The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-09447, in the name of Keith Brown, on young and novice drivers and graduated driver licensing. I will allow a few moments for the front benchers to arrange themselves.
14:19
When the Government published Scotland’s road safety framework, one of the priorities that we set out concerned young drivers who are aged 17 to 25. Young people who are aged 17 to 25 make up 10 per cent of licence holders, yet they account for 23 per cent of the drivers who have been involved in injury road accidents in the past five years in Scotland.
I am delighted that a number of young people are in the public gallery and I hope that they can stay for as much of the debate as possible. As young people are a priority group, a substantial amount of our road safety resource in Transport Scotland, and Road Safety Scotland in particular, focuses on interventions for young and inexperienced drivers.
In 2007, we undertook a world first when Road Safety Scotland used Xbox Live to deliver drink-drive and then country road messages to young Scots who use that online gaming platform. My road safety team has told me that the second person to use that platform was Barack Obama in his first presidential campaign.
Although in recent years the casualty numbers for 17 to 25-year-olds have fallen slightly, they are still disproportionate to those for other age groups. That is a clear indication that other measures need to be considered. A number of members will have spoken directly to parents who have lost children in that age group, and will know how heartbreaking the death of a loved one is for them.
Today’s debate is the latest stage in a long process in which the Scottish Government has listened, gathered evidence and advocated an approach to road safety for young, inexperienced drivers that includes some form of graduated driver licensing. Crucially, that process includes debate with young people. It is frustrating that that is as far as we can go currently, as GDL is a reserved issue. Despite our repeated attempts to engage and encourage the United Kingdom Government to take action on the issue, we still do not even have the promised green paper that sets out the UK Government’s intentions. On 18 December 2013, Stephen Hammond announced via a written answer in the UK Parliament the postponement of the publication of that green paper, and we now understand that it has been postponed indefinitely. That announcement was met with widespread condemnation from the road safety community in the UK and was the subject of an early day motion that deplored the decision.
There is a long timeline of our constant intercession on the matter with the UK Government. It began with our response to the Driving Standards Agency’s consultation on learning to drive in 2008, in which we indicated our broad support for GDL. Since then, I have written several times to the UK Government, including in my latest letter in January this year, which I have tabled. That letter urged the UK Government to either take action or consider the powers that the Scottish Government would require to take action in Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament previously debated young driver safety on 7 September 2011 and supported the view that, if a graduated driver licensing scheme was introduced in Scotland, up to 19 lives per year could be saved.
I know that the minister is familiar with the research from Dr Sarah Jones of Cardiff University, which is mentioned in the Labour amendment, but the evidence that she looked at said that a graduated driver licensing scheme in the UK would save 114 lives and 872 serious casualties each year. I would be happy to put the reference in the Scottish Parliament information centre, but I am sure that the minister is familiar with it.
I am indeed familiar with it, and I am happy to support the Labour Party amendment, but the latest figure that we have from Sarah Jones is 19. Obviously, that is a more recent figure than the one that is quoted in the amendment. Our understanding is that around 19 lives per year could be saved in Scotland, recognising the figure for the UK that has been mentioned.
Aside from the tragedy of the individual fatalities, we should not forget that we end up paying around £2 million per fatality in Scotland. Another figure that Sarah Jones mentioned was around £80 million in savings, I think, based on the 22 fatalities that were mentioned. That assertion is based on her research in 2010. She presented that evidence to me and road safety partners in March 2011. She also presented to the annual Road Safety Scotland seminar in October 2011. The whole seminar was built around the theme of young driver safety, with a focus on GDL.
The evidence base shows that GDL remains the only young driver intervention for which there is clear and unambiguous evidence to show that it reduces the crash rate for new and young drivers.
Can the minister tell members exactly what he defines as GDL?
I was just going to talk about the different GDL systems around the world, which have different characteristics. If the UK Government does not want to take the issue forward and we get the power to do so, we want to consult on those different aspects.
I think that there are around 12 different characteristics in the GDL system that has been proposed in Northern Ireland. It has ruled out an inhibition on night-time driving, for example, which could be looked at. Crucially, most systems have at their root the idea that there should be a longer period in which to gain experience in driving before a person is fully licensed, but the exact characteristics of a GDL scheme should, of course, be subject to consultation. Various forms of GDL are well established in other countries around the world, including the US, Australia and New Zealand.
The Department for Transport’s evidence review, which was carried out last year by the Transport Research Laboratory, concluded—these are the conclusions of the UK Government’s own department—that the potential public health benefits of a GDL system for new drivers are indisputable. The UK Government subsequently said that the TRL research was based mainly on countries that it does not think have road safety records to match those of the UK and that a balance must be struck between driver safety and the freedoms of young people. I assert that Sweden, which is included in the TRL study and has one of the best road safety records in the world, might disagree with that statement. However, I agree that we must look at that balance and I will discuss that issue shortly.
We know from the evidence that young drivers are more at risk at night and when other young people are in the car. An analysis of UK road crash data collected from 2000 to 2009 found that 25.1 per cent of young driver crashes occurred between 9 pm and 6 am. The impairment effect of drinking alcohol on driving is also greater in young people. The purpose of a GDL system is to reduce exposure to high-risk situations for young inexperienced drivers, allowing them to build up skill through practice.
To return to Tavish Scott’s point, most countries have a pre-test element to a GDL, where a minimum learning period is set with a number of conditions, including driving in different weather and times of day, with a logbook to evidence compliance. The TRL report, which is a UK Government report, recommends a gold standard GDL system that includes components such as limitations on night-time driving or on passengers under 25. It also suggests a lower maximum blood-alcohol level. The gold standard GDL system is not often in place at the outset, but once GDL is in place, many jurisdictions—this was the case in Australia—have gone on to strengthen that system.
