UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 460-v

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

Road Safety

Wednesday 16 July 2008

JIM FITZPATRICK MP and MR MIKE FAWCETT

Evidence heard in Public Questions 412 - 438

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Transport Committee

on Wednesday 16 July 2008

Members present

Mrs Louise Ellman, in the Chair

Mr David Clelland

Clive Efford

Mr Philip Hollobone

Mr John Leech

Mr Eric Martlew

Graham Stringer

________________

Memorandum submitted by Department of Transport

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Jim Fitzpatrick, MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and Mr Mike Fawcett, Head of Road User Safety Division, Department of Transport, gave evidence.

Chairman: Would Members like to declare any relevant interests?

Mr Clelland: Member of Unite.

Mr Martlew: Member of Unite and the GMB unions.

Clive Efford: Member of Unite.

Graham Stringer: Member of Unite.

Q412 Chairman: Member of Unite. Anyone else? Could I welcome our witnesses and ask if you would like to identify yourselves, please, for the record.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Good afternoon, Chairman. Jim Fitzpatrick, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Transport, and Mr Mike Fawcett, who is Head of our Road User Safety Division is on my right. We are very pleased to be here this afternoon and we are at the disposal of the Committee.

Q413 Chairman: Thank you very much. You have of course given evidence to us relatively recently on this issue but since that time there has been the publication of new road safety statistics and we felt that, on the basis of that, we would like to talk to you again and ask you some questions, and we are very pleased that you are here. Would you like to make a brief statement before we ask you any specific questions?

Jim Fitzpatrick: Only to urge a very slight note of caution and apology in perhaps not being able to respond as definitively as colleagues might wish in respect of the statistics that were released a few weeks ago. They are in the early stage of analysis. We expect to publish additional information on traffic speeds, traffic levels and congestion for 2007 next week, on 24 July. The initial estimates for drink-driving for 2007 are due on 7 August. The first quarter of 2008's casualties data will also be issued on 7 August. The National Travel Survey will be published in late August and the Road Casualties Great Britain 2007 Annual Report will be released on 25 September. All of these reports will help colour the figures that we published recently and give better insight perhaps into exactly what has been happening, because these are the first of a set of figures that will be released by the Department and that we will be analysing fully to try and identify exactly what is happening out there.

Q414 Chairman: Thank you very much for that. I think that is very important because what we would like to do is get behind some of these figures and see what they mean and see what factors might have led to them. Could I ask you first, do the figures as you have them now change anything that you told us when you gave evidence to us in May?

Jim Fitzpatrick: No, I do not think they do. The figures released for 2007 apparently were similar to figures released in 2004, and in 2005-2006 there was a very small decrease in the numbers of KSIs. So again, a cautionary note about using one year's figures as justifying or vindicating or pointing in any particular direction. We are, as you know, Chairman, heading towards a consultation period later on this year in respect of our post-2010 strategy. I know that when we spoke previously we had a discussion about what shape that might take and whether we might want to separate out deaths from serious injuries, to have a more definitive identification of what is happening, and whether we want a five-year strategy, a ten-year strategy, whether we want to use the Swedish model of going for zero deaths or the Danish model of sustainable safety, and culturally, philosophically, trying to work out where we ought to be. We are still very much in the formative stage of preparing for the consultation and, of course, the consultation itself will allow us to come forward with conclusions that we can publish next year so that the strategy, once it is developed post 2010, will have as strong a consensus behind it as is possible. We are not prejudging anything and we are certainly not using one year's figures to reinforce or to deter us from any particular course.

Q415 Chairman: Are there any additional measures that were introduced in 2007 that you think could have helped to come to this result?

