necessary resources for this proposal?

Indeed, I have that document open on page 30, and was about to quote from it. It is encouraging to know that my right hon. Friend and I are very much on the same wavelength, and he is absolutely right, because this an other issue on which the Government talk a good talk. They go along to the road safety lobbies and lobbies including the relatives of victims of serious and fatal road accidents, and they say, "We're on your side." However, as is clear from what has been said, we have a policy to which the Government are already committed—raising the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from two to five years—but they are not prepared to sign up to it because of the resource implications. What a perverse arrangement.

We have tabled new clause 3 to give the Government the opportunity to endorse today a proposal that is already their policy, rather than to play the delaying game, as they have been doing until now. How else can one explain a period of 21 months between the launching of an inquiry into road traffic offences involving bad driving and the publication of that inquiry's report, which extends only to some 31 pages? That does not give the impression of a Government who are seriously committed to taking tough, deterrent action against the worst drivers—the dangerous drivers—but they could address that today by accepting new clause 3.

New clause 4 is also a reflection of what the Government say is their policy. Again, they are talking about such a policy, but they are not yet prepared to sign up to it. By tabling new clause 4, we created the opportunity to invite the Government to sign up today to what they say is their own policy:

"If a person causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class he is guilty of an offence."

That sounds like a lot of common sense. If people deliberately drive a vehicle for which they do not hold a licence—in other words, they are not qualified and have not passed the appropriate test—they should not be on the road. Surely, if while driving such a vehicle on the road they are involved in an accident from which a death results, that conduct should constitute a specific offence. New clause 4 would create a new offence of causing the death of another person in the circumstances that I describe.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an indication—he intimates imprisonment—of what he thinks the penalty should be for the offence that would be created under new clause 4?

I cannot—I could, but I am not going to—because I do not want to create a barrier between myself and the Government. I have expressed the proposal in the most open terms, so that the Government can accept it and not say, "We don't agree with the maximum penalty." Obviously, that would be a matter for discussion, but I am sure that we could reach an accommodation with the Government on the maximum penalty in relation to new clause 4 or new clause 6 if they are willing to debate that with us.

I shall not comment on new clause 7 for the moment because it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), and I look forward to hearing his contribution on it.

New clause 12 would raise the maximum speed for heavy goods vehicles on single-carriageway roads from 40 to 50 mph in ideal driving circumstances. During the debate on such a proposal in Committee, I was delighted that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, enthusiastically supported my idea. He brought to that debate much experience of what it is like in the more barren parts of Scotland, where he believes that HGVs should be able to travel at 50 mph, rather than 40 mph. [Interruption.] I knew that, if I used a particular type of language, I would ensure that the hon. Gentleman returned to his place very quickly.

I hope that I will have the opportunity to comment on new clause 12 more fully later, but may I assure the hon. Gentleman that the north of Scotland is not barren, but highly productive?

Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know the north of Scotland a little, but not so well as he does. I look forward to hearing his arguments on new clause 12.

The proposal in new clause 12 is supported by the magazine Commercial Motor and the Road Haulage Association. Indeed, I have received a letter of support from its director general. I am sure that the ordinary motoring public will also be pleased that we are thinking seriously about raising the maximum speed for heavy goods vehicles on single carriageway roads in ideal circumstances to 50 mph.

As I pointed out in Committee, when the 40 mph rule was first introduced, traffic levels on single carriageway roads were such that it was relatively easy for a motorist to overtake a heavy goods vehicle, so it could be done comparatively safely. Traffic was thus not held up at the speed of the slowest vehicle. Given current traffic conditions on many single carriageway trunk roads, especially those that meander between the east of Dorset towards the Devon border and beyond, it is difficult to find an opportunity to overtake a vehicle travelling at 40 mph, which leads to queues, often many miles long, of traffic travelling at or around that speed.

Is there not another argument to support my hon. Friend's case? Since the speed limit was introduced, heavy goods vehicles have been fitted with much more effective braking systems, including air brakes in most cases, and power assisted steering. They can thus travel safely at higher speeds.

My right hon. Friend makes a good point.

The Minister put up the defence against the proposal in Committee that, if vehicles travelled faster, the consequences of any accidents in which they were involved would be greater. No one would disagree with that, but we are suggesting that the mere presence of lorries that are limited to travelling at 40 mph on single carriageway roads is creating a lot of driver frustration, which leads to people taking unnecessary risks by trying to overtake when it is probably not safe to do so.

We know that the frustration among the motoring public is such that at least one major delivery company—I think that it is the company that delivers for Tesco—has a notice emblazoned on the back of its heavy goods vehicles to show that they are limited to travelling at 40 mph on single carriageway roads. It has done that because people have complained that the vehicles should be travelling faster. Before the proliferation of speed cameras, I suspect that many heavy goods vehicles travelled at nearer 50 mph than 40 mph when circumstances permitted, but given today's tighter enforcement, they are going at only 40 mph, which is creating driver frustration and consequent road danger. If new clause 12 were accepted, it would be a move in the right direction towards improving road safety.

I shall leave the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) to make his own arguments about new clause 16 because he tabled the measure. However, Conservative Members are on the same side as him because we want more support for speed awareness courses. While I am on that subject, I can tell the House about a successful day of action carried out by the Hampshire constabulary. I think that it happened last week, but it was certainly reported in the New Milton Advertiser over the weekend. There is a dangerous piece of C road in the heart of the New Forest with a standard 40 mph speed limit. Hampshire police detected several vehicles travelling in excess of that speed and the drivers were given the option of either accepting a fixed penalty notice or having a discussion with a group of people who had owned animals that had been killed on the road, most of which were ponies. Not surprisingly, most of the motorists opted for the discussion.

A lot of interesting information came out of the process. Many people had not realised how dangerous the road was or how common such accidents involving animals were. Some had not even realised that the animals had owners. Although the animals are New Forest ponies, they have owners, so much distress and hardship is caused if they are run over by motorists who travel too fast. Many motorists had not realised the consequences of such collisions for them and their cars.

I support such enforcement using discretion at the roadside, although any motorist who was driving extremely fast was referred to the magistrates court or had to accept a fixed penalty with no argument. Such driver awareness programmes are a positive way forward for road safety. They are better than just having speed cameras because that system does not allow the issue to be addressed in the sensitive way that Hampshire police employed. As I have said earlier, sufficient numbers of police officers need to be devoted to road traffic responsibilities to carry out such a scheme, but we will put that right when we get into government.

New clause 19 arose from a further debate in Committee after it became apparent that there was no system of mitigation if people were given fixed penalty notices in circumstances in which they believed that, if a police officer had been at the scene, he would have exercised discretion and issued a caution or warning instead of a penalty. My thinking about the new clause partly arises from a constituency case. One of my constituents was caught out by a speed camera on a road on which the speed limit had recently been reduced from 40 mph to 30 mph. The driver had not realised due to an oversight that the speed limit had changed.

My constituent received a standard form to fill in to accept that he was driving the vehicle at the time. The form said that if he had mitigating circumstances, he should refer the matter to the magistrates court. He did that, but when the case reached court, the magistrate said that the court had no discretion on the issuing of penalty points. All hon. Members will have heard of constituents who have thought it unjust that they have received three penalty points as a consequence of a fixed penalty notice.

I know of another person who was convicted of speeding, despite the fact that the temporary speed limit sign on the road had blown over in the wind. I am sure that we can all think of similar examples. A wise law would take into account individual circumstances and allow proper discretion. Indeed, that is the type of law that we have in a mature democracy. A Stalinist society, however, makes an unthinking demand: "Thou shalt comply and if thou hast not, whatever the explanation, thou art guilty of an offence for which thou art subject to a fixed penalty." We need to take a more mature approach and allow some discretion and that would be the effect of incorporating new clause 19 into the law.

I support my hon. Friend, but does he agree that the loss of a driving licence has very different consequences for a merchant banker who lives in Kensington and a plumber who lives in the rural depths of Sussex or the Isle of Wight?

I agree, and we could have a long debate about such differences. My hon. Friend's example demonstrates what happens when one reaches the stage of totting up points. Someone with 12 penalty points has to go to the magistrates court and argue that they should not be disqualified because the consequences would be dire for their job or occupation. I accept that for some people the consequences can be grave, but sometimes the injustice is compounded by the fact that the total number of penalty points is the result of a series of relatively minor speeding incidents. Some hon. Members have been subject to the totting up of points, after being convicted of a series of minor infringements of road traffic laws—The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) seems to know who I have in mind, but Members on both sides of the House have found themselves in such difficulties.[Interruption.]

New clause 19 is one of the most potent measures in this group of amendments, as it aims to redress the balance between the ordinary motorist and the law, and would ensure that the law is fair, rather than oppressive. The proliferation of fixed penalties is all the more reason why discretion should be allowed in genuinely mitigating circumstances. That discretion should be used to allow not only a reduced fine but a reduction in the number of penalty points. My proposals go much further and are more effective than the Government's proposals in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 deal with driver education and unsafe driving. They would amend clause 22, which deals with the mischief of mobile telephones. We had a good debate about that in Committee and the Opposition have no problem with penalising people who cause danger to themselves or others as a result of driving without proper care or attention while using a mobile phone. However, we are concerned about the definition of driving. Under case law, which would be the defining consideration if this piece of legislation was accepted, driving includes circumstances such as a vehicle being stationary in a five-mile queue. The driver may have left the wheel to use a phone but, according to the law, he would still be regarded as driving.

Even when his engine was switched off?

Indeed, that is the case, but we do not believe that it accords with common sense or fair play.

We should discourage people from using mobile phones while driving and, indeed, penalise them for doing so. However, we should not penalise them with three penalty points and a fine for doing so at the wheel when their car is in stationary traffic and they have turned off the ignition. We tabled a reasonable amendment in Committee to try to make an exception to the rule, but the Government rejected it out of hand. To be fair, I do not think that they really understood the law, because any rational person listening to the debate would have said that our points were valid.

Since that debate, it has come to my notice there have been incidents in which police officers have gone down lines of stationary traffic booking people who were using mobile phones. That is demonstrates a perverse sense of priorities and it just fuels many motorists' belief that, rather than improving road safety, the Government are engaged in a war against the motorist. If the Government want to improve road safety—we are highly supportive of that proposition—as well as the relationship between the police, the law and the motoring public, they should accept the amendments, which would ensure that individuals who use a mobile phone when their vehicle is stationary would not be guilty of an offence. The Minister will notice that, to ensure that the amendments were selected, we made certain that their terms are not identical to those of the amendment that we tabled in Committee. We would be happy to revert to the wording of our original amendment, if the Minister offers to accept it, and we would withdraw the amendments that we have tabled today.

I accept that applications of the law can become ludicrous. That would be the case if, for example, a vehicle was literally stationary and could not move because it was in a five-mile queue. However, could the hon. Gentleman tell us more about the case that he cited and see whether the House would agree with him in those particular circumstances?

I do not have the report of Committee proceedings with me, but that case is set out in Hansard. In Committee, I cited case law about the definition of driving.

Perhaps I was not clear enough, as the hon. Gentleman has missed my point. The case law to which he refers predates mobile phones by a long chalk. He talked about a specific incident in which a police officer went down a line of traffic and booked motorists in stationary vehicles who were on the telephone. Could he tell us more about that?

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman more.

Is it fiction?

I doubt very much whether the person who informed me about it was telling porkies.

If it were true, the hon. Gentleman would be on to a good point.

Surely, the hon. Gentleman in turn accepts that we would be mad as legislators to create a strict offence but expect the police or more probably cameras to separate the just from the unjust. Surely the best thing is to ensure in the first place that the law is just and that there is a proper exception to the application of it in circumstances in which he and I would agree that it should not apply—that is, in relation to people who are using mobile phones in stationary traffic when they have switched the engine of their vehicle off.

A parliamentary colleague, who is not in the Chamber at present, has on her dashboard a little television. I have never got to the stage of owning a car that had a television on the dashboard, but apparently the television switches off automatically when the car is in motion and switches on automatically when the car is stationary at traffic lights. It is, apparently, a lawful piece of kit and a standard feature of some of the more up-market vehicles. In this case, it is a British vehicle—a Land Rover, I think. I have not gone into the detail of it, but if it is lawful to have on the dashboard a television that is activated when the vehicle is stationary, should it be unlawful to use a mobile phone when the vehicle is stationary and the engine is switched off? We are making the law an ass if we legislate on that basis. That is why I hope the House will accept the amendment, along with a host of the new clauses.

This is a fascinating group of new clauses. On some of them, I find myself on the side of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), and on others I am violently opposed to him. I shall deal with the two points on which I strongly agree with the tenor of his arguments. They relate to new clauses 3 and 4, on which the hon. Gentleman made some powerful points.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), has started a consultation, which I warmly welcome. I hope the Opposition welcome it as well, so that whoever occupies my hon. Friend's position after the election—

In 15 months.

Indeed.

I hope that whoever holds the position will accept that legislation needs to be introduced to reflect the spirit of our discussions and the mood outside. What could be said in any consultation that would cause my hon. Friend not to accept the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and the point that he himself sets out in the report that is out for consultation? I want an answer to that because I find it difficult not to agree with the hon. Gentleman in his cogent argument about the need for change. My hon. Friend knows my views because we have discussed the matter before in the Chamber and elsewhere, in my capacity as a patron of the charity RoadPeace.

The arguments are powerful and need to be dealt with. We must send out a strong message that if the House decides this afternoon to await the outcome of the consultation, unless somebody produces some stunning new arguments that make the House review its conclusions, there will be legislation to implement the intention of new clauses 3 and 4, and that legislation will be tough on offenders.

Do the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has just deployed extend to new clause 6?

Yes, indeed. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assistance on that point.

We disagree on the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the effectiveness or otherwise of speed cameras. Ultimately, there is one simple, incontrovertible fact: nobody gets caught by a speed camera who is not breaking the law. Anyone who whinges to any hon. Member about the fine they received as a result of speed camera evidence has broken the law.

Is it not a valid point that the law may not be fair? Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. There are many instances of the police stopping motorists who are technically breaking the speed limit and letting those motorists proceed on their way with a warning, because the police appreciate and perceive that the breach of the law was de minimis or was in such circumstances that there was no danger to other road users. It was a technical breach of the law. Speed cameras have no discretion. That is the problem, and it has become worse over recent years.

I thought for a moment that we would get an admission of guilt from the right hon. Gentleman.

The simple fact is that the technology employed is set to allow a certain amount of tolerance. There is already tolerance in all the circumstances in which cameras are put in place. It applies approximately the same latitude as the police would allow before enforcing a prosecution. That de facto pushes up the limits slightly.

I can think of one specific camera that I know well on the Runcorn expressway—a 60 mph zone. It used to be a derestricted zone, but it was reduced to 60 mph because of some serious crashes on that stretch of road. Then speed cameras were introduced, which caused people to drive more slowly. The net effect was to make that stretch of road safer. Interestingly, one camera was removed in the recent past, because there is the belief that it has had the desired effect and the habits of most drivers there have changed.

I believe that the technology can be used to assist in educating drivers. We should not see speed cameras as an alternative to police officers. They are a different tool used differently, placed as a result of consultation through the safety camera partnerships, which work extremely well, even in Dorset, as the hon. Member for Christchurch acknowledged. Their judgments are not from on high. They are judgments applied locally by local people who know the roads where the technology is to be installed.

My hon. Friend has made the valid point that safety cameras only catch the guilty. The position adopted by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is contradictory: as far as I understand it, he wants both to have fewer safety cameras and, through new clause 9—which has not been selected today—to get rid of speed humps, which catch the innocent. On suburban roads, we should install more safety cameras and fewer speed bumps, so that the guilty are caught and the innocent, who drive at or below the speed limit, are not penalised.

As usual, my hon. Friend has made a powerful case. We must take a flexible look at what is available as the technology unfolds, because, for example, some of the number plate recognition technologies are amazingly effective.

