Meeting of the Parliament 25 March 2014
Indeed I do. There are a number of reasons for that, not least the fact that many young men are overconfident. They are perfectly able to drive sensibly when they wish to; the problem is that they pass their test too easily, the system does not identify them and they go ahead and have accidents.
We have made mistakes when it comes to policing our roads and enforcing the rules on safety. I have been accused of being an opponent of speed cameras; let me clarify that I am not necessarily opposed to speed cameras but think that overreliance on them as the only way to police our roads is an abdication of responsibility, in many cases. The presence of cameras does not necessarily improve safety. A great deal more can be done to improve the safety of our roads.
That is why I am concerned about the route that we might be choosing to take. I do not entirely agree that legislation in itself can improve safety. After all, a problem with people exceeding the speed limit is unlikely to be solved by our reducing the speed limit. The behaviour that leads to the terrible accidents that we all want to stop is, in itself, outside the law, and if changes in the law are not met with significant and well-advised changes in policing, they will achieve little or nothing.
We need to consider the impact of legislation. The arguments have been rehearsed, but I will go over them so that my views can be taken into account. In Scotland, there are times of the year when it is dark as late as 10 am and dark again not long after 3 pm, so a curfew that applied in the hours of darkness would not work. Over large areas of Scotland, not least the Highlands and Islands, individuals choose to drive exceptionally long distances to attend education or employment, so it is difficult to see how legislation would not impact on the employment opportunities of young people who are willing to travel to work.
Issues to do with alcohol consumption give me additional cause for concern. If we tried to enforce a different limit for young drivers, it might be difficult to identify people who are likely to have exceeded the lower limit, and the police might have no alternative but to stop drivers at random to check that the combination of circumstances was not such that the law had been breached. I am concerned about anything that would lead to the police stopping cars randomly on our roads.
On tuition, the Association of British Insurers has come up with a good idea. People younger than 17 should not be able to sit their driving test, but I see no harm in its suggestion of allowing people to drive earlier, while under instruction. The ABI suggests that that could happen from the age of 16.5; I would go further and allow young people to drive from 16 on a provisional licence, while under instruction. That would give our young drivers the opportunity to have a full year of instruction before sitting their test.
There are opportunities for the insurance industry to do much more to control the behaviour of young drivers. Much more could be done on the installation of in-car devices that can assess an individual’s driving, with the insurance adjusted accordingly. If we used devices that gauge a driver’s speed and performance, it would be easy to identify problem drivers.
I am not against the principles in the Government’s motion, but I will continue to explore and seek answers to the concerns that I have expressed.
I move amendment S4M-09447.1, to leave out from “further notes” to end and insert:
“recognises the enviable road safety record of the UK; believes that Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) would be impossible to regulate and could have a negative impact on young drivers in rural areas who require to drive during the curfew; considers that other options, such as more severe penalties for infractions, could be applied to young drivers, and believes that GDL would penalise safe novice drivers, irrespective of ability”.
14:44Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.