Transport Scotland officials, along with partners, including the road safety strategic partnership board, have been working towards developing a set of proposals and options for possible forms of GDL in Great Britain, initially with a view to submitting a response to the now postponed green paper. I say “Great Britain” because Northern Ireland has, as I mentioned, a form of GDL that it is looking to strengthen through legislation in the near future. As I also mentioned, young people’s freedoms and needs need to be balanced with their safety.
It has been suggested that GDL might hinder education or employment opportunities. However, a study in New Zealand found little evidence that GDL caused any practical difficulties to travel for academic or work purposes. Even if one considers the fact that around 25 per cent of young people in the UK have a licence, it cannot be the case that the remaining 75 per cent are disadvantaged in that way. However, we need to ensure that any proposed GDL scheme supports young and novice drivers as regards safety and in reduced insurance premiums.
That crucial point must be realised. Most members will have had representations from people who say that it is very difficult for young people to get insurance to allow them to drive at the very start of their driving career. A GDL system can help that situation. We know that the affordability of car insurance for young drivers is a barrier to them driving. A report in October 2012 from the Association of British Insurers recommended the introduction of GDL, and stated:
“If the number of crashes involving young drivers decreases, the financial risk they pose to an insurer will decrease, and insurance premiums for young drivers will follow.”
The risk is real; it has not been invented by this Government, but it is recognised by different Governments across the world. The statistics for young drivers prove that beyond doubt, and the evidence for GDL is compelling. The DFT’s evidence review last year confirmed that. I do not doubt that much discussion would need to be had, as Tavish Scott hinted, about what system we could implement, not least with young people themselves. That is why, at an earlier stage, we had our national debate with young people about their views on different aspects of the system. They were supportive of some aspects and less supportive of other aspects. We need to discuss that now, so the refusal by the UK Government to do that, especially given its previous statements, is absolutely bewildering. That is why I lay this motion before members, and call on UK ministers to develop proposals on GDL without further delay or to grant Scottish ministers the power to do so in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern that young people aged 17 to 25 make up 10% of licence holders yet they account for 23% of drivers involved in injury road accidents over the last five years; further notes that evaluations of Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) have shown that it is the only intervention for which there is clear and unambiguous evidence to show that it reduces the crash rate for young drivers; acknowledges that various forms of the GDL system are currently well established in other countries around the world; further acknowledges that the flexibility of this system allows individual nations to adapt it to meet their specific needs; regrets the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport to delay publication of the Department for Transport’s proposed green paper on young driver safety, and calls on UK ministers to develop and take forward proposals on GDL without further delay.
14:29
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, which is primarily about road safety and reducing the number of injuries and fatalities on roads across Scotland. We might argue this afternoon about how we should do that, but one thing that we will not disagree on is the devastating impact that it can have on a person’s life if they are injured in a car accident or if they have caused injury or even loss of life in an accident. Neither will we disagree on the impact on the lives of the friends and families of people who have died in car crashes, the impact on emergency service staff of the mental trauma of dealing with such accidents or the financial impact on the emergency services.
Young people who are aged 17 to 25 make up 23 per cent of the drivers who are involved in injury road accidents despite making up only 10 per cent of those who hold a licence, as the minister highlighted. Young drivers drive only around 5 per cent of the road miles that are driven but are involved in 22 per cent of all crashes. Therefore, it is right that we have a particular focus on this area. Road traffic accidents remain the number 1 threat to young people’s safety, and we will support the Government’s motion tonight.
The Labour Party across the UK has been calling for the Government to produce the green paper on young driver safety and has called for the inclusion of a graduated licence scheme in the paper for discussion and consultation. Dave Stewart MSP was awarded the parliamentarian of the year award by the road safety campaign group Brake for his campaign on a graduated driver licensing scheme. We recognise the contribution that has been made, over the past 10 years, to research by Dr Sarah Jones of Cardiff University on the potential impact of a GDL scheme in Scotland. I take on board the minister’s point that the research has been updated to reflect a new—but still substantial—figure for the number of lives that could be saved each year.
Graduated driver licensing has a proven evidence base and requires serious consideration. The licensing system would enable young and novice drivers to build up ability and experience through a structured and phased approach. Graduated driver licensing exists in various forms in many countries, including the UK, but its exact components differ. Common elements of graduated driver licensing include a minimum learning period, minimum required amounts of on-road supervised practice and a minimum age at which novice drivers can graduate to the intermediate stage. The intermediate stage then places additional restrictions on young and novice drivers such as restrictions on sole or night-time driving for all novice drivers and restrictions on carrying passengers. Other components include a lower alcohol limit and a ban on hands-free mobile phone use while driving.
Those are all worthy suggestions that should be investigated further to see whether they can be implemented in such a way that they reduce the number of road accidents as well as the insurance premiums of young drivers who struggle to pay the costs of insurance because of the statistics that show that young drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents. Crucially, we must also know whether those measure would impact on a young person’s ability to travel for work.
This is not just about the UK Government. The Scottish Government also needs to produce proposals on road safety, particularly for young drivers. In 2011, Transport Scotland made a number of recommendations to improve safety and limit the risk of traffic-related collisions and accidents involving young drivers. It recommended:
“Continue to encourage a life-long approach to learning in all schools, as part of the Curriculum for Excellence through the provision of free resources and support, to help ensure that all pupils are taught about road safety issues as pedestrians and cyclists, as car passengers, and as future drivers.”
I wonder how many local authorities, schools and pupils have been able to benefit from those free resources.
Mark Griffin says that more can be done. Of course, more can always be done. However, I hope that he recognises that the number of young drivers who are killed in road accidents has fallen by two thirds since the Road Safety Foundation baseline period of 2004 to 2008. A two-thirds drop is a pretty significant improvement.
I will come back to the schools issue in my closing speech.
We acknowledge the drop. I simply flag up the recommendations that were made in the 2011 report, and I ask for a progress update.
A further recommendation in that report was to
“Ensure police enforcement continues to be a priority and is undertaken in a strategic and targeted manner, focusing on those young drivers most at risk.”