Jim Fitzpatrick: We have had a preliminary look at what might have been happening out there, and there are a couple of initiatives which were within the period which may have had an impact. The campaigns for not using mobile phone whilst driving this was made an endorsable offence in fabric 2007. There was a high profile "Think!" campaign. It is certainly true that mobile phone use appears to have dropped significantly between 2006 and 2007, by possibly as much as 40%. The campaigns to seize more vehicles which are uninsured, by the police, or untaxed, by DVLA, resulting in the rate of 150,000 vehicles a year being seized, obviously may be taking off the road a stratum of people who, if they are not paying tax or insurance, may very well be breaking other road regulations in terms of the road-worthiness of the vehicle or speeding, drinking, drugs and all the rest of it. We are not quite clear whether that 150,000 has had an impact but those are two things which clearly were high profile and out in the public domain in the period previously. Again, until we drill down into a proper analysis of the figures, it is too early to tell whether or not these aspects have had an impact.

Q416 Clive Efford: Minister, can you tell us how much the fatalities among young drivers have fallen by in 2007?

Mr Fawcett: We have some information which suggests that for car drivers under 17 deaths dropped by 75%, although the numbers there are very small, and there were large drops in the numbers of car drivers aged 17, but particularly, the largest drops in terms of numbers were car drivers in the age range 20-24, where there was a drop of 22% and that was a drop in actual numbers of 45 fewer people killed. That was one of the largest single drops across the whole of the deaths in 2007.

Q417 Clive Efford: What do you put that down to? What do you think has been a key factor in bringing about that reduction?

Mr Fawcett: As the Minister has been saying, I do not think we can be certain at this stage. It would be very interesting to see the drink-drive data. We certainly know there were fewer drink-drivers caught by the police in December, and they were doing more checks than in the previous December. In particular, there were fewer drink-drivers found following injury accidents, a 27% reduction in December 2007 compared to the previous year.

Q418 Clive Efford: In relation to young drivers, is there a similar reduction in deaths and serious injuries?

Mr Fawcett: Looking at the KSIs, there were also quite substantial reductions in car drivers really throughout the range, quite evenly spread. The reduction in deaths was more marked among people in their younger twenties. The reductions in KSIs were quite evenly spread.

Q419 Clive Efford: Do you think there is still more to be done in relation to young drivers?

Mr Fawcett: Absolutely. We published in May a consultation on radical reforms to the whole testing and training process, which, of course, is still to come.

Q420 Clive Efford: What about the issue around the types of cars that they tend to drive? Is there an issue there? Is there any way that we can provide incentives or get young people to change the types of vehicles they drive that might make it safer for them?

Jim Fitzpatrick: We have tended to conclude that it is very difficult to legislate for what vehicles would be available to young people, whether they are able to afford them themselves, whether they are being bought for them by their family. There has been a debate about whether we should restrict younger and newly qualified drivers to smaller vehicles, but of course, a small vehicle can do 70 miles an hour in a 30 mile an hour zone and do tremendous damage. We have not identified that as an issue. The debate in Westminster Hall this morning, which was moved by our Honourable friend from Pendle - and the Chairman was there, as was Mr Hollobone and Mr Leech and other members of the Committee - did look to have an element devoted to the types of vehicles that young divers were driving and whether or not, because they are more likely to be less expensive vehicles because they are younger people and therefore do not have the latest safety features in terms of air bags and braking systems and what have you, they are more vulnerable. It was very difficult to see how we could influence purchasing arrangements, given that it is very much down to every individual's economic circumstances and family assistance which might be available.

Q421 Clive Efford: How much more expensive would it be for a new driver to acquire a licence under the Government's learning to drive proposals?

Jim Fitzpatrick: Our assessments, which we will lay out in the document, is that given the numbers of lessons which people are having to take at the moment, with the level of professionalism, the standard and quality of instruction that they are getting, we are estimating it is £1,500 for a person on average to pass their driving test, but the vast majority do not pass first time so there are repeat lessons and repeat test fees. We believe that with the improved quality of ADIs and recommendations in the star rating system, the improved quality of lessons, the better structured approach, it should be around about the same but ultimately, if we can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the insurance companies that we are producing better, safer drivers, who have less crashes, that should result in lower premiums as well. So actually, in the medium term that should lead to a reduction in the cost of motoring for younger and newly qualified drivers. We certainly do not anticipate the analysis and assessment we have made through the learning to drive consultation paper suggests there will be an increase in the cost. We think it will be roughly about the same.

Q422 Clive Efford: So you do not think the new arrangements will add to the cost but how much do you think that those costs contribute to young people from low income households and socially deprived areas not getting the training that they require and therefore being over-represented in the accident statistics?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not sure I have an analytical or evidence-based answer to that. I think it was Mr Leech this morning who remarked in the debate on how much it costs for insurance for young drivers, but they still manage, in the vast majority of cases, from all elements of society to be able to afford the very high insurance premiums for young and newly qualified drivers. We are certainly trying to provide a framework for training and testing which gives greater certainty, clearer understanding, a better quality of learning, so in that instance breaking the procedure up into models, with the pre-educational qualification in schools for safe driving, it ought to make it more attainable for the whole community to achieve a pass in their driving exam and therefore to be a safer driver on the roads.

Q423 Clive Efford: Do you think the costs contribute to the number of unlicensed and uninsured drivers that there are out there?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not sure that it does. Certainly, if cost is a factor, again, I go back to one of the statistics I quoted earlier. If cost is prohibiting people from taking lessons and sitting the test, it will also be prohibiting them from insuring or taxing their vehicle, and the fact that we now have in place the seizure arrangements, which are relatively new, up to 150,000 vehicles a year being seized, hopefully we are taking these vehicles off the road which people ought not to be driving.

Q424 Mr Martlew: Just on this point about young drivers, there was an intervention by the Government's Chief Medical Officer on Monday, who said that the blood-alcohol level of young drivers should be zero. Do you welcome that intervention? Are you going to implement that proposal?

Jim Fitzpatrick: As you know, Mr Martlew, we have said that we will be going out to consultation on the drink-drive regulations later on this year. It is the Department's view, as I think we are also on record as saying, that we will be leaning that consultation towards better enforcement. We will not be recommending a reduction or elimination in alcohol levels but we know that when we open the door to a drink-drive consultation, naturally that debate will occur and there will be strong opinions submitted in favour of reducing to 50 or eliminating altogether or eliminating for newly qualified drivers. Professor Donaldson has obviously expressed his strong opinion. It is not one which is shared at the moment by the Department and our drink-drive consultation later on this year will allow that debate to take place.

Q425 Mr Martlew: So you did not welcome his intervention?

Jim Fitzpatrick: To be perfectly frank, Mr Martlew, anything, from my point of view, which gets road safety into the headlines, no matter how perverse, is good news because if it is raising the question of safety, notwithstanding, with the greatest of respect to the Select Committee and the disagreement we have about restrictions for younger drivers, having that debate itself is a good thing because it gets the media interested, it gets us some headlines, it gets us some coverage in the written and the electronic media, and it means people are discussing road safety. In that way we welcome it but in terms of the Department welcoming it as something it might support, that is a different proposition altogether.

Q426 Graham Stringer: One of the essential explanations for peaks and troughs in the accident statistics is, I suppose, the weather. Do you record your statistics against snow, mist, blizzards or whatever? I am just asking whether that is an explanation.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am afraid I do not know.

Mr Fawcett: I think the answer is that we do not in a terribly detailed or systematic way, but you are absolutely right. We do look at that as one possible factor influencing the figures. For instance, in 2007, in the first quarter we saw the figures were really not terribly good, and in particular, there were a lot of accidents to children and pedestrians, because the weather was so unusually mild in that quarter, but then in the later quarters of 2007 the figures got better and better, and particularly in the final quarter the figures were the best of all. So in terms of individual quarters, yes, the weather certainly does have an effect, and we try to look at that as one possible factor.

Q427 Graham Stringer: Do you think it was a significant factor in the 2007 improvement?

Jim Fitzpatrick: As Mike was just saying, it may very well have been a factor. Of course, in the police investigation of fatalities, road conditions, weather and visibility, et cetera, would be a feature but whether or not that is extrapolated and used as a particular aspect of analysis, I must say I have not seen it.

Q428 Graham Stringer: What percentage of the Department's budget is currently spent on road safety? In the capital budget we have a figure of 16% of your budget is on security and safety. How much of it is safety? This is getting to be a more and more complicated question. How does the capital budget relate to the revenue budget in these things?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I certainly do not have that figure off the top of my head and, of course, determining what the aggregated total would be is a determination of whether or not the money that the Department gives to the Highways Agency and to roads agencies for normal maintenance, routine maintenance, which may incorporate improved signage, improved road layout, safety measures such as proposed by the Road Safety Foundation in its examination of better engineered solutions to reduce accidents, whether you are talking about the "Think!" safety publicity campaign, which was about £17 million a year. I am not sure, Mike, if you have a departmental total or a total for your section of the Department as to what that budget might be?

Mr Fawcett: No. As the Minister says, it is quite a difficult question to answer, particularly relating to the agencies, where very large expenditure by DVLA and DSA - DSA clearly very largely about safety, DVLA quite a large part, Highways Agency quite a large part. In terms of our particular bit of the budget, we give grants to local authorities for some demonstration projects but these are on quite a small scale. The big spending comes from local authorities' mainstream budgets, where the Department allocates very large sums for transport expenditure, with safety being the determinant of quite a large part of that but local authorities are free to spend that on their priorities. There is evidence that their spending on capital projects has gone up substantially over the last five years or so compared with previously but, as a percentage of the Department's total budget, it is very difficult to put a precise figure on that.

Q429 Graham Stringer: The Road Safety Foundation claim that you can get rates of 300% return from investing in safety schemes. I just wondered how many schemes you are aware of or you keep listed that have positive rates of return that are waiting to be invested in. That would be an interesting figure.

Jim Fitzpatrick: We supported the Road Safety Foundation's launch of its reports in the Lords last week, and the evidence and the data which they published and spoke to on the morning was very impressive. I do not think we fully accepted perhaps all of the calculations but there certainly was a very strong cost-benefit analysis case put forward, which is why, as I mentioned earlier, we are looking very closely at that, and looking at what has happened in Sweden, because it could very well be a key plank in the post-2010 strategy as well as looking at what can be done in the short term to improve roads. There is a very clear need for us to look at that and to see how strongly we place it in our future strategy.

Q430 Graham Stringer: This is the last question. Will you be in a position with the next annual report, or the next time you visit this Committee, to give us a list of schemes across the country with positive returns?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not sure if we will be able to. I am certainly happy to take that away and see if that is possible. The money that we are passing on through road safety partnerships, through local authorities, through the Highways Agency - there are schemes being developed all the time. Again, I suspect in terms of determining whether or not these schemes will be as a direct result of the Road Safety Foundation proposal or whether they are developed on the basis of a better understanding, that engineering solutions can give better benefits, I am very happy to take that away and look at it and perhaps respond to the Committee with a better perspective.

Mr Fawcett: Could I just add something? We are following up with the Foundation as a matter of priority. I think it would be unlikely, to be honest, that local authorities would have the manpower resources to devise a complete list of all the schemes that they might want to introduce over - I think the Foundation was suggesting a seven-year period - within a matter of months. I think this will be more likely take the form of a rolling programme that will be developed over the years, tackling first some of the big, obvious problems on stretches of road that have very high casualty levels, and then moving on progressively to roads that are serious but with not quite such dramatic problems.

