| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.36 am
Ms Hazel Blears (Salford): I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) has secured tonight's Adjournment debate, and I am very grateful to him for allowing me to contribute.
Unlike my hon. Friend, I am a relative newcomer to biking, having passed my test only two years ago as a present to myself on my 40th birthday. I have just bought my first big bike--at least, it is a very big bike to me. As my hon. Friend said, motor cycling can help to cut congestion in urban areas and reduce pollution, and it is environmentally friendly. At long last, we have a Government who are prepared to acknowledge the role that motor bikes can play in our transport system.
If we are to encourage more people to take to two wheels, we must take action to make their bikes more secure and to reduce bike theft. I know what that feels like, because it has happened to me: my motor bike was stolen. Having a motor bike stolen is like losing a best friend; it is devastating. Preventing that crime in the first place must be a top priority.
As my hon. Friend said, there are thousands of motor cycle owners in this country. In fact, 25,000 motor bikes are stolen every year, but the recovery rate is only 14 per cent.--a mere 3,500 bikes are recovered each year. In the past three years, 52,000 motor bikes have been reported stolen and not been recovered. We should contrast that
with the recovery rate for stolen cars. About 400,000 cars are stolen every year in England and Wales, but the overall recovery rate is 65 per cent. Something like 260,000 stolen cars are recovered every year, but the recovery rate for stolen bikes is much lower.
Vehicle crime costs this country about £3 billion a year in total; so, cutting motor cycle theft not only makes good economic sense, but will reduce the distress and heartache caused to many riders who lose their pride and joy. The Home Office has set a tough target of reducing vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over the next three years, and cutting motor cycle theft would assist it enormously in that endeavour.
I can offer a few suggestions for reducing motor cycle theft. First, all motor bikes are required to have engine and chassis numbers that tally with the vehicle registration documents. We must ensure that that requirement applies to off-road and racing bikes also, because a whole industry is devoted to stealing, stripping, ringing, selling and shipping bikes abroad. We must have better identification of bikes in this country. In America, the Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act 1984 requires manufacturers to mark 12 different components of the motor cycle with identification, which not only helps to deter theft, but enables the police to identify the owners when their property is recovered.
My second suggestion is that more motor cycles should have built-in alarm systems fitted at source. We expect that of cars in this day and age, but bike manufacturers have been appallingly slow in introducing them for motor bikes. I understand that Kawasaki have just produced two bikes with built-in alarm systems, and I want the Government to encourage manufacturers to do much more.
The third and, perhaps, the most important point is the need for secure parking. About 80 per cent. of motor cyclists say that parking is the most important issue in deciding whether to use their bikes.
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town):
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a welcome fact that a first Conservative Member, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), has joined the debate? So far, several Labour Members and two Liberal Democrat Members have been present to support this Adjournment debate--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. The hon. Gentleman ought to study the nature of Adjournment debates.
Ms Blears:
I am aware that the hon. Member for New Forest, East has a personal interest in motor cycling.
Provision of secure parking is important, because many bikes are stolen by being manhandled into vans. Opportunist thieves can steal a locked bike in seconds. I am delighted that, in our document "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", the Government have said that, in drawing up local transport plans, local authorities should consider specific measures to assist motor cyclists, such as secure parking at public transport interchange sites.
I know that many local authorities, with the Government's backing, are now embarking on positive measures to provide secure anchorage points at the
kerbside or by using hoops and rails. Several experiments in Coventry and Bristol have provided effective low-cost schemes utilising areas of pedestrianised roads where railings have been erected to which people can lock their bikes. That costs next to nothing, but provides a tremendous degree of security.
The Motor Cycle Industry Association has produced excellent guidelines about the location, construction and value for money of various initiatives. I do not have the time to describe all of them now, but there are three particularly welcome pieces of advice. The first, which relates to location, says, "Please do not place the secure parking facilities on steep gradients." As a relatively short rider, I appreciate that.
The second piece of advice is that sites chosen should not be susceptible to environmental disadvantage such as flooding, falling tree sap or bird droppings. Most bikers would appreciate not having bird droppings on their bikes.
Thirdly, and intriguingly, secure parking should not be situated over gratings and grids where people might drop their keys when they go to move their motor bike.
It is also important that we try to involve local sponsors in those schemes. We might be able to get insurance companies, motor cycle dealers and local businesses to sponsor secure parking. Now that we have a Government who are positive about motor cycling, we can make progress on that.
On an entirely separate matter, I make a plea to the Government promptly to consider the automatic ban that applies to learner motor cyclists who do not pass their test within two years of getting their provisional licence. That can put many riders, particularly young people, off motor cycling, and they then turn to cars. That ban is viewed as unfair and discriminatory because it does not apply to car drivers. I know that there has been extensive consultation by the Driving Standards Agency and a number of options were suggested. I am delighted that the Government are reconsidering that issue, because our policies should be directed towards encouraging learner drivers to gain better road skills and training, rather than penalising them and putting them off motor cycling for ever.
Motor cycling has changed dramatically in recent years. It is becoming respectable with people of all ages and from all walks of life. Respectability will no doubt damage the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, but I, for one, am glad of that respectability. Perhaps there will always be an element of rebellion about riding a motor bike, but, for thousands of people in Britain, motor cycling is an affordable, efficient form of transport. Let us not forget that, for all of us riders, it is great fun, too.
Motor cycling is exciting; it is exhilarating; it can be done alone or in a group, but, whichever way it is done, it is the best way that I know of to blow away the cobwebs at the end of a long, hard parliamentary week. I hope that many more people will join our ranks and discover the joys of riding. When they do, I hope that they will have the support of the Government, who want to make motor cycling a real part of our transport policy, and will ensure that the voices of riders are heard loud and clear.