Will the minister update the Parliament on what Police Scotland is doing to focus on young drivers, particularly those who have recently passed their test?
What is the Scottish Prison Service doing to rehabilitate young drivers who have been given prison sentences for driving offences? What potential is there, as part of that rehab process, for those who are serving sentences to help educate young people? If people were able to share their experiences with younger people, it would contribute towards their own rehabilitation, in the knowledge that they were helping to reduce the problem.
I say that having gone to school with a man who was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving when he was a teenager. He has had to live with the consequences of that throughout his life. The impact on that man is not as much as the impact on the family of the young person who died, but it is still something that he must continue to live with. He would have liked to be able to contribute towards the education of young people, so as to help prevent the same thing from happening in the future.
I do not want to be accused of ageism in focusing my remarks on young drivers, but the statistics speak for themselves. I repeat what I said earlier: road accidents are the biggest threat to the lives of young people today.
We support the motion that is before us in the minister’s name. I repeat the calls for the UK Government to bring forward its green paper on young driver safety. I ask the minister what action the Government is taking right now. I also ask members to support the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S4M-09447.2, after “crash rate for young drivers;” to insert:
“acknowledges the research carried out in Scotland over the last 10 years by Dr Sarah Jones of Cardiff University, which states that a GDL system could save 22 lives and £80 million per year; further”.
14:36
One of the great things about the Parliament is that we have a diversity of members. Although we might look the same and have similar experiences in some areas, some of us bring very different experiences to the Parliament. When it comes to driving, my experience was very different. I come from a family and a community where driving is not something that happens when someone is 17 or whatever; people begin to do it as soon as their feet reach the pedals. Away from the public roads, young people in a rural community very quickly become familiar with the driving techniques that they will use later in life. It is possible to be licensed to drive some very heavy and potentially dangerous agricultural machinery on the public road as early as the age of 16. Many people who grow up in an agricultural community will have been operating that same machinery in an off-road environment for a very long time before they pass a test.
I mention that because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that age is a misleading guide to ability on the road, and evidence that it is not necessarily an accurate one. There is also evidence to suggest that inexperienced drivers are among the most likely to become involved in accidents. In the north-east in particular, where Aberdeenshire is criss-crossed by a web of A-class roads, we have become used to the problem of young men especially—I am not being sexist—getting into powerful cars and doing excessive speeds, eventually injuring or killing themselves or their friends.
At the same time, we have lost our place as far as policing is concerned.
Does the member acknowledge the statistic that one in five newly qualified drivers crashes within six months, and that they tend to be men aged under 25 on rural roads?
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”.
14:44
I declare an interest: I am a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. I first took my IAM test in 1972, and I took it again more recently, in 2008.
The IAM’s credo is:
“We passionately believe that our roads can be made a safer place by improving the standards of the people who are using them.”
That is a good place for this debate to be and every contributor so far has sought to take us there. I am delighted that David Stewart is here to take part in the debate. I know that he is passionately in favour of improving standards on our roads and I admire everything that he has done in this area.
Let us have a look at the context. When I first passed my test in a car, 51 years ago in 1963, a Mini Cooper S cost £777 and it had 70 brake horsepower and a top speed of 95mph. Today, a Mini Cooper S costs £21,000—which is almost exactly the same amount relative to average earnings—but it now has 184bhp and is capable of 143mph. So, the simple and straightforward test that I passed in 1963 is not necessarily the test that I should pass to drive the much more powerful and potentially much more dangerous cars that we have today.
The first car that I owned a share in was a 1928 Austin 7, with a top speed of 28mph—it could not even break the town’s speed limit. It cost £5, by the way, and came complete with a spare engine. Like Alex Johnstone, I drove that car around unlicensed and uninsured and off the public road—or at least that is what I am telling you here. I started driving as a 12-year-old and acquired the skills very rapidly, but I did not have the experience to allow me to engage with what goes on on the public highway.
The Transport Research Laboratory, which works with over 100 countries, suggests that there could be quite a wide range of savings from GDL—from as few as 2,200 casualties to as high as nearly 9,000, so more work needs to be done. It suggests 100 hours of supervised learning over 12 months.
Let me compare flying with driving. As a private pilot, I went solo after 12 hours of instruction, and 40 hours of instruction was necessary to get my licence. That did not allow me to fly at night or out of sight of the ground, and one has to do training for complex equipment. One needs five hours for a night rating, 15 hours for an instrument rating and a further five hours for a multi-engine rating. There is graduated experience and training. I am not allowed to carry passengers unless I have done three landings and take-offs in the past 90 days, and I have a medical every year and an electrocardiogram every two years. It is tightly regulated. I do not think that people would want to fly with a pilot who did not perform to such standards. By the way, one can start flying as a 12-year-old, so I think that Alex Johnstone’s point about starting to drive at an earlier age has some merit.
It is worth considering, however, what kind of risks one is exposed to when flying. One will very rarely bump into another aircraft—there are not all that many of them. In the UK, it would be an unusual occurrence for there to be more than 600 aircraft in the air at any one time. On the roads, if one travels at 70mph on the dual carriageway, one passes within feet—at a closing speed of 140mph—of other drivers, and one wants them to be well trained and well equipped to deal with conditions on the roads.
For flying, the blood alcohol limit is one quarter of what it is on the roads. In addition, one is not allowed to fly until eight hours after one’s last drink. There are measures that we could look at in relation to driving.
I close by quoting Marilyn Monroe, who said:
“If you can’t handle me at my worst then you don’t deserve me at my best.”
That leads me to something for this debate. The issue is not about raising the standards that our best drivers can achieve; it is about raising the floor below which our least proficient drivers never fall.
14:49
I am grateful to have been given the chance to contribute to the debate and I rise to support the Government motion and Mark Griffin’s amendment.
I am fairly unique in this debate as, when I was a young man in my teenage years, I was a statistic: I had the success of crashing my parents’ car in darkness on a country road, which nearly saw the end of me. Probably many people wished that that outcome had been delivered, but I am very grateful to have survived, thanks to the support of the police and the accident and emergency unit on the night.
When examining the balance to be struck between the freedom of the individual and the safety of young drivers, we do well to remember the statistics. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has reported that road traffic accidents are the biggest killer of 15 to 24-year-olds in industrial countries. It has said:
“Driving age young people under 25 make up around one-tenth of the population in OECD countries, but represent more than a quarter of car drivers killed on the road.”
A clear-cut conclusion can be drawn from that: young people are overrepresented in single car and loss-of-control crashes and crashes in which drivers turn across oncoming traffic.
There is a duty on us to protect young drivers from their own inexperience and—as Alex Johnstone said—overconfidence in their ability to drive. In 1998, 17 to 21-year-olds accounted for 7 per cent of the total driving population here, but they comprised 13 per cent of drivers involved in collisions. That statistic reflects the tremendous angst caused to families through not only death but serious injury on the roads, the loss of young people’s talents and futures and the tremendous heartache that families experience over years, decades and probably lifetimes.
In my case, it took more than a year to recover fully from my accident, and I was very fortunate. Other families that I grew up with were less fortunate: in those circumstances, parents and siblings carried the burden of those experiences thereafter.
In 2011, Transport Scotland made a number of recommendations that go alongside the issues that we are debating today. The curriculum for excellence can ensure that there are learning opportunities in school and is an important resource that we should commend to those in schools. They should bear in mind road accidents’ effects on not only young drivers, but pedestrians, cyclists and, indeed, car passengers. There is no doubt that passengers in vehicles with young drivers add to the compound that encourages the kind of behaviour that unfortunately results in accidents. We should encourage better governance and evaluation of interventions so that we know what road safety education works with young people and invest in worthwhile interventions.
It would be churlish not to acknowledge the fall in the number of road accidents and deaths and injuries in the past five years, but I am heartened that the minister shows no evidence of complacency.
As was mentioned earlier, the Association of British Insurers has offered recommendations. Its suggested minimum 12-month learning period seems a sensible way forward, and lowering the driving age from 17 to 16.5 years, perhaps to please young people and assure them that they are being not deprived of driving but encouraged to drive well, would be a good thing. The lowering of the blood alcohol limit is important, too, although the ABI makes no mention of the impact of drugs and their effects on young drivers, particularly at night. In a modern world, unfortunately we need to think about that.
Alex Johnstone mentioned potential difficulties with having different alcohol limits, but I do not think that such a policy would have the practical impact that he suggests. A police officer should not think of doing a blood or breath analysis at the roadside unless there is a genuine suspicion that alcohol is involved.
I ask the member to draw to a close, please.
I leave other members to add to the debate, but the issue is important, and we should keep it in mind.
14:55
As the convener of the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness, I am particularly pleased to speak in this important debate.
The cross-party group held a meeting in November on road safety, at which we heard excellent presentations from a number of contributors. George Cairns from Glasgow City Council spoke about the drive safe Scotland and go safe Scotland initiatives, which emphasise that all communities, and all of us, are responsible for road safety. Robert Atkinson from the Scottish centre for healthy working lives and the Scottish occupational road safety alliance spoke about the issue of occupational dangers, which members have mentioned in today’s debate; we know that 20 road deaths each year involve people at work.
Paul Richardson from Scottish Borders Council gave a presentation from a practitioner’s point of view. Scottish Borders Council, like councils in the north-east and in some other areas, has particular problems because of the rural nature of the roads and the fact that there are tourists driving on those roads, and it understands very well the problems that are associated with young drivers.
Although I understand the Government’s frustration at Westminster’s lack of progress towards a GDL scheme, Scotland has not stood still on the issue—far from it. I was delighted to hear last week that Scottish Borders Council is funding a two-year programme that will allow 17 to 25-year-olds in the area that it covers to get free advanced driver training, which is very positive.
I will focus primarily on the presentation from Kevin Clinton, who is head of road safety with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. He spoke about the use of black-box technology, which could be quite revolutionary in the context of a GDL scheme. It is an innovative way to increase young drivers’ awareness, helps parents and carers to understand the driving practices of young people, and encourages young drivers to continually learn and constantly monitor their progress and driving abilities. Its use has also raised public awareness about the type of driver technology that is available.
The telematics are quite advanced; I did not understand until I saw the ROSPA presentation how sophisticated black-box technology is and the opportunities that exist for its use. It enables personal risk taking to be calculated for every driver, and it highlights aspects of driving that could be improved. It also enables an accurate analysis of the driver’s behaviour and can incentivise people to improve through giving constant feedback on their driving. For young drivers, those aspects can significantly reduce risky driving behaviours, especially among high-risk young drivers.
The Scottish Government has published the Transport Scotland document, “National Debate on Young Drivers’ Safety: Final Report”, which asked young people about their attitudes to placing physical restrictions under a GDL scheme and about the use of technology. Although physical restrictions on driving at night and on the number of people in new vehicles was resisted by the young people—especially the males—who took part in the survey, there was quite a positive reaction to the use of technology. Although driving is still a high-risk activity, the monitoring may have a significant impact on young people’s behaviour.
I was delighted that the Scottish Government has undertaken the young drivers at work black-box project with ROSPA, which looks specifically at young drivers in work. It is unfortunate that the results of that project are due to be published on Friday, as they might have been helpful for the debate, but I am looking forward to their publication.
The project approached companies that are already involved in driver safety and the management of occupational road risk with the Health and Safety Executive to ask them to take part in the pilot. They found that the driver safety scores, the trip scores and the constant feedback that they received improved the drivers’ performance.
Technology can tell us about the pace, calmness, smoothness and anticipation skills of a driver—really significant bits of information that are useful to employers and young people. I hope that black-box technology will be considered under the GDL.
15:00
Like Alex Johnstone and Stewart Stevenson, I learnt to drive at a young age off the public road. In my case, it was on a farm. I agree with a lot of the analysis that those members offered about the difference between the test that we sat and the one that my daughter passed two months ago.
If there is anything about the modern test that needs to be changed, it is the fact that we do not do enough analysis and real training in different driving conditions. For example, we should put youngsters on skid pans that have water all over them, because the first time that many young drivers or people who have just passed their test hit ice or really wet conditions, their instinct is to slam on the brakes really hard, which is a pretty scary experience for a driver who has never done it before. Parts of the existing driving test need a lot of work if it is to equip the next generation with the ability to cope with a modern vehicle in the way in which colleagues have described.
I do not doubt that I am like many members in that I have had the most awful experience of going to a funeral of a young boy who lived on my island and was killed in a motor accident. I was still an elected council member at the time. I will never forget the look of his parents on that dark day in Bressay when he was buried. That should give all of us in all parties the clear objective of tackling the number of deaths that the minister and other members have highlighted this afternoon, not just across Scotland but across the UK.
I want to see practical proposals. It is all very well to set up an argument with Westminster, and I understand the political need for the minister to do that. After all, no debate at the moment is complete without an attack on Westminster—sadly. However, it is one thing for someone to say that they want something to happen and for them to demand a change in an approach, but it is another thing for them to propose what they want. I must say that that also applies to the Labour Party, especially if it is just going to support this motion.
The last line of the motion recommends that UK ministers
“develop and take forward proposals on GDL without further delay.”
We have to explain what that means. The TRL research findings that were produced last year state:
“Overall effectiveness of a GDL system is dependent on the number of components implemented, the strength (strictness) of those components, and the conviction with which the system is implemented by authorities.”
I would have thought that that was a self-evident given. For ministers or Opposition members to stand up and say, “We demand that this GDL is implemented” without saying what measures they want to see in it is pretty easy to do, but it is not fair to many people, including all those in the campaigning organisations who make entirely reasonable observations about the need to see something better.
For example, I would be concerned by a complete ban on night-time driving—the minister cited Ireland in that context—or a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol affecting a certain category of driver. I take Graeme Pearson’s point about police officers, but if we are going to have a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol, it has to apply to all drivers.
We might as well lump mobile phones in with that. This morning, I got the airport bus into Edinburgh and I saw a large number of white van drivers with their mobile phones at their ears. On each occasion, he—dare I say “he”?—was steering with one hand. We might have passed legislation on that, but it has not made a blind bit of difference to most drivers’ behaviour. We need to be very clear about what we are trying to achieve and say it in a debate rather than just doing the usual thing of blaming everyone else.
Alex Johnstone rightly picked up on a point that the minister’s motion does not mention. In most of rural Scotland, there is limited or no public transport, so a huge number of people could be caught by whatever measures the minister considers to be appropriate. I will just take nurses as an example. I found the Government’s figures on nurses and midwives who are under the age of 25 and could therefore be caught by a restriction. There are 17 in Shetland, 75 in Dumfries and Galloway, 17 in Orkney, 105 in Ayrshire and Arran, 100 in Highland, and 400 in Grampian. They are all nurses and midwives on whom we depend every day in our hospitals and health services, and they would be caught if the measures that have already been described in the debate were simply implemented without any thought being given to how such essential public servants get to work.
Finally, Clare Adamson made a good point about black-box technology. After all, all young people now carry mobile phones that are probably a heck of a lot cleverer than the one that I carry. The phones always have the location switched on, and young people are comfortable with that. I therefore think that Clare Adamson made a good point about the reality of young people’s attitude to such technologies and how that could be part of the solution, rather than just airy ideas that have no detail behind them.
15:05
I declare an interest, in that the business that I own, which is now run by my son, is a supplier to the accident damage industry. We supply throughout Scotland to workshops and body shops that repair vehicles.
I am afraid to say that that gives me, in this young body, more than 40 years of experience in the area. When I worked in the industry, I had to make daily calls to body shops and repair shops. No matter how many times I did that, it did not minimise the feeling when I saw a car that had been damaged in an accident involving a young person.
My experience tells me that, for the most part, young people take great pride in their vehicles. By and large, their vehicles are well maintained and they have great paint jobs. They are maybe a wee bit gaudy for my tastes—although, given the ties that I wear, some would probably say that that is the pot calling the kettle black. However, they use extremely flashy colours and they have terrific wheels. I spend a lot of time looking at wheels—not just legs, I have to say—and I see that young people clearly take great pride in what they have. It is a great achievement to own and drive a car, and it is a milestone in young people’s lives.
From my experience, when seeing a vehicle in a workshop that is completely wrecked, it is sometimes hard to understand how people could have walked out of it alive, whereas another car can have very little damage but turn out to have been involved in a fatality. That applies not just to young people but in general. How does that happen? The reason is that the car stops swiftly—it maybe crashes into something, although it might not be a big bump—and the people inside the car collide with each other and suffer head damage, which results in fatalities. From looking at a car that has been in an accident, we can never tell what we are really looking at. People always ask about that—I assure members that, when I walked into the workshop, I always got the bad story, particularly if the crash involved a woman or young person.
The statistics speak for themselves. As members have said, young people aged between 17 and 25 make up 10 per cent of licence holders but 23 per cent of drivers who are involved in accidents, more than one in five of drivers who are involved in injury accidents and 24 per cent of drivers who are involved in fatal accidents. That is a rather sad statistic.
Members have mentioned the idea from the Association of British Insurers of a 12-month learning period. I like that, because the learning period and gaining experience are key factors. However, we should take young people with us on that, and we should not give the idea that a penalty is involved. We could offset that in some way by reducing the age at which people can begin driving from 17 to 16 and a half. That would be a clear message that we are not introducing a penalty but trying to engage with young people to give them the confidence and experience that they need to keep safe. I am sure that young people would buy into that.
Another measure that is used extensively by insurance companies is the black box that monitors behaviours such as speed, turning and time in the car. It also highlights good and bad habits. It is just like having your mum sitting on the back seat, except it disnae talk back. It certainly reduces accidents and insurance costs. It encourages concentration 24/7 and safe driving. It is possible and practical to introduce it for young drivers across the board, if we can come up with the technology—actually, we have the technology; the issue is the cost of installing it. That approach would be more palatable for young people.
The young people I am talking about are mainly males. Girls and women are far better when they are young and old. I know, because we employ a lot of people who drive vehicles. The women are by far the most careful drivers. They get into far fewer accidents and get on with the job much better. We are really talking about young males, and we owe it to them to consider the matter carefully.
I am afraid that you must conclude.
Whatever we come up with, before we make a final judgment on it we must take into consideration the fact that, in rural settings, driving a car can mean having a job. However, if we do some of the things that have been suggested, we will be doing one thing: helping young people to stay safe.
I am afraid that I have to tell the next two speakers that they have only up to five minutes.
15:11
I have been an advocate for the introduction of a form of graduated driving licence for young and new drivers since early 2010 because, after a double fatal road collision in the city of Inverness, I was contacted by bereaved parents who pleaded with me to do whatever I could to address the carnage.
In response, I set up the sensible driving, always arriving campaign, which was supported by many local businesses in the Highlands and Islands. They sponsored a series of professionally developed DVDs that we put around every school in the Highlands and Islands. We ran ads on the back of buses. Through Macrae & Dick—a local garage—we managed to have a sports car in new livery advertising driver safety. We also visited schools and communities throughout the area.
The key philosophy in our campaign was the work of Dr Sarah Jones, who has been referred to many times in the debate. I appreciate that the statistics have changed but, at the time, her stats showed that 22 young lives could be saved and £80 million saved to the Scottish economy every year.
For me, it was a no-brainer. It is a truism not depleted by repetition that there is no greater tragedy, no greater sorrow and no greater loss for any parent that the death of a young son or daughter.
I will tell members in more detail why I am speaking in the debate. In early spring 2010, when I was approached by constituents to do something about road safety in Inverness, I met the Matheson family from the city. They had just lost their son Callum, who was 17, along with his friend, who was also 17. Both were killed in a road collision in the city.
The accident statistics that I quoted earlier to Alex Johnstone are stark. One newly qualified driver in five crashes within six months of obtaining their licence. A US study showed that young people under 25 who have more than three passengers and who are driving at the weekend are five times more likely to be involved in a crash. Also, four people are killed or seriously injured in road collisions involving young drivers each day in the UK.
As Alex Johnstone suggested, there is also a rural component: rural roads throughout Scotland are more likely to be the scene of a fatal or injury road collision than urban motorways or dual carriageways.
The Institute of Advanced Motorists lists four reasons why young male drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents. As we would expect, one is inexperience and poor judgment in more difficult driving conditions.
The second reason is inadequate control of the car, resulting in single-vehicle accidents, skidding, overturning or leaving the road. More than half of accidents involving drivers aged between 17 and 25 in Scotland occur when the drivers are making general progress along the road rather than performing particular manoeuvres, such as turning, changing lane or overtaking. However, a third of collisions in rural areas occur when they are manoeuvring around bends.
There are also issues with lifestyle and attitudes. Alcohol, drugs and peer pressure are particularly important, especially in the context of social driving at night and weekends.
The other factor is economic. Young drivers are more likely to have cheaper, older cars, which offer them less protection from injury than newer vehicles and are less likely to be fitted with technology that reduces the risk of crashes occurring, such as differential braking, which reduces the loss of control at bends.
On 26 October 2010, I wrote to Stewart Stevenson, who was then the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, and whom I thank for his kind comments earlier. In answer to my question, he said:
“The legislation for Graduated Licensing is a reserved matter, but in reply to the Driving Standards Agency ... consultation, we highlighted that there is strong support for regulated driving for young drivers amongst the road safety community.”
In his winding-up speech, perhaps the minister could confirm that he would support a pilot GDL in Scotland and indicate that he will write to the Department for Transport in support of that idea. If he is looking for areas for such a pilot, I suggest that the Highlands and Islands might be suitable.
I believe that GDL is an innovative idea whose time has come. Tom Paine, an American revolutionary author, said:
“We have it in our power to begin the world all over again.”
Unfortunately, we cannot turn the clock back for families who have lost loved ones. We can, however, adopt a new, safer, proven driving regime that is aimed at slashing the carnage on our roads and preventing the deaths and injuries of young drivers.
15:15
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.
We turn to the closing speeches. I call Alex Johnstone, who has up to five minutes.
15:20
It has been an extremely interesting and high-quality debate in which we have heard a range of ideas, including some quite original ones. However, the key problem at the heart of the issue remains. As I was making notes for my closing remarks, I found that I had a very clear idea in my head. I hope that members will come with me on it.
In this year in which we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the start of the first world war, we have seen a lot of television programmes looking at the history of that period. One hundred years on, we find it very difficult to understand how such huge numbers of our young men would volunteer to go to off to war with guns over their shoulders. Their reason for doing it was a simple one that we all know: young men believe deep down that nothing can harm them. They believe that they can do anything and that they will survive, but we know only too well that that is not the case. Although our young men no longer go off to war in the same way, when they get behind the wheel of a car, it is quite often that same deep-seated emotion that takes control of them.
We do mean young men, because so often it is a young man who has the steering wheel in his hands when an accident happens. However, it is also about young women; so often, in the cars are young women who are injured or killed as a result of such accidents. The problem is no respecter of gender.
Tavish Scott gave a very good speech with which I agreed almost 100 per cent, but there is one issue on which my view varies slightly from his. That issue is the potential for introducing more significantly difficult levels of testing. I believe that we should test our young drivers to ensure that they are absolutely at their best, but the problem that I perceive is that no level of testing will ever identify those who are at greatest risk, because those who are at greatest risk are those who are most confident and able, and who are most likely to pass any test that we put before them.
Would Alex Johnstone consider the suggestion that people should be unable to take their test until their instructor says that they are sufficiently trained to do so? That is certainly the case in aviation, and it seems to work there.
I believe that that would be an appropriate way to go forward. Again, however, I emphasise that the testing process appears to be incapable of identifying the young drivers who are at most risk of getting involved in serious accidents. It is those who are most confident and who have the greatest ability to pass any test that we put in front of them who will eventually overstretch themselves and find themselves involved in such accidents.
That is why education must always have a place. We can start that education early with our young people—long before we even begin the driver training process. It is disappointing that the joint efforts by the councils and the police force in the north-east over recent years appear not to have found favour with Scotland’s national police force after reorganisation. The work that was done between the councils and the police force in schools in the north-east went a long way in explaining to individuals the risks that they would face as young drivers, particularly in the peculiar north-east environment, where it appears that the roads invite young drivers to exceed the speed limit and then throw them off at the first corner.
Another issue that has been raised frequently in the debate is that of driver training and young driver assessment, on which we have found a significant degree of agreement. I think that the idea of allowing young drivers to begin their training before the age of 17 has found favour in every corner of the chamber. It is vital that we ensure that long periods of training take place. If we are going to allow our young drivers to drive at 17, they should have a significant level of, and time in, training behind them before then. I believe that the idea of allowing young drivers to drive under instruction on the public roads when they are 16 and a half or even 16 will find a great deal of favour.
When I spoke earlier in the debate, I mentioned what I described as in-car devices, which other members described during the debate as black boxes—I think that it was Clare Adamson who first used that term in the debate. However, there is a level of technology that will allow us to assess a young driver’s performance and that will demonstrate whether they take any risks. One member pointed out that such technology also provides the opportunity for those who can demonstrate their ability to reduce their insurance costs.
It has been a constructive debate that has contained much that I can support, so I look forward to decision time.
15:25
In closing the debate for Labour, I am pleased to support the Labour amendment and the Government motion, but we will not support the Conservative amendment. I am sorry to disappoint Alex Johnstone.
It has been a high-quality debate in which we have heard about a lot of good experiences. The fact that members such as Gil Paterson have brought to it their experience, not just as drivers but in a professional capacity, has helped to make it highly informative.
Many members cited statistics on young drivers, which I think provide the starting point for the debate. Although young drivers make up only 10 per cent of the driving population, they account for 20 per cent of accidents. As has been pointed out, 27 per cent of young drivers are involved in accidents in their first six months of driving, so it is clear that there is a real problem.
As David Stewart and Graeme Dey eloquently pointed out, behind the statistics are human stories and human tragedies. Families have lost young men and, in some cases, young women who were passengers in the car that crashed. Lives have been lost and people have been badly injured; their lives are never the same again. That paints the picture of the challenge that we face.
As politicians, we need to decide what we can do about the problem. In that regard, a GDL is worth looking at. As the Sarah Jones research shows, there is no doubt that a GDL would save lives and money across the budget lines of the Scottish and UK Governments. As a result of not being involved in accidents, people would be more capable of contributing to the economy and would not be such a strain on the health service.
There are different issues that must be assessed. I say to Tavish Scott that we are disappointed that the Government has not published the green paper, which represents an opportunity to develop proposals and to consider ideas including reducing the blood-alcohol maximum, restricting use of mobile phone hands-free sets while driving, and others that have been raised in the debate. The green paper would provide an opportunity for proposals to be developed and arguments to be tested, following which evidence could be examined. Ultimately, it is evidence that drives and informs proposals.
We are not in a position to do nothing; we need action from not just the UK Government but—in areas in which it has responsibility—the Scottish Government. Mark Griffin mentioned education, which the minister said he will touch on when he sums up. As a number of members have said, we also need to make the best use of police resources, so we must target policing of the problem appropriately.
More can be done on discussions between the Scottish Government and councils. Clare Adamson said that Scottish Borders Council provides free advanced driving lessons for young drivers. The Scottish Government could work with councils on such examples of good practice.
A number of interesting speeches have been made. Stewart Stevenson was correct to point out that we must ensure that our young drivers are more capable, and Tavish Scott’s point about the driving test relates to that. I remember that, after I passed my driving test, there was a big difference between going round with the driving instructor, who tells people to go from A to B, and sitting all of a sudden in the car on my own. I drove to Kilmarnock for a football match and I thought, “What do I do now?” Sadly, a lot of young drivers find that experience overwhelming, which is why we see the number of accidents that we see. That ties in to the point that Gil Paterson and others made about lengthening the time for which young drivers should learn. If we were to reduce the age limit to 16 and a half and say that young drivers must learn for 12 months, they would—as Stewart Stevenson pointed out—be much more capable by the time they passed their test and emerged on to the roads.
The debate has been constructive. Members have made their speeches constructively, even although we have not always agreed. There are important issues for the UK Government to consider in relation to the green paper, and the Scottish Government can take practical measures through working with councils. I look forward to the minister’s response.
15:32
I agree with James Kelly that, in general, the debate has been constructive and that speeches have been high quality. I will try to refer to those speeches.
Mark Griffin raised a number of education issues. We have a number of education campaigns, one of which is called kids in the car. Whenever we launch public marketing campaigns, we leave ourselves open to a bit of fun being poked at us. The idea behind the campaign was that, as Alex Johnstone said, people start to learn about driving from an early age—from the minute they get into a car at whatever age—and they take on board some of their parents’ habits.
We have a safe road-user award, which is available in the Scottish Qualifications Authority suite of courses and can be accessed by approved centres. We also have young driver initiatives—for example, cut it out in Strathclyde, and driving ambition in Grampian. We also heard about Dave Stewart’s initiative; as Stewart Stevenson did, I acknowledge the work that he has done on the issue over a number of years. We also have a number of other initiatives, such as crash magnets, which is a road safety education resource that is designed for use by 14 to 17-year-olds in secondaries 3 to 6.
Mark Griffin asked about Police Scotland. Whatever has been said about Police Scotland—Alex Johnstone made fairly strong remarks about road policing—I think that the trunk roads policing unit is an extremely good resource. Focus is being brought to bear on the issues, and it is certainly not in any instance left to cameras to do the work for the police, although cameras are a form of policing in their own right.
Campaigns are going on. Mark Griffin made a good and interesting point about rehabilitation, which I will go away and consider, if he does not mind. I do not think that the Scottish Prison Service has an initiative on the offences that were referred to, although some courses can be done after a custodial sentence.
Stewart Stevenson mentioned his Austin 7, which had a top speed of 28mph, and Marilyn Monroe. The only thing that he has in common with her is his alliterative name.
My first car was a Wolseley 16/60. I am not that old, but it might surprise people of Mark Griffin’s age that that car had a starting handle at the front. I did not have to use it, but it could be used if the car did not start with the key. I can honestly say that I never crashed that car, but that is because it took a year and half to get from nought to 60mph. That underlines the point that Stewart Stevenson made about the way in which technology has developed and cars have become much more powerful.
Clare Adamson mentioned—as a number of members did—black-box technology, or telematics, as it is often called. There is a great deal of merit in that idea, but it tends to be more relevant if the young person owns the vehicle. Things are sometimes much more difficult if the vehicle is owned by somebody else, as can be the case.
Members have mentioned that there has been some resistance to GDL scheme proposals, but there is also resistance to the idea of mentoring or monitoring young people. However, we believe that that is an interesting initiative that has been brought up by motoring organisations and insurance providers. We are keeping an eye on it, because we think that it has real potential.
Tavish Scott’s speech was perhaps the most discordant today; in fact, he got increasingly angry as he went on. One point that he made was that the debate has been a device to try to further the constitutional argument and to have a go at Westminster. We did not start from that position; we started in broad agreement with the Westminster Government. We corresponded with it—which we did not make a big issue of—and it eventually agreed to go ahead with its green paper, but then it changed its position. All that we are doing is highlighting that fact and saying that, if it does not want to go ahead with that or to do something itself, we think that the matter is worth considering further, and we want to take it further through the Westminster Government’s passing the powers to us. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Perhaps it was the poverty of Tavish Scott’s other arguments that led him to try to use the constitutional debate to hide that fact. I hope that we will take away the crutch of that constitutional debate on 19 September and thereafter concentrate on the merits of the arguments.
James Kelly dealt very well with another point that was made. Tavish Scott said that we should have proposals that we should then discuss. That is the point of the green paper—to consider, consult and then commit. That is the proper way to do such things.
I am very grateful for the constructive way that the minister is behaving. Why did not his white paper, which the taxpayer paid for, include all the measures that he is talking about?
If Tavish Scott had been following the debate, he would realise that, when we published the white paper, we had an agreement with the UK Government that it would go ahead with its green paper. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
The UK Government did not go ahead with the green paper. Circumstances have changed.
Every contribution to the debate has been relatively constructive, apart from the examples that I have mentioned.
As some people have said, we have to consider not only drivers, but other people in cars. A number of people have mentioned their offspring and have said, for example, that it is not just that they have two sons of 17 and 19 who drive, but that they have a daughter who goes out in cars with other people. Parents tend to have that concern. Is the person who will drive the car another young person who will be susceptible to peer pressure or other pressures? Will their child be vulnerable in that car? That is a legitimate concern, and it points us to some of the things that might feature in graduated driver licensing.
Dave Stewart mentioned the idea of a pilot. As things currently stand, we would need permission to undertake that pilot, of course, and off the top of my head, I think that there could be logistical issues with constraining it within one geographical area. However, I undertake to consider that idea and to see whether there is a possibility there. As things stand, it would be the UK Government’s responsibility through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to allow us to do that. If that changes in September, perhaps we could do it with the DVLA changes that we propose. Perhaps there is an idea there. It might be defeated by the logistics, but let us take it away.
It is interesting that Dave Stewart also mentioned Tom Paine, whose most famous book is perhaps the “Rights of Man”. Some of this inevitably comes down to the rights of individuals and whether it is right to constrain those rights not just to protect people from themselves—constraining a person’s rights to protect them from themselves is a dangerous area to get into—but to protect passengers and other road users. We have a legitimate point to make, which I have tried to make in relation to passengers and other road users. If a person does not treat the car as it should be treated, he or she can very easily cause another person’s death or injury. That means that there is a legitimate role for the Government in trying to mitigate what members have called “tragic” and “heart-rending” circumstances, when the parents of a child who has been involved in a car accident are informed of that.
The way to progress the matter is to use the evidence, and the evidence clearly shows that graduated driver licensing represents a strong opportunity to make a genuine difference to road safety for young and novice drivers.
As I explained, I have pressed UK ministers to consider developing proposals on GDL and have offered to work constructively with them to achieve that. Unfortunately, it appears not only that the green paper has been postponed, but that there is no prospect of positive action on the issue from the UK Secretary of State for Transport in the foreseeable future. It is the UK Government’s right to take that approach, but if it does not want to act, I ask it to allow us the powers so that we can begin a consultative process to find out what kind of scheme would be beneficial for Scotland. Set against a background of avoidable road casualties, coupled with an overwhelming supporting evidence base in favour of GDL, the situation that we are in is very frustrating, which is why I sought the debate.
I thank members for their speeches. I offer a further reference from the recent evidence review that was commissioned by the DFT. The review estimated—the figure has been mentioned, but it is worth repeating—that a GDL system in the UK would result in annual savings of 4,471 casualties and £224 million. Neither the human cost and suffering nor the economics add up to any reason to ignore the possibilities that a GDL would bring. I urge members to support the motion.
Previous
Topical Question Time