On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House a few moments ago when he stated that nobody waited more than six months for an operation. The NHS website today shows that scores of patients are waiting more than six months for an operation. Will you advise me about how the matter might be clarified?

That is not a point of order for the Chair. The best advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is to pursue the matter through applying for an Adjournment debate.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Exactly one month ago, at Deputy Prime Minister's questions, I had to chase the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for an answer for the people who suffered when a tornado struck Birmingham. They are still waiting for that answer. The city council leader and I wrote immediately to the Minister for Local Government, yet we have still not received a reply. What other measures can we take, through the means at our disposal, to prevent questions from being ignored at the Dispatch Box?

Again, that is not a matter on which the Chair can adjudicate. However, the hon. Lady has had an opportunity, in effect, to put the matter directly to the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope that, between them, the matter can be sorted out satisfactorily as soon as possible.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require any medical practitioner who diagnoses a terminal illness in a patient to inform the Secretary of State; to require the Secretary of State to give the patient information about his entitlement to, and a claim form for, attendance allowance and disability living allowance; and for connected purposes.

I should like to outline my personal experience, which has urged me to try to introduce the Bill. My husband Steve died of cancer 14 years ago. At the time we were a family with three small children and, having had nothing to do with the benefits system, I was unaware that there were benefits to which we were entitled, which would have helped us at a difficult time.

Anyone who has been through the earth-shattering diagnosis of terminal illness will say that money is the last thing on their mind. However, it helps enormously with all the bills that accrue when nursing somebody who is terminally ill. Many people choose to die at home. It is an enormous help to know that some support is available with, for example, cleaning, personal care and extra food that is especially palatable for someone who feels ill.

Over the years I have met many people who, like me, were unaware of the benefits to which they were entitled. There does not appear to be one particular person or delivery system to take responsibility for ensuring that patients and their families know that there are benefits that they are entitled to claim speedily. Consequently, I tabled an amendment to the Health Bill, which we considered recently, and I am promoting the Bill that we are considering now.

Coincidentally, days after I had done that, the Public Accounts Committee report entitled "Tackling Cancer: Improving the patient journey" was published, and I shall give the House a brief summary of its findings.

The report found that terminally ill cancer patients were often not made aware of the non-means-tested disability benefits that they could have claimed to alleviate financial hardship. That was estimated by Macmillan Cancer Relief to involve more than £100 million over a six-month period. The report also highlighted the fact that three quarters of patients were given no information on financial benefits by the NHS or anyone else. However, research published in the report showed that nearly half those people would have welcomed such advice.

Research carried out by Macmillan Cancer Relief in 2004 estimated that in 2001, terminally ill patients with six months or less to live failed to claim benefits worth £106 million over a six-month period. A cynic might ask whether the Government do not want people to claim those benefits, but I do not believe that that is the case, because they have put in place measures to ensure speedy delivery, which is welcome. What we do not have in place, however, is a system for the delivery of information. Hon. Members across the House are worried that no one has been given responsibility for this, either now or historically. The problem has existed for a long time.

The figures show that many people are missing out, yet the benefits are easy to claim if people know that they are there. We have a speedy delivery system in place. I met the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), this week to discuss the matter, and I am grateful to her for giving me her time. Everyone says that we should be able to achieve this; it is just a question of knowing how to.

Unfortunately, the report shows that in the 14 years since my husband died, nothing much has changed to ensure that information is given quickly and sensitively to patients. A tripartite group, comprising representatives of the Department for Work and Pensions, Macmillan Cancer Relief and the Department of Health, is looking at the issue. This is a sensitive topic involving health and benefits, and I want a firm assurance that the information will at least be given to patients, whether they choose to use it or not. At present, many people are denied that choice through ignorance. We must not allow our sensitivity to such issues to result in people not dying well. A compassionate society would make this a burning priority.

The hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), who served on the Committee, observed that he believed the Department for Work and Pensions should be leading on this matter. The hon. Gentleman also made the very point that I am making today when he said that

"there should in effect be a package for the patient and boxes which should be ticked to show that they have now received the benefits advice".

Sir Nigel Crisp, who until yesterday was the chief executive at the Department of Health, accepted in his evidence that the system was "not good enough". That is something of an understatement, given that year after year, people are dying in reduced circumstances, when that need not happen. Sir Nigel also acknowledged that

"not enough people who were entitled to benefit actually knew about it or were helped to find it. We do not have strong enough systems in place to do it."

The national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards of St. Thomas' hospital, also gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, and he agreed that this was a big problem. So we all agree that the problem exists; it has been firmly identified. Professor Richards said in his evidence that he expected the paperwork to be rolled out by November 2005, and that the tripartite group would have agreed a way forward by the end of 2005. However, that has not happened. That date has come and gone, and no system is in place. We have had more talk, more water has passed under the bridge, and more people have died.

I spoke with the Minister earlier this week, and I really welcomed our conversation. I was given assurances that she shared my desire to ensure that patients and their families were informed of the available benefits. Unfortunately, however, while discussions are ongoing with the tripartite group, the Government do not appear to be in a position to say that a clear line of responsibility for ensuring delivery of information has been established. I keep being giving plenty of reasons why things cannot be done, but on behalf of terminally ill patients, I am now demanding that someone starts to give us some solutions.

Talk will not pay the bills. Talk will not pay for food that people find palatable while undergoing chemotherapy. Talk will not pay for someone to sit with a patient while his wife goes to collect their young family from school. My Bill proposes that a GP or other medical practitioner should ensure that the system is at least triggered. After all, those are the health professionals most closely connected with the patient and their family. They are the professionals needed to sign the DS1500 form that will trigger the speedy delivery of the benefit. Doctors are paid by the DWP for each form filled in, but the patient or their representative has to require the doctor to issue and fill in the form. How can they do that if they are unaware of the benefit? This is a miserable and frustrating cycle of ignorance and deprivation.

I propose that the GP or other medical practitioner, after fully discussing the patient's illness with them or their representative, should be obliged to trigger a request for an information pack to be sent to the patient or their representative. The forms should be simple and sensitively worded so that the patient or their representative can decide whether to choose to use the system instead of languishing in ignorance. Let us not allow our sensitivity to a patient's plight to give us an excuse for inaction.

New GP contracts were introduced in April 2004. That might have been an ideal time to have considered this additional small responsibility. After all, GPs are paid to sign the forms, and this is just an extension of the same service. We can trigger the delivery of a TV licence form to people's homes, so it should not be beyond the wit of man to trigger the delivery of a pack of information on benefits to those who are terminally ill. As it is often the GP or medical practitioner who is most closely involved, this is a simple and obvious solution.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Anne Main, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Jim Dobbin, Mr. Frank Field, Mike Penning, Andrew Selous and Grant Shapps.

Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance (Information)

Anne Main accordingly presented a Bill to require any medical practitioner who diagnoses a terminal illness in a patient to inform the Secretary of State; to require the Secretary of State to give the patient information about his entitlement to, and a claim form for, attendance allowance and disability living allowance; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed [Bill 142].

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

The House, or at least some Members of it, will no doubt recall that a Road Safety Bill was last presented to the House in November 2004, but unfortunately it fell before the general election. Although this Bill essentially brings back the same measures, it has been improved in two significant ways. First, there are new offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. On Second Reading of the previous Bill, there was a lot of debate on those matters. Secondly, the Bill contains a new offence of keeping an uninsured vehicle and a power to immobilise vehicles that do not meet insurance requirements. The power will be used to stop the owners of cars and lorries driving them when it is clear that they are not properly insured. I shall return to those measures later.

I should also point out that two measures in the previous Bill have now been enacted elsewhere. First, drink drive information may now be taken at the roadside, which avoids the need for the police to go back to the police station when they stop someone, and secondly, in order to bear down further on uninsured drivers, the police have been given new powers to use automatic number plate recognition cameras linked to the databases of insurance companies to spot uninsured vehicles. Across the country, police forces are now using ANPR cameras to stop cars, and they can tell whether they are licensed and insured. In the autumn I saw that being done in Birmingham, and it is highly effective. It was surprising how many people were caught in the hour or so that I saw the system being used. It is an important way of tackling uninsured drivers and will increase the likelihood of people who are driving on the road without being properly insured being caught.

From my reading of the Bill, it seems to have been improved since the House last discussed it, but one area that is not covered is the nuisance of unregistered mini motor cycles. In Committee or on Report, will my right hon. Friend consider bringing the regulation and registration of mini motor cycles into the Bill?

I am aware of that problem, which was raised with me on a recent visit to Nuneaton; it is a problem in Greater Manchester, too. I have looked into it and, as ever with such things, the situation is complex, although more can be done to deal with it. Because mini motor cycles do not comply with construction and use regulations, they cannot be registered as road vehicles such as motor bikes, and thus are not allowed on the roads. As a result, the police have power under existing law to deal with anyone who drives a moto on the road or pavement, or in a public place. Motos are supposed to be used only on private land with the owner's permission. However, I am aware that police forces in different parts of the country take different views of what they can or cannot do, in terms of warnings and so on. We need to look into the matter.

There is no doubt that those machines, some of which can go at 30 or 40 mph if not more, ridden by people who should not be driving anything on the road, let alone a moto, have the potential to cause immense damage, if not death. It is important that we are absolutely clear about the law. As I understand it, the law says that those vehicles are not allowed on the highway, which includes the pavements, so if a police officer finds someone driving one there, they have the power both to arrest the individual and to remove the machine. If the law lacks clarity or if there is any impediment, we should look into that before something serious happens. My hon. Friend has my assurance that we will look into the problem. It may be possible to do something during the passage of the Bill, but this may simply be a matter of making it clear to the police that there are already powers and that they should use them. If that is not the case, I should like to know what the problem is. There is no doubt that those machines are a source of irritation, and anyone buying one and putting a child on it is grossly irresponsible.

I want to put the Bill into context before I come to particular proposals. Some people will say that we can do more, which is undoubtedly true, but it is worth bearing it in mind that despite everything that we have done, today—as every day—nearly nine people in this country will be killed on our roads. None the less, along with the Netherlands and Sweden, we have one of the best safety records in the world.

Nearly six years ago, in March 2000, we set out plans to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads by 40 per cent. by 2010, and by 50 per cent. among children. The latest figures, for 2004, showed that the number of people killed or seriously injured had fallen by 28 per cent.—about 13,000 fewer casualties each year than in the mid-1990s, which is significant and more than halfway towards our target.

The number of children killed or seriously injured has been cut by 43 per cent., which is three quarters of the way towards our target of a 50 per cent. reduction, but as the House is aware, too many children are being killed. Furthermore, there are large regional variations, which are of special concern.

I realise that later this year the Government will introduce new laws on booster seats in the back of motor vehicles, but why are there no proposals to make it compulsory for children to wear helmets when cycling? Why does the Department for Transport always turn its face against that sensible proposal?

My hon. Friend's first point is quite right. We are introducing new rules so that children under six have to travel in car booster seats and children between six and 11—up to the age of 12—have to be on a booster cushion. That is important.

As for cycle helmets, my hon. Friend knows from the last time he introduced a private Member's Bill that there are strongly held views on both sides of the argument. I accept that, although my preference is that people should wear helmets; the more we do to protect people against injury, the better. However, there is no provision in the Bill because there is by no means unanimity about what we ought to do. I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friend, and others, will return to the matter, and it is of course open to him to raise it in the various proceedings of the House.

I agree with the measures that my right hon. Friend has described, but may I raise the wider issue of child fatalities? As my right hon. Friend will know, for the first time since records began, Edinburgh has been fortunate enough to experience no child fatalities for three years running. Does he agree that one reason for that has been the 20 mph limit? Will the Bill implement 20 mph zones throughout the country where that is feasible, so that the record that we have been fortunate enough to achieve in Edinburgh can be replicated in local authority areas with a less good record?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we have been very fortunate in Edinburgh. There have been no child fatalities over the past few years, and long may that continue. The 20 mph speed limits outside primary schools have no doubt been a factor in that—Edinburgh has implemented quite a few over the past year or so—but it is also due to better road design and a general awareness on the part of drivers that they must drive very carefully when there are children around.

As my hon. Friend knows, local authorities have power to impose 20 mph speed limits where that is appropriate. I do not think that they should be mandatory, because road conditions near schools and hospitals are different in each town and city. That is why discretion should lie with local authorities. Nevertheless, we must do all we can to prevent child fatalities. There are wide variations in different parts of the country, and local authorities owe it to children to think carefully about what measures they can take. Those may well include 20 mph speed limits.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will, but then I must make some progress. Although this is a six-hour debate we are taking up a large chunk of it, and I have not yet begun to deal directly with the Bill.

In the context of child casualties, and indeed other casualties, will my right hon. Friend think again about one of the variable penalty proposals, which will reduce the number of penalty points for breaking the 30 mph speed limit? The Department's own publicity depicts a child saying:

"Hit at 40 mph: There is an 80 per cent. chance I'll die. Hit at 30 mph: There is an 80 per cent. chance I'll live".

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will deal with that point at the stage when I planned to deal with it. I would be the last to claim that my speech has a shape to it, but such shape as there is will probably disappear if I deal with points in a different order.

The Bill has four key themes. The first is the need to deal with bad or irresponsible driving, whether it consists of speeding, drink-driving or carelessness. The second is the need to deal with motorists who break the law by driving without insurance, or using vehicles that are not roadworthy. Thirdly, we want to make it more difficult for foreign drivers to escape penalties for a specific range of driving offences in this country. Fourthly, we have proposed measures to raise standards and improve awareness. Let me say now, for the benefit of Members who may seek to intervene, that I will deal with those themes in that order.

Research shows that all drivers consider themselves to be better than average. I do not know whether that applies to everyone who is present today, but apparently it is the case. Nevertheless, poor driving is a key factor in many accidents. For example, nearly a third of car occupants who die have been involved in single vehicle accidents—accidents involving no other vehicle. Unfortunately, statistics suggest that the number of such accidents is increasing. It therefore seems sensible to bear down on some of the possible causes. One moment of carelessness or lack of attention can lead to serious consequences.

Clauses 20 and 21 introduce new offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.

Much of our Second Reading debate on the earlier Bill, which my hon. Friend missed out on, concerned precisely those issues. Until now, while it was possible to convict someone for causing death by dangerous driving, if the driving was merely careless it was not possible to convict. It is also important for us to be able to deal with drivers who are not insured, have not paid their tax or are disqualified. Until now a high level of proof has been required for conviction, and the clauses will make a substantial difference in that regard.

I am very heartened by what my right hon. Friend is saying, as will be the family and friends of Levi Bleasdale and all those affected by her tragic death in my constituency. She was three years old when she was killed by a hit-and-run driver last year. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand my shock, and that of many of my constituents, at the lack of custodial sentences available for those who kill through careless driving. Does he share my outrage at the Conservatives' attempts to water down our provisions in the other place? Will he commit himself to reintroducing a charge of causing death by careless driving with a maximum sentence of five years, triable in a magistrates court?

We will do that. I think it important for magistrates courts to have that disposal. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, conviction for causing death by dangerous driving will carry a sentence of up to five years.

It is of course for Parliament to determine the penalties, and the range of penalties, but I do not think that I am the only Member who thinks it important for the courts to regard someone who kills someone else using a car in the same way as someone using any other means of killing people. I suspect that most of us know of cases similar to that raised by my hon. Friend, in which constituents have lost young children, and someone has been convicted but justice is not seen to have been done. It is equally important for drivers to realise that the minute they sit behind a wheel they are driving something with the potential to cause death or serious injury.

There has been a good deal of support in the House for the creation of that new offence. If the measure is passed, it will be on the statute book by the end of the year or the beginning of next year. The courts will have adequate powers; I hope that they will convict if the evidence justifies conviction, and, in particular, that the punishment will fit the crime. Taking a life is taking a life, no matter how it is done.

As my right hon. Friend says, drivers need to be more aware of their own technical ability. Will he congratulate the Institute for Advanced Motorists, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year? Does he agree that it is not a fuddy-duddy organisation, but an organisation for young and new drivers, and for very good drivers? Only last year, its president, Nigel Mansell—a man of great driving talent—recognised that it was appropriate for him to take the IAM course. His lead should be followed by every Member of Parliament.

I have sometimes been tempted to take the course myself but have not got there yet. I agree that the institute is very important, and people should be encouraged to take its courses. I believe that some insurance companies give their clients credit for having taken them. In my experience, pointing to a financial advantage sometimes helps people along the way.

The Bill also seeks to change the law relating to drivers who are not insured. The present law allows illegal drivers to be prosecuted only for disqualified driving, driving without insurance or driving without a licence, unless their driving was at fault, in which case a charge of careless or dangerous driving would be applicable. Under the new proposals, a driver who was on the road illegally—without insurance—would be liable if, but for his presence on the road, an accident and consequent death would not have occurred, even if the standard of his driving was not at fault.

That is a major step forward. It deals with a particular cause of concern throughout the country: people who steal cars, or do not bother to insure their cars. If such people are on the road and a fatal accident occurs, it must be right to enable the courts to act.

Taking a life is taking a life, but in this context we are surely talking in some cases about momentary misjudgments when there was no deliberate intent on the part of the individual to take a life. Surely that should be reflected in the Secretary of State's comments.

Yes. A substantial body of case law in relation to that and other matters allows the court to hear the evidence and then come to a view as to whether someone is guilty of that offence. Careless and inconsiderate driving is defined in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right: before someone can be sentenced, they have to be convicted in law beyond reasonable doubt, so the courts are well used to determining these matters. For example, prosecutors have to decide whether there is sufficient evidence that someone has caused death by dangerous driving or careless driving. The court has to decide whether that is the case, but it would be wrong of us not to give courts the option of being able to convict someone where the evidence points clearly to the fact that their conduct was such that the natural result was someone being killed, even though they perhaps did not intend that.

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the new proposal goes further than existing law, but I think that it is fully justified. The courts will, of course, be able to hear the evidence and come to a view. However, as with all these things, if he is making a bid to get on to the Committee that will scrutinise the Bill, he can no doubt explore the issue at greater length there.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the current situation is that if someone pleads guilty to careless driving, the court is in many cases not even told that someone died?

I will need to take some advice on that. The hon. Gentleman may be right but, in my view, when passing sentence, a court needs to be aware of all the circumstances. There is a world of difference between careless driving resulting in knocking over a flower pot and careless driving resulting in someone dying. The offence I have just described relates to someone who should not be on the road—because their car is not insured, for example. The Bill goes a lot further. It would be inconceivable in such cases for the court not to know that there had been a fatality.

In many cases, a driver who kills commits a multitude of offences, but the feeling among families of the victims is that not all those offences are totted up. The three new offences that my right hon. Friend referred to a few minutes ago have a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. Is it his view that if a driver has committed multiple offences, the court should tot up the sentences?

What to charge someone with is a matter entirely for the prosecutors in each case. It is not uncommon, as my hon. Friend knows, for someone to be charged with a number of offences. If they are convicted of all of them, the court has to take that into account. Equally, in some cases, someone is charged with one or two offences, rather than the lot, because that is what the prosecution thinks it can get a conviction on.

I strongly believe that decisions on whether to prosecute and what to charge someone with are matters for the independent prosecution authorities, not for Ministers or Parliament, but it is for Parliament to set the range of offences and decide what is the mischief that we are trying to get at. That is what we are attempting to do.

On a point of clarification, if the right hon. Gentleman was driving in Edinburgh, for example, and someone walked in front of him, he hit them, knocked them down and, unfortunately and heaven forfend, killed them, after the Bill had been enacted, what would the difference be in the way he was treated?

As I explained earlier, the position would not change as regards someone who was driving along and was insured. The question would be whether they were driving carelessly or dangerously. Under the Bill, if someone were driving carelessly because they were not paying proper attention or doing something that reduced their attention to the road, they could be charged with causing death by careless driving. On the other hand, they could be blameless. If the person driving along was not insured and there was a fatality, then, depending on the circumstances, under the additional measure to which I referred, it might be possible to charge that person with an offence.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that much depends on the circumstances of each case. We are plugging a gap because, until this Bill, hopefully, becomes law, it is not possible to charge a person with causing death by careless driving. Nor is it possible in every circumstance to get at someone who should not be on the road in the first place and whose car is involved in an accident involving a fatality. All those issues will no doubt be explored further in Committee.

I have mentioned uninsured driving. Continuous registration has helped. The additional powers to which I referred earlier have helped in tracking people down and dealing with them where they have broken the law. Equally, electronic registration in the renewal of tax discs, which we introduced just last year, is helping to catch people who try to skip a month on their insurance, for example. However, the Bill also introduces a new offence of being the keeper of a vehicle, the use of which is not insured. Unless people have registered a statutory declaration and the thing is off the road, there will be an offence of keeping the car where it is not insured.

The Bill increases penalties for careless and inconsiderate driving. The fine doubles to £5,000. As I said, clause 30 defines careless and inconsiderate driving for the first time. There is already a statutory definition of dangerous driving. For using a hand-held mobile phone while driving and for failing to have proper control of a vehicle, a mandatory endorsement is introduced. For repeat offences of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, there is mandatory disqualification if the offence is repeated within three years. That is a minimum of six months' disqualification.

Excessive speed contributes to just over a third of fatalities—that means about 1,000 deaths every year—as well as being a factor in another 40,000 injuries. Several police forces now offer "low-end speeders" the option of going on speed awareness courses, and that will be in the Bill as a disposal available to the courts. The Association of Chief Police Officers is putting in place a national programme of awareness courses, which, of course, we welcome.

The greatest reduction in such casualties would come from reducing speed across the board, and that is where speed cameras come in. I believe that, on any view one cares to take, speed cameras are saving lives and reducing speed. However, as I said in 2004—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) raised the point—we need to do more to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. A graduated system of penalties from two to six points, rather than the present system, would ensure that a distinction was made between someone who was just over the limit and someone who was driving way over the limit.

I said last time—the Bill provides for this—that the Government would undertake consultation. Under the Bill, we have to consult and people will be able to respond. I think I am right in saying that, in the consultation on the principle of the measure in 2004–05, just over half of respondents said they were in favour of graduated penalties. Obviously, when we consult fully, we will see what people have to say. After that consultation, there will be proposals. A measure will come before the House, and it will be subject to the usual affirmative procedure.

rose—

rose—

I will give way in a moment.

There is probably a range of views in the House, but I yield to no one in my belief that speed cameras are playing an essential role. The changes that I announced towards the end of last year will help further, but I think that it is right to introduce a graduated system, using points and the fines that flow from them, to reflect the fact that different speeds are sometimes involved.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we should all be equal under the law as far as speed cameras are concerned and that it is therefore not right that people who incorrectly register their vehicle details are able to avoid penalties from speed cameras? I can show the Secretary of State details of one vehicle caught 73 times in my constituency doing speeds of up to 119 miles per hour, but the police are powerless to deal with it. Does he agree that, at the very least, that is a serious issue, which he and his Ministers should look into?

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue with the Minister of State, who has agreed to meet him to discuss it. If we need to amend the Bill to deal with that problem, we will see what can be done. I am not making any promises, but let us explore the issue because the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. If people are using a false address or fiddling the system and the police cannot get to them, we need to sort that out, and we will do so.

The other place introduced an amendment on the use of income from speed cameras. What does the Secretary of State plan to do about it?

We have already dealt with that issue, so the amendment is not necessary. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when the three-year assessment of speed cameras was published last year, I changed the funding arrangements. Part of the problem is that people have tended over the years to regard speed cameras as a free option because it cost nothing to put them in. I want to ensure that where there is a particular safety problem, local authorities and the police can consider various factors such as changing the road layout or the speed limit, as well as the introduction of speed cameras. The amendment tabled in the other place might have been worthy of consideration had we not decided to change the funding regime, but as we are in the process of changing it—some £110 million will be available to local authorities—the amendment is not appropriate, and we will deal with it when it comes before the Standing Committee.

Will the Secretary of State make a comparison between normal speed cameras and the clever electronic advisory signs used in many villages, in order to see which works best at producing slower traffic movements?

I am with the hon. Gentleman on this. These signs, which are used more in villages and small towns than in cities, are very effective. They light up to warn drivers that they are going at 35 mph—so I am told. [Interruption.] I have never noticed them myself. To be fair, a policeman drove me through a village outside Edinburgh to show me what happens, and I sat in the passenger seat marvelling at the technology. Such signs are effective, but if we give the money to local authorities and the police, they can decide what measures are best. In some cases, speed cameras are the best solution, and they are effective; but in others, different measures might be more effective.

I agree with, and support very strongly, my right hon. Friend's point of view on speed cameras, but I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said about graduated speeding penalties. Will not such penalties inevitably lead to some people taking chances by driving faster than they otherwise would, thereby leading to an incremental increase in deaths and injuries at the margin? Has my right hon. Friend's Department done any research on what might happen under such a system?

It is difficult to research something that has not yet happened. My own belief is that most people start from the point of view that they do not want any points on their licence or to be fined. I am not sure that that many people say, "I don't mind getting two points, but I don't want three." I look at this issue in a slightly different way: we should distinguish between someone who does 36 mph and someone who does 66 mph, and that is why the graduated scheme is better. I recognise that people have strong views on this proposal, and the last time we consulted on it, the division was about 50:50, with slightly more in favour of graduated penalties. If the Bill is passed, the next stage will be to consult on specific proposals, and depending on that consultation, we will put them before both Houses and they will be voted on. We must ensure that people appreciate that keeping their speed low is the important thing, but when someone does break the law, the punishment should fit the crime. Some graduation is necessary, but when we discuss this issue in Committee, Members will doubtless let us know what they think.

In some areas, under the current system, drivers who speed at, for example, between 31 and 40 mph in a 30 mph zone might not be prosecuted unless and until they reach 40 mph. Under a system of variable endorsement levels, might not more such drivers end up being prosecuted because the endorsement level is less? I am not saying that that is necessarily an unwanted consequence, but might it not be one?

I am not sure that that will be so, unless the general policy changes on how such cases are pursued. This is a classic case of different views being held in all parts of the House, and I am sure that we will have a decent discussion in Committee. I still tend to the view, which is the Government's, that we should have a graduated response, but I shall be interested to hear what Members have to say. All of us know of people who have been done for going just over the limit, and we must contrast that with someone who drives at 60 mph in a 40 mph zone, which is an extremely serious offence.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Yes, but then I must make some progress.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I am intrigued by his earlier example of somebody driving at 66 mph in a 30 mph zone. Under the current system, surely such a person would be prosecuted through the courts, rather than receiving a fixed penalty from the police. In fact, it is quite possible that they would be prosecuted not just for speeding but for dangerous driving. Will his new measure take people who are guilty of driving at higher speeds out of the court system and away from public scrutiny?

No. I think that I gave the example of someone driving at 66 mph in a 40 mph zone, and if I did not, I apologise. As it happens, 66 mph, according to guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers, is on the cusp in terms of being sent to court, so such a person might or might not be sent to court. I used that example because the point is that someone who does 66 mph in a 40 mph zone could get the same number of points and the same fine as someone who does 36 mph; I ask the House to reflect on that.

I will of course take further interventions, but I want first to make further progress. As I said earlier, courts will have recourse to retraining courses, and we will raise the penalty for failing to identify a driver to six penalty points. We will also clarify the law on speeding exemptions and the associated training requirements. People who are transporting organs for transplant by car, for example, are sometimes stopped by the police, and the law in that area needs to be clarified.

On any view, there has been a significant drop in the number of deaths and injuries at safety camera sites. Devices that detect or jam such equipment need to be dealt with, and the Bill does that.

There has been a change in Britain's culture in terms of drink-driving. Generally speaking, the figures have come down since the 1970s, but alcohol is still a factor in about one in seven of all fatal crashes, accounting for some 500 deaths a year. What is worse, 20 per cent. of such offenders are repeat offenders. The statistics also show that younger, predominantly male drivers are more likely to be under the influence of alcohol. So we are giving the courts the power to make repeat drink-driving offenders retake their driving test. That will require secondary legislation, but the principle needs to be dealt with in the Bill. That way, repeat offenders will be kept off the roads until they have completed the necessary medical examination. We will also enable the use of alcohol ignition interlocks, which have been shown to be effective in discouraging reoffending. I hope that all these measures, backed up by others such as advertising, will get across the message that drinking and driving kills.

Will my right hon. Friend also acknowledge the very real problem of driving under the influence of drugs? What progress is being made in finding an effective way of testing people for drugs?

I agree that driving under the influence of anything that impairs judgment—drugs are the obvious example—is just as dangerous as the specific example of alcohol. The difficulty, as I understand it, lies in developing roadside equipment that can detect the presence of drugs; however, people can of course be taken to a police station for a blood test. A number of people are working on this issue because, sadly, as my hon. Friend knows, people driving under the influence of drugs is as much of a problem as people driving under the influence of drink.

Has my right hon. Friend been convinced by the evidence that a lower drink-drive limit would save lives and by the argument from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—I declare an interest as a member—for targeted testing by the police, based on intelligence, instead of random testing?

My view is that we need to concentrate on those people who are breaking the law now. As my hon. Friend knows, the lower the level is set, the more difficult it is to justify, because people may have low levels of alcohol in their bodies for all sorts of reasons other than the fact that they have had a drink. The biggest problem we face is from people who are not just over the limit, but way over the limit. That is why the measures in the Bill are important.

I should make it clear that if hon. Members think that we should adopt any other measures, we are willing to listen to any such proposals. However, I am not convinced by the argument advanced by PACTS. Incidentally, the stuff on the front pages of newspapers yesterday about the use of cameras was rubbish, as a simple inquiry could have established.

I am still concerned by my right hon. Friend's view that we should not reduce the permitted level of blood alcohol. I understand that the majority of European countries now have lower limits than we do and there must be evidence that death rates have fallen as a result.

The problem for much of continental Europe is that they have much higher rates of offending. They have a low limit, but it is not actually enforced. The French Government have a big problem with this issue and have stepped up detection significantly in the past few years. What matters is that people need to know that there is a strong likelihood that they will be caught. We have been working with chief constables, who have to decide where to target their resources. I strongly believe that the police should target drink driving, because it is a problem, not only at Christmas time, but throughout the year.

The second theme is measures to stop people who drive without tax and insurance. Continuous vehicle registration has helped and the House may be interested to know that vehicle licence evasion has fallen by 400,000 since 2002, which means that the revenue lost from evasion has dropped by £60 million in the same time. The Bill allows the regulation of registration plate suppliers to be extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It also enables us to share driver and vehicle data with foreign authorities. That is important, because one of the themes that has emerged, especially with more and more foreign vehicles being driven in this country, is the lack of access to information about who owns them. We need to do more to build co-operation across Europe on that issue. I hope that those measures will command support on both sides of the House, although I understand that in certain parts, co-operation with Europe creates some difficulties.

When we first published the Bill, it enabled the Department to require the surrender of paper driving licences, probably some time after 2008, to allow them to be replaced with photocard driving licences. That part of the Bill was removed in the other place. We will reintroduce that important measure, because the police need to be sure that the person they stop at the roadside is producing their own documents. Last year alone, the police brought to the DVLA's attention approximately 1,200 cases in which individuals had set up more than one identity, and some of them had many identities. All of us know that the paper driving licence is reasonably easy to manipulate and therefore misrepresent. We should therefore introduce a photographic licence that has better security and makes such deception much more difficult. I am sorry that the Conservatives in the other place are opposed to that: I hope that the Conservatives here will take a more realistic view. The police and others rely on driving licences and they should be as secure as possible. We do not plan to make the change immediately, but at some point it will be necessary to recall paper licences and replace them with licences that are more robust.

One of the concerns expressed in the Lords was the potential link between the replacement of paper driving licences and the Government's plans for identity cards. If those two are completely divorced, what he has said makes good sense. If he can give the House a clear undertaking to that effect, we would not have a problem with what he says.

That is not a debate that we need to have because I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I refer him to what the Home Secretary said when we last debated identity cards. We are not planning to designate ID cards in that way, and they will be separate. The photographic licence would be a separate requirement for different reasons. At some stage, biometric information will be required and, given that the same information will be required for both passports and driving licences, it makes sense to co-operate on them, but the two documents will be distinct. My concern is to reduce the possibility that someone can use a paper licence to create false identities, with all the problems that that raises. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

The Bill will also require vehicle mileages to be reported to the DVLA, possibly at the time of the MOT to try to combat clocking.

The third element is our attempt to ensure that foreign drivers who break the laws here do not escape punishment. If a driver cannot or will not pay a fixed penalty, the police will be able to require a deposit. If people fail to pay the deposit or the police believe that they cannot rely on the address and information given, they will be able to immobilise the vehicle to prevent it from leaving the country. On most occasions, the value of the lorry is substantially more than the fine, so I hope that that will be a more effective way to stop people than simply imposing a fine that they then ignore. That measure is a welcome step forward.

According to the Northamptonshire police, 70 per cent. of the traffic collisions on the M1 through the county are caused by foreign-owned heavy goods vehicles, because they do not have sufficient mirrors on the correct side. When they overtake, they pull out into other traffic. Will the Bill introduce any measures to assist with extra mirror provision on HGVs, so that the number of collisions may be reduced?

There are no such measures in the Bill, but we are working with other European Governments to deal with that problem. It is important that drivers of lorries in this country can see what is going on. I am not sure that the Bill is the right way to achieve that and it might be better achieved through Europe-wide legislation, because there might be reciprocal requirements for our lorries abroad. We are aware of the issue and my hon. Friend the Minister of State tells me that we are actively working on it. If the hon. Gentleman wants some further information, I am happy to write to him.

Before the Secretary of State commends the Bill to the House and sits down, will he say something about clause 50. Where a motorist deliberately ignores a red flashing light and descending barriers at a railway level crossing, is there not a case for imposing a greater penalty than six points? In view of the likelihood of death or serious injury for many people as a result, is there not a case for a period of mandatory disqualification to be imposed?

I am not quite ready to commend the Bill to the House or to sit down: I am coming to the railway provisions and I will deal with that question then.

To go back to the previous point, it is necessary not only that HGV drivers should be able to see other vehicles, but that other drivers should be able to see HGVs. He will be aware that the other place introduced new clause 16 on the conspicuousness of HGVs. It would be good to have a reassurance from the Government that they intend to leave the clause in the Bill and also that they will add a time scale for its introduction. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a longstanding campaign on that issue, and I hope that it has now been successful.

I can perhaps cheer and disappoint my hon. Friend at the same time. We do not think that such legislation is needed, because such things will happen anyway, but when my hon. Friend the Minister of State explains the issue in Committee, he will amplify that and—who knows?—he might even deal with it extensively when he replies to the debate.

Other measures will introduce advanced learning packages and ensure that we improve the standards of tuition and instruction. There are proposals on the registration of instructors and others that will allow the publication of their performance, and other measures that, I hope, will raise people's general education and awareness of good driving on the roads.

I wish to draw the House's attention to the proposal on tiredness, which was contained in the previous Road Safety Bill. We intend to introduce picnic areas—or aires, as they are called in France—where people can stop, so that they need not go to a service station or McDonald's, or anything like that, to sit and relax, and the first one will be on the M5 in Somerset.

Other measures relate to radioactive material, London private hire vehicles and the certification of vehicles.

The Secretary of State mentions private hire vehicles in London. I suppose that he was referring to clause 58, under which the Government seek to extend what we think of as the "Minicab Act" to operators who solely hire vehicles under contract to local authorities—for example, those used to ferry children who have special needs to and from school and other such activities. Clause 58 will bring them into the minicab regulations, and many people think that it is a piece of over-regulation. I hope that he will consider representations on that issue sympathetically.

I will certainly look at representations, but we are trying to ensure that anyone who drives people and the quality of the vehicle used meet certain basic standards. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make representations, of course he can, but the objective of the provision is to try to ensure that we can balance individuals' needs with the requirements of the general public, so that they can be satisfied about standards generally.

On the Network Rail point, we will seek to remove the six new clauses introduced in another place, because they would not achieve what their movers wanted them to achieve, but we will introduce an alternative proposal that, I hope, will deal with that problem. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) asked in particular about the penalties for people who ignore the lights and cross the railway. The fine for doing that was increased to £5,000 in another place. A lower fine was proposed originally. I am concerned that there have been several incidents in the past year where people have clearly decided to take a gamble and tried to get through the barriers, thus putting at risk not just their own lives, but those of the people on the oncoming train.

Of course, we will not be able to deal with suicide cases that way—the fine would not make much difference—but I will reflect on such fines, endorsements or disqualifications to determine how we deal with such things. Several incidents in the past year or so, particularly on the east coast line and the lines off it, have caused me concern, and I want to think about how we should deal with them in the light of what has been said in the other place.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he clarify his new ideas and thoughts on the issue? Does he envisage letting the House know what he is thinking during the passage of the Bill, or at some time in the future?

The appropriate time to consider the issue would be during the debates in Committee, which will probably take place in a couple of weeks' time, although I am not sure when we will reach that part of the Bill. Such a time scale would allow a proper debate to take place in Committee, and the House could then deal with the issue on Report if necessary. That is probably the best thing to do.

Just before I sit down, it is worth returning to the overall point. The road safety record in this country is good, but it obviously needs to get better. I am glad that the number of traffic police on the roads has increased in the past couple of years or so. I remind the House that the traffic officers for which the Highways Agency is responsible are now on most parts of the network, and almost 1,000 of them will be fully operational by the summer. They are already proving their worth, by helping to clear up after accidents, removing debris from the roads and attending to people whose vehicles have broken down. That also helps to improve road safety.

I am sure that the Bill contains measures that will make a difference. No doubt, further representations on further necessary measures will be made, and the Government will, of course, listen to them. Anything that we can do to improve road safety and the quality of driving on our roads must be supported, and on that basis I commend the Bill to the House.

We welcome many aspects of the detail of the Bill. There are many things that divide us in the House, but securing people's safety on and around our roads is not one of them. We will back the Government in giving the Bill a Second Reading this evening—it contains some commendable measures—but we will not be afraid to be critical of its detail in Committee. We do not support some parts of it, we are sceptical about others, and we believe that some require tightening, but that is what debates in Committee are all about.

We hope to have constructive debates in Committee and on Report. We hope that our ideas about how we can improve the Bill will be listened to and that those constructive debates will lead to those proposals that are sensibly being enacted. Notwithstanding our support for much of the detail, the Bill does not do the job that it could do. It is a missed opportunity in many ways. It tends to be a patchwork of measures, rather than a strategy for improvement. The Secretary of State has touched on some of the big challenges, but they should be much more central to the direction of the Bill.

We face some huge challenges on our roads. The Secretary of State is right to suggest that casualty figures in this country are lower than in many other countries, but they are still too high. When a train crashes and people die, the news dominates the headlines for days, but on every day of every week of every year, more people die on the roads than in most major accidents on our railways and other modes of transport in this and other countries. Those accidents pass largely unnoticed, except in the areas where they take place. Far too many children, cyclists and motor cyclists die on our roads each year. Indeed, we are now seeing signs that, after long years of success, the improvements in road safety appear to have reached a plateau. I hope that the Bill, when it is passed into law, will make a difference in trying to push that trend downwards once again.

I welcome the tone that the hon. Gentleman has struck so far, but will he confirm whether measures considered by the Conservative party during the last Parliament to raise the national speed limit to 80 mph will be considered by the new model Conservative party for inclusion in its next manifesto?

The hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me on to Conservative party policy making, which is something that we will be doing over the next 12 to 18 months. I do not intend to share all our thinking with him today. All I will say is that the steps that we will seek to propose, as we prepare to become the Government after 2009, will be designed to improve safety on our roads. That will be a central part of what we do; it should be a central part of what all political parties seek to do in their road transport strategies.

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying so far. He talks about improving the Bill and refers to road traffic accidents reaching a plateau. We are now getting down to a hard core of a small number of persistent offenders. Some people are very bad drivers. Will he therefore suggest to the Government that they could get to that core group by imposing on those drivers longer and more frequent driving bans—possibly even lifetime bans—rather than financial penalties?

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the core group. If he bears with me, I shall come on to that because it is the central part of the problem that we face.

In the spirit of congeniality, let me say that the Government have done some smart things. We welcome those and want them to continue. The 20 mph speed limit in urban areas has made a difference. It is and will be the right thing to do in quiet residential side streets. The Government were right to champion safe routes to schools. We all want improvements to the way in which our children get to school, and changes to ensure that they do so as safely as possible.

However, the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the real issue: the Bill does not fully get to grips with the most significant part of the challenge that we face. In Britain, well over 1 million cars—a large number of drivers, indeed—are being driven around outside the confines of the law in a systematic way. In doing so, those people are placing law-abiding British people at risk. They have no insurance and are registered at false addresses. They ignore MOT requirements and fake or ignore tax discs. They are unlicensed and have often never bothered to learn to drive. They may be driving cloned vehicles—a big challenge in many of our cities—whereby they have deliberately stolen the identity of others so that they can offend with impunity.

In many areas, those unlicensed and uninsured cars ply for minicab business on our streets. All too frequently, those cars and their drivers, who operate outside the law, kill or maim. Research shows that they are 10 times more likely to have been convicted of drunk driving, six times more likely to have been convicted of driving an unsafe vehicle, and three times more likely to have been convicted of driving without due care and attention.

The Bill does not set out a clear enough strategy to deal with the problem. Of course, there are welcome steps in it and it contains things that will help to make a difference in tackling the problem. The measures on uninsured vehicles are sensible, but much more could be done to tackle the problem of uninsured drivers. For example, a £100 fine is not sufficient to address the problem of an uninsured car sitting in the street, undriven, outside someone's house. The British Insurance Brokers Association describes the measure as "totally insufficient".

I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that removal, confiscation and disposal of such vehicles would be a much more effective penalty than a small financial penalty in the form of a fine?

I very much agree and hope that Ministers, and all those serving on the Committee, will discuss that in detail. It is one way to tighten the measure. The removal of a vehicle and its return only when a heavy fine and the cost of insurance are paid is one way to address that.

Does the hon. Gentleman regret, as I do, that the Home Office has withdrawn funding for a special scheme called "Scrap it", which enables local authorities to take those vehicles off the road extremely quickly?

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a problem. The Government are always asking our local authorities to take on responsibility after responsibility. Those may be desirable responsibilities, but many areas do not receive the funding for them. The decision about whether a local authority should tackle the problem of abandoned vehicles, for example, depends on whether it can afford to divert money from other key services.

We completely support the new penalty for causing death when unlicensed, uninsured or disqualified. No hon. Member could disagree with that, although there is an aspect of the measure that could be strengthened. However, the Government could have taken much tougher action against such drivers in other ways. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) last year highlighted the problem of people who commit multiple offences while driving and who shelter behind false addresses. I am grateful that Ministers are willing to talk about that now. My hon. Friend has campaigned on the issue for months. Police forces around the country have made noises about it for months and have made a little progress. The measure is overdue.

The problem essentially is that offenders are registering their vehicles behind false addresses. There are a number of addresses in Essex, for example, at which dozens of vehicles are registered. When a driver commits an offence—whether going past a speed camera at high speed, parking illegally or something else—and the authorities try to track down the users of those vehicles, they find themselves dealing with the front address and have no possible means of finding the owners. That cannot be right and it must be tackled.

Officers dealing with those problems on the front line say that they do not have adequate legal backing to impound such vehicles if they find them. They are uncertain about the powers that exist. The Bill is an opportunity to provide them with much greater clarity and, perhaps, with powers to seize vehicles at the roadside if they are stopped and for automatic confiscation. However, I am sure you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it cannot be right to have vehicles on our road that rack up thousands of pounds in fines with a brazen disregard for the law. I have seen a photograph from Bedfordshire of a couple of young men in an old car driving past a speed camera, both leaning wide out of the windows and sticking two fingers up at the camera as they go by. That is the kind of brazen disregard for the law that we must tackle.

Likewise, I want to see clearer measures to tackle the massive problem of untaxed vehicles. Local authorities and local police do not often have the resources or the ability to deal with the problem in the way that they might wish. I want to see tougher action still against unlicensed drivers. There are measures in the Bill, but more could be done. We need much tougher penalties on hit-and-run drivers. We heard one or two examples from Back-Bench Members about the devastating impact of hit-and-run driving. It remains the case that if someone is involved in an accident having drunk too much alcohol, the law provides an incentive to drive away at speed. A person may be less likely to be disqualified as a result of leaving the scene of the accident than if he stays and is breathalysed. We should address that. There is no excuse whatever for motorists driving away from the scene of an accident. We should prosecute those who do with the toughest force of the law, and that should include long disqualifications.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a case like that of Levi Bleasdale, which was mentioned, would be partially tackled by the Bill? Nothing will compensate parents for the loss of their child, but it would make it possible to get such a driver for causing death by careless driving and to give him the increased prison sentence for driving without a licence. If the two sentences ran consecutively—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was asked about that—the driver could be imprisoned for up to seven years. It would not compensate for a life lost, but it would be much more than the six weeks, or whatever, that the driver got.

The hon. Lady misses the point. I am not talking purely about fatal accidents, but about minor accidents as well.

It was a tragic case.