I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require drivers to undertake an eye test when renewing a driving licence; to make provision to reduce the permitted blood alcohol level for drivers from 80 mg per 100 ml of blood to 50 mg; to make the turning back of a vehicle milometer, except in specified circumstances, a criminal offence; to promote safe walking, cycling and use of public transport by children to and from school; and for connected purposes.

My Bill, which is appropriately but rather unimaginatively named the Road Safety (No. 3) Bill, has an overarching aim of improving safety on our roads for the benefit of all, through a reduction in the number of people drink-driving; through a reduction in the number of people driving with poor eyesight; by improving the roadworthiness of vehicles; and through the promotion of measures to encourage and prioritise walking, cycling and the use of public transport. In the short time that I have, I will briefly outline the plans for the Bill, and why it would be important in helping to improve road safety.

The North review of the drink-drive limit recommended a reduction in the limit from 80 mg to 50 mg, which would bring us into line with most of Europe. This was rejected by the Government, with the argument that we needed to concentrate our resources on tackling those drink-drivers over the 80 mg limit before focusing our attention on those who drink more than 50 mg but below the 80 mg level. The argument was that the Government were winning the battle, but there was still work to be done.

Unfortunately we are not winning the battle, which is why the Government need to look again at this issue. Recently published figures from the Christmas period show that despite the number of people being tested going down, the number of people over the drink-drive limit went up. In 2010, according to Department for Transport figures, 250 people were killed and 1,230 seriously injured by drink-drivers. Statistically, drivers with a blood alcohol level between 20 mg and 50 mg have a three times greater risk of dying in a vehicle crash, and are at least six times as likely to do so when their blood alcohol level is between 50 mg and 80 mg. When the drink-drive limit was reduced in Australia, there was a significant decrease in fatal accidents, including a massive 18% drop in Queensland. Assuming that a change in the UK would have similar results, we would see a reduction of 144 road deaths and 2,929 serious injuries. If we use the data from Europe, the evidence suggests that deaths could be reduced by a minimum of 77 a year to a maximum of 168, and injuries could be reduced by between 3,611 and 15,832 in England and Wales.

One of the major problems with the current alcohol limit is that people do not really know what the current limit is. According to confused.com in 2011, 51% of people admitted that they did not know what the legal alcohol limit was for driving. Even more worrying is that of the people who think they do know the limit, most do not actually know what amount of a particular drink will bring them to that limit. People are regularly found to be over the limit who genuinely believed that

they were below it. By reducing the limit we would send a strong message to those people that they cannot even risk one drink without potentially breaking the law and losing their licence for a minimum of 12 months. Of course this is not going stop the serial offenders who will exceed the limit regardless-only enforcement will deal with those people who show no regard for their own or anyone else's safety on the roads-but it would send the message that even a small amount of alcohol is simply not acceptable, and it would encourage far more drivers not to drink at all when they are driving.

It is frightening to hear that 10% of all drivers would fail their driving test if they retook, it simply because of poor eyesight. More than 50% of the population wear glasses, and the figure rises dramatically to more than 80% among the over-45s. According to the International Glaucoma Association in 2009, a person can lose 40% of their vision before they realise that they have a problem. According to the RAC, one in three Britons has such poor eyesight that they are unable to see properly when driving, and 20% have had an accident as a result of poor vision.

Evidence from the road safety charity Brake showed that 75% of drivers support compulsory eye tests for drivers every five years. My Bill would introduce a compulsory eye test on renewal of the 10-year photo licence, with a commitment to review its effectiveness. Evidence from medical checks in Spain and Holland shows that one driver in 10 aged 50, and one in six aged 70, drives with their eyesight not properly corrected.

We have all heard tragic individual stories. In 2010, two stories were prominent in the media. In one, an almost blind 78-year-old driver killed a pedestrian and in the other a driver of a heavy goods vehicle was charged with driving with poor eyesight after he killed a cyclist in London. A change in the law would help to reduce the instances of driving with poor eyesight and make drivers more sensitive to how serious a problem poor eyesight can be. Compulsory eye-testing has the support of a number of road safety organisations, and I am pleased to say that the cycling charity CTC strongly the supports this measure. It has said:

"the current legal framework around eye sight testing for drivers is utterly inadequate; ensuring a proper eyesight test at each licence renewal would certainly improve matters."

Some people might argue that the third element of the Bill is less about road safety and more about tackling fraud, but I would argue that it is about both. It is estimated that car clocking costs British consumers a whopping £580 million each year. The actual scale of the problem is difficult to judge because many cars have their mileage reduced shortly before the first MOT at three years and therefore do not show up in Government figures, thus masking the true cost. According to the BBC, more than 681,000 cars recorded a lower mileage last year than they did in the previous year's MOT, in 2010, and HPI estimates that one in eight vehicles that it checks has a mileage discrepancy. My Bill will make it a criminal offence to reduce the mileage on the clock and help to bring to an end the deliberate practice of making a car appear to be worth more than it actually is.

According to the insurance company General Accident, only 9% of people are confident that car clocking is not a problem and 92% of people thought it should be treated more seriously by the law. Not only would my Bill do that, but it would have a positive impact on road

safety, because owners of vehicles would have confidence that the mileage on their vehicle was correct and that routine maintenance had been carried out at the appropriate mileage for the type of vehicle.

Lastly, but by no means least, my Bill seeks to make roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists, putting a particular emphasis on children travelling to school. I have unashamedly incorporated elements of the Sustrans "Free Range Kids" campaign and The Times "Cities fit for cycling" campaign. My Bill seeks to give extra priority to measures that promote walking and cycling, particularly encouraging children to get on their bikes. Nearly half of all kids want to cycle to school, but only 2% do so. The Bill would set a target of 2% of the Highways Agency budget being set aside for cycle infrastructure, putting cycle safety at the heart of the driving test and introducing additional safety measures to trucks and lorries.

In the previous Parliament, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to reduce the default speed limit on local roads to 20 mph, but unfortunately it did not become law. Although this Bill does not go that far, it would introduce a 20 mph limit on residential streets with no cycle lanes and around all schools. It would also introduce a duty in respect of all new residential streets to incorporate cycle lanes and 20 mph limits in the design of the new road.

Road accidents are the single biggest cause of accidental death among five to 14-year-olds, and traffic causes 50% of all accidental deaths of young people. About 5,000 children under the age of 16 are killed or injured on our streets every year, with about 20% of those accidents occurring on the way to and from school. People have only a 50% chance of surviving being hit at 35 mph, but that increases to 97% when speed is reduced to 20 mph. Despite claims to the contrary by the self-proclaimed road safety organisation the Association of British Drivers which, in my opinion, does not appear to have any interest in road safety, 71% of adults support 20 mph speed limits in residential areas and only 15% of people are against them.

It is time to put walking and cycling at the heart of our policy making. By putting walking and cycling first, by making our cars safer and by ensuring that all drivers are fit to drive, we can make our streets safer and a more welcoming environment to encourage people back on their feet and back on their bikes.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr John Leech, Dr Julian Huppert, Caroline Lucas, Sir Bob Russell, Tessa Munt, Andrew George and Julie Hilling present the Bill.

Mr John Leech accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April and to be printed (Bill 307).

I would like to start by congratulating the hon. Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), for Dudley South (Chris Kelly), for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on securing this Backbench Business debate on a subject that undoubtedly has an impact on constituents of every Member of the House. The scale of metal theft has rocketed in recent years as the price of scrap metal has risen. For example, the price of copper has risen by more than 200% since the end of 2008, and by more than 400% since 1997, so the incentive to steal it has increased significantly over the past 15 years.

The problem is most acute on the railways. In 2010-11, 35,000 rail services were either cancelled or delayed as a result, at a cost of over £16 million. Theft has cost Network Rail £43 million in the past three years, and the Association of Train Operating Companies estimates that the knock-on effects cost the wider economy between £16 million to £20 million. However, the problem is certainly not confined to the railways. Churches, other religious buildings and monuments have become easy targets for thieves. Metal theft has cost churches in Manchester over £1 million in the past five years, including in my own constituency, where the lead was stolen off the roof of one of the church buildings in Southern cemetery twice in one month. Since 2007 there have been 480 claims from the Anglican diocese, and Ecclesiastical Insurance, which covers the insurance of churches, paid out more than £8.5 million in 2010.

Local authorities and water companies fare no better. Thames Water estimates that metal theft costs it £1.2 million each year, and Wessex Water claims that it has cost it £1 million since 2010. Manhole cover theft costs North Somerset council £40,000 a year and Newham council £60,000 a year. In Manchester we have a particular problem with the theft of drain gully tops, so much so that they are now replaced by a non-metallic alternative. In fairness, the local council is quick to respond to reports of missing gully tops, but their theft is a real hazard to the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and motorists, as gaping holes are created on the road next to the pavement.

In November last year the Transport Committee undertook an inquiry into cable theft on the railways. Its conclusions were not altogether surprising:

"A key factor