May I make a tiny diversion, Mr. Deputy Speaker? On the Saturday before last, I went out on patrol with the police in rural Cheshire. We were overtaken by a vehicle similar to one that the officers had had brought to their attention. Within 30 seconds, the powerful technology used by the police had sent us the vehicle's details, including its owner, the insurance details and the owner's address. That was an amazing demonstration of an effective piece of Government IT procurement, which is doing a marvellous job in terms of not only road safety, but broad crime prevention.

I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch that common sense must prevail when technology is employed. We do not know whether his example of a police officer who sought to prosecute people for using mobile phones when their engines were turned off in a stationary row of traffic is an urban myth or a rural myth, because we do not know which road it happened on. If it were true, however, I would agree that that is an inappropriate use of the law and that that officer's actions would put off people from sticking rigorously to the rules of the road. If it were true, it would also raise an interesting question about police training. We must ensure that officers are encouraged to apply the law pragmatically and sensibly.

The hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree on the use of new technology, which he has just described. It is admirable that the police now have the ability to monitor passing vehicles' number plates not only for road traffic offences such as no insurance, but for more serious crimes such as drug dealing—the technology can identify known drug dealers, whom the police can then apprehend. Does he agree that the effectiveness of the new technology depends on the reliability of the database? Does he accept that police forces across the country have raised serious concerns that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database is not as reliable as it should be?

I can only go by my own experience, which shows that the response is remarkably accurate. Any database—it does not matter whether it is a paper database or whether the information is held electronically—has an error level. If the right hon. Gentleman is setting out a case for making sure that the DVLA employs sufficient people to protect the database's integrity, I agree with him. That argument applies to any database to which the police have access, because databases should be kept to the highest level of accuracy to protect the integrity of the law enforcement process.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the need to introduce changes in some areas, particularly on the ground covered by new clauses 3, 4 and 6 and on the areas that my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) will raise later in the debate. The matter is important and we must work hard to ensure that public confidence in the integrity of the law is sustained. To that end, I accept the argument, which I suspect my hon. Friend the Minister will advance later, that a consultation period is required.

In conclusion, I repeat my point on the principle behind new clauses 3, 4 and 6, and I want to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say in strong terms that the Government intend to introduce legislation to establish those points.

Before I discuss the individual new clauses, I want to make a general point. Taken individually, many of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) are reasonable, and I have indicated those that I support. If we consider the totality of the new clauses, however, we perceive a kind of underlying mood music, which suggests that the motorist is hard done by and that an overall relaxation should take place. That argument assumes that motorists feel hard done by, but I have found that people increasingly understand the need for restraint with regard to speed. Most people to whom I speak either accept that speed cameras are a useful necessity or are looking for ways to introduce one in their community or on their roads.

In my constituency, the A9, which I shall no doubt discuss later, runs up to Thurso from Inverness. One of the complaints is that the volume of traffic and the consequent deaths are happily insufficient to allow speed cameras to be installed in some of the villages and towns on that busy main road. I would look favourably on a relaxation of the criteria within the 30 mph limit, because prevention is better than deaths and accidents.

I support new clause 1, with the caveat that I am not arguing from an anti-camera standpoint. Speed cameras are currently accompanied by a warning sign not less than 1 km from the camera, the camera itself is painted a bright orangey-yellow colour and has reflective tape on the back, and huge white grid lines are painted on the road, so any motorist who fails to take account of what is nothing short of a flashing beacon perhaps deserves everything that they get.

The substantive point of new clause 1 is that the funds raised should be made available for education, and I see no harm in that whatsoever. I do not necessarily believe that speed cameras are simply nasty, money-grabbing machines, but if there are surplus funds and partnerships see a way in which they could be deployed that would be enabled by the new clause, I see no reason not to allow it to go through.

Would the hon. Gentleman like to charge people to go on a driver improvement course or a speed awareness course, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the new clause?

Indeed; it should be up to the perpetrator to pay for the course. I am taken, however, by the idea of allowing a little discretion. Some people, certainly in my constituency, live on very small incomes or even on state benefits, and there is sometimes a good argument for—I would not want to use the term "scholarship"—

A hardship fund.