Hansard

The Parliament has, undoubtedly, debated matters of greater significance than this one, and I suspect that we will be lucky if this part of today’s business secures more than a few paragraphs in our written press tomorrow. However, especially for those of us with children who are of an age when they are getting behind the wheels of cars, young driver safety is hugely significant and important.

My son has not yet passed his driving test, but every time, almost without exception, he goes out in a mate’s car, he leaves the house with a warning to take care ringing in his ears. It is not that his pals are risky drivers—as far as I know, they are not—but we cannot help but worry when we recall the mistakes that we made as young drivers, simply through lack of experience. Stewart Stevenson was right to point out just how powerful modern cars have become.

Night-time driving, driving on rural roads and coping with winter conditions present different challenges—ones that can be met only through experience, which is also the only way people develop an instinct for how other road users behave.

However, we still have a situation in which, one minute, a person is not allowed behind a steering wheel without an instructor or examiner by their side and, the next, they have a piece of paper that says that they have passed their test, and off they go. Is it any wonder that, as has been mentioned, Department for Transport statistics say that one in five new drivers crashes within six months of receiving their full licence?

The truth is that, in this regard, we are selling our young people short: we are putting them at risk and, as parents, we are perhaps exposing ourselves to the most awful thing that could happen to us, which is the needless and avoidable loss of a child and the unimaginable anguish that it would cause. As David Stewart illustrated earlier, that pain does not go away. When the child’s pals get engaged, marry and have kids of their own, it just serves to remind the surviving family of what might and should have been.

As we have heard, the consequences of such tragic accidents are not confined to fatalities; serious injury can also have long-term consequences and we see that those who have caused fatalities by their driving may pay the price for years to come, as Mark Griffin highlighted.

A few weeks ago, a family friend got the call that all parents of young people dread. The police were on the phone advising that her youngest son had been involved in an accident. She arrived at the scene to find that he had, thankfully, survived a horrific barrel-rolling crash with just cuts and bruises. I understand that, ironically, he had survived because the vehicle in which he had been a passenger lacked a front seatbelt, and he had been thrown from it. They are a very lucky young man and a mightily relieved mother. That reminds us that not only are young drivers at risk as a result of their inexperience; their passengers are, too—not to mention other road users.

It is estimated that introducing a GDL system for 17 to 19-year-olds across the UK could prevent almost 4,500 casualties annually. A Cardiff University study based on accident figures between 2000 and 2008 suggests that introducing even a limited form of GDL that would restrict driving between 10 pm and 5 am, that would restrict to just one passenger 15 to 24-year-old drivers, and which secured even 50 per cent compliance, could prevent six deaths, 51 serious injuries and 250 minor injuries in Scotland. We have heard today that the latest figure for the lives that could be saved through such a measure could be as high as 19. Statistics show that a young driver with three or more passengers in the car is four times more likely to be involved in a crash. The proposal, therefore, surely has to be worth looking at.

I note some of the points that were made by Alex Johnstone regarding travel to education or work in remote and rural areas, and I acknowledge that setting up such a system would not be without challenges. Commonsense exemptions would have to be considered to allow for work situations and, perhaps, for giving lifts to family members. However, the principle is undoubtedly sound and is reflective of practice in a number of countries around the globe. I also note the suggestion from the Association of British Insurers that introducing GDL—albeit a strict version of it—could lead to a 15 per cent to 20 per cent drop in premiums for young drivers. To my mind, that makes GDL a win-win that would not only save lives and prevent devastation in families, but would reward young drivers financially.

I urge Parliament to support the motion and the Labour amendment.