Q431 Mr Hollobone: The reduction in road casualty figures is most welcome; nobody would disagree with that, but the numbers of people involved is still huge: one quarter of a million road casualties every year, one and a quarter million over a parliamentary term, and motor vehicle accidents are the most common cause of death for people dying in Britain aged between five and 35. Do you think that this should be made a health issue rather than just a Department of Transport issue?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I think we skirted around this discussion the last time I was in front of the Committee. I think the view that I expressed and articulated at that point is certainly in agreement with the fact that we have a horrendous number of casualties and that the carnage ought not to be allowed to continue. We are doing what we can in terms of treating it as an issue, back to the territory we covered before, when public health questions like stopping people smoking is a health issue, we are stopping people drink and driving, we are stopping people speeding, we are trying to make sure that people wear seat belts - we are interfering in social and cultural activities in a way which is quite invasive in respect of individual freedoms, but when the evidence is that is demonstrated to have been beneficial, more often than not people come round to accepting it, and even supporting it and being advocates for it. As I said earlier on in response to Mr Martlew, if making it a public health issue, in the sense of trying to make sure it is featured prominently all the time, constantly, and that is not something we would move away from, I know that officials within the Department through police and enforcement agencies are working extremely hard to get every health message across and every safe driving message across that we can.

Q432 Mr Hollobone: A hundred and twenty-one children died on the roads, an impressive 28% reduction on the year before. It is the lowest ever recorded figure. Why do you think the figures dropped so much?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I would go back to our answers previously. It is very difficult to make a snapshot determination on the basis of how recently we have received the figures and the analysis which does have to be done. Clearly, we do have the evidence over the past eight years. In the 2000-2010 strategy to reduce KSIs by 40% for adults and 50% for children, we have achieved the 50% early on. Whether the 20-miles-an-hour zones may be having a greater impact because they are being rolled out by many more local authorities across the country... We are looking specifically at the evidence in respect of that, seeking data from the local authorities which have introduced it wholesale, like Hull and Portsmouth, trying to measure how far the roll-out has been and what the success rates have been. We often quote the figures in support of the guidance that the Department issues to local authorities that where a 20-miles-an-hour speed limits have been introduced effectively, with physical restrictions, there has been a near 60% reduction in crashes and a near 67% reduction in child accidents. So 20-miles-an-hour zones may very well be one of the reasons why the child accident figures have gone down as strongly as they have, but we do not have that data to hand yet. Obviously, as soon as we have, were it to be the case that they would be mainly responsible as part of this minor success, that would only reinforce the guidance that we issue to local authorities.

Q433 Mr Hollobone: Why not ban male drivers from carrying passengers until they are aged 20?

Jim Fitzpatrick: We have outlined previously our reasons why we do not think restrictions on young and newly qualified drivers is the appropriate way forward. We believe it would signal failure, that we would be indicating that we are not training people to an appropriate level. There would certainly be an element of challenge to policing the age of passengers in a vehicle by the police authorities - not that that would be insuperable, but obviously it would be difficult. Our view is that the vast majority of young and newly qualified drivers are safe and responsible drivers and that it is the minority who are irresponsible or who are involved in these crashes, and to introduce that blanket, across the piece, we are not persuaded to, but the consultation, again, will bring that forward and I know the Committee has very strong views on it.

Q434 Mr Hollobone: Is it true that a disproportionate number of the vehicles involved in road accidents are either untaxed or uninsured or both? What are the latest figures for the number of vehicles on Britain's road which are (a) untaxed and (b) uninsured?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I can answer on the untaxed, in that with he survey that we published recently we got into trouble with the Public Accounts Committee because they thought we were being unfair to them, because they had published a report criticising the poor collection rates, when we were saying it was something like 90-92% for cars and much lower for motorcycles. Last year we introduced a new system for collating, using the automatic number plate recognition cameras that we have across the country, and then physically double-checked those figures and the VED rates were up at 97%. I will double-check that figure for you. The numbers evading VED were much lower, and in terms of motorcycles, where there was a suggestion it was as high as 30%, that was down to about 9% because we had much more reliable data, although it is the first year's figures, so again, we put a health warning on those. In terms of uninsured vehicles, I think, off the top of my head - forgive me again - the ABI estimate that there are between 2-3 million uninsured vehicles which cost the rest of us an extra £30 or £40 per annum in premium to cover the cost of those vehicles which have accidents. But, as I also said earlier, the seizure rate for vehicles that we are now seeing across the country of 150,000 vehicles which are being impounded by the authorities may be a clear explanation as to why those numbers evading VED are going down as well.

Q435 Mr Leech: I would like to move on to motorcycles, if I can. Unfortunately, the number of people killed or seriously injured on motorcycles rose between 2006 and 2007 by 4%. There was a 4% increase although the number of people who were actually killed went down. Is there a particular reason why you feel the number of casualties where the person died has gone down, and can you explain why the Department thinks that the number of casualties overall is still rising?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not sure that we can rationalise it at this point. We certainly are concerned about motorcycle casualties given the proportion that they are of the driving population and the disproportionate number of those who are being killed: 599 in 2006 and 588 in 2007. We have set up the National Advisory Committee for the motorcycle fraternity, incorporating both the industry and user groups, which is working through a whole series of issues, and dealing specifically from the point of view of the motorcyclist and how better we can make sure that we are mainstreaming motorcycle issues into the Road Safety Strategy. We also have initiatives such as the Sharp scheme, where we are rating by a star system the safety and validity of motorcycle helmets. That was published last month and was welcomed by the industry and the trade. Our estimates say that that initiative on its own, by producing a star rating system to advise motorcyclists of the best helmet which is suitable for them and their pocket - because some of the most expensive helmets that one would think might be the safest does not appear to the case - we could save up to 50 lives a year if people get a helmet which suits them and which is going to be better to protect them. So at the micro level we are dealing with the equipment and at the strategic level we are dealing with motorcycling generally, both people who are motorcycling as commuters because it beats congestion, or because it is less expensive, or born-again cyclists, men in their thirties and forties, who are rediscovering the thrill of riding at weekends.

Q436 Mr Leech: Just on that last point, do you think one of the problems with motorcycle casualties is men going through mid-life crises returning to their youth and getting on motorcycles that they are not any longer qualified to drive?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not entirely sure. Certainly, the increase in the population, the increase in the numbers of men - I am not sure it is a mid-life crisis but perhaps it is the ability to have more disposable income and free time and the ability to enjoy themselves - certainly, putting themselves at some risk, because we know that motorcycling is more dangerous than driving a car; you do not have the safety features to protect you. We are changing the testing arrangements for motorcyclists; from September the test will be more robust. We hope that that also will have an impact and an effect. Certainly, motorcyclists by and large are victims of road crashes as opposed to killing themselves, although, obviously, their own failures do result in deaths and serious injuries. So we are trying to arrive at a holistic approach in terms of how best to protect motorcyclists from themselves but also from other road users, who in the main may not see them coming.

Q437 Mr Leech: One last question: is there any evidence that the cost of driving a car is persuading more people to use a motorcycle instead, and therefore having an impact on accidents involving motorcyclists?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not entirely sure. I suspect the answer to that anecdotally is probably yes, just the same as congestion is probably persuading more people to use motorcycles rather than cars, in terms of what the congestion scheme costs. Equally, more people are taking to cycling and, as you know, we are investing a lot of money in that over the next three years. Cycling rates across the country do seem to be rising for the first time in many years, with in London an 83% increase over the past five years. Cycling is becoming more attractive. Motorcycling is clearly more attractive to some people because the numbers over recent years have been going up. Proportionately, although the figures are very depressing, the numbers going up as high as they are, the figures remaining roughly about the same possibly could be interpreted - and I am not trying to spin figures here - as a reduction.

Q438 Chairman: Are fewer people dying because of better hospital care?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I think the answer to that is that we do not think that is the case. We value the Health Service, we know there is better treatment available, but the evidence does not suggest that better A&E is having an impact on the figures.

Chairman: Thank you for your evidence. Thank you very much for coming.