12.44 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson):
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) for raising the issue of motor cycling, for his generosity in affording the opportunity for our hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) to add her particularly informed contribution to the debate, and for raising the memory of Marlon Brando in virtually anything.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North for raising the issue of motor cycling as a component of our integrated transport policy. Even in opposition, we were actively considering the issue, resulting in "Bike to Basics", which helped us to develop informed views.
In November 1997, following the publication of "Bike to Basics", we consulted widely among motor cycle, environmental and safety groups. We continued and completed that process by publishing our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" in July last year--the first major transport policy statement for 20 years. We believe that motor cycling does have a role to play in integrated transport. Mopeds and motor cycles are a sensible means of transport for many journeys. At the most recent count, there were 626,000 motor cycles in the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the undoubted reduction in motor cycling accidents, but we must still be concerned about the safety of this form of transport because, in 1997, there were 509 motor cycle fatalities. In the same year, motor bikes comprised under 1 per cent. of road traffic, but their riders suffered 14 per cent. of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. We must reduce that appalling toll. We believe that that can best be achieved through better education--a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford--and, where necessary, regulation.
As long ago as 1990, the requirement was introduced for all new learner motor cyclists and moped riders to complete a course of compulsory basic training before being allowed to ride on a road. Many learner motor cyclists at that time were choosing not to take any form of professional tuition. Training has played an important part in reducing the number of casualties, which until 1997, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North pointed out, had been falling. But we must do better.
We are also addressing licensing. Currently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford said, a provisional licence is valid for two years. After that, if a full licence has not been gained, a year must elapse before a provisional licence can be renewed. As she said, some regard that as unfair and unnecessary. We have consulted widely on the relaxation of the rule, and are reflecting on the responses.
Safety is, of course, not just about the action of motor cyclists. Motor cyclists are vulnerable to the behaviour of other road users. We have therefore introduced more questions in the driving theory test to increase the awareness of drivers to the vulnerability of others, and from next week, such questions will be added to the theory test for learner lorry and bus drivers. From May, extra driving is being added to the practical test to allow a broader assessment of behaviour toward vulnerable road users, including motor cyclists, on a wider range of roads.
Motor cycles must be safe, too; so, after 17 June, all new models must meet the requirements of European whole vehicle type approval, as cars do already. From June 2003, that requirement will apply to all new motor cycles. That move will provide greater assurance that motor cycles that enter this country are constructed to high levels of rider safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford referred to an increasing need for the security of motor cycles. Whole vehicle type approval will require all new two and three-wheel motor vehicles, except mopeds, to be fitted with a locking system for the steering mechanism, thus preventing unauthorised use of the vehicle. Vehicle identification plates must be fitted, showing such information as the manufacturer's name, a unique vehicle identification number, the whole vehicle type approval number and certain technical information relating to noise output.
At present, there is no mandatory pan-European requirement for motor cycles to be fitted with alarm systems. However, we would certainly look carefully at any future European proposal to require alarm systems to be fitted.
Despite the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North that motor cycling is not about speed, speed is a road safety issue that applies to all road users and is probably the single biggest road safety problem. My noble Friend Lord Whitty launched a speed management review last October. Part of that work will be to look at ways of managing vehicle speeds to improve the safety of all road users, including motor cyclists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North listed some of the dangers experienced by motor cyclists in respect of the state of our roads. Regrettably, we inherited a legacy of under-investment; so, to tackle the backlog of maintenance required to bring our network up to a safe and serviceable condition, we will be spending £2.3 billion on that project over the next three years. In December, we announced an increase in funding for English principal roads, from £80 million in 1998-99 to £113 million for 1999-2000. For other local authority roads, there is an increase of £46 million each year during the next three financial years in the highways maintenance standard spending assessment.
Local authorities are asked to take account of the contribution that motor cycling can make to their integrated transport plans, and we hope to see some firm proposals. A measure that we floated in the White Paper was secure parking at public transport interchange sites. We do not believe it right to require operators to provide secure parking--that is a matter for them--but local authorities can consider what they can do and we would like to help them.
Local authorities do not have the power to provide devices for securing motor bikes at the roadside, so we have agreed to support a private peer's Bill, which Lord Rotherwick introduced today in the other place, to enable local authorities to provide such facilities. If a local authority made a soundly based proposal for a pilot project allowing motor cycles to use bus lanes, we would seriously consider it. There are places where that is allowed already, but we need to be able to monitor a project--with data on conditions before and after--so that we can make an informed decision about whether the practice might be adopted as policy.
Motor cycles do not have the same implications for congestion as cars--their numbers are few in comparison and they take up less road space--but, on the other hand, we are considering encouraging high vehicle occupancy and a motor bike can carry a maximum of two persons, compared with four for a standard car.
Charging policy is also an issue. In December, we issued the consultation document "Breaking the Logjam". The consultation period ends tomorrow. We sought views on a general exemption for motor cycles from user charging and the workplace user charging levy. Our provisional view, which is set out in the consultation document, is to leave decisions to local discretion.
We have been considering the environmental benefits of motor cycles. Emission standards for new motor cycles and mopeds are due to be implemented later this year, but there is still some catching up to be done, especially on carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. Oil-burning two-stroke machines are also a concern due to particulate emissions.
Motor cycle and moped noise levels are also being reduced, and the European Commission is considering future standards for emissions and for noise as part of a scientific review being carried out with the motor cycle industry. The review will establish the technical feasibility of further controls and the costs and benefits of such measures. The proposals that the Commission may make as a result of the review are expected next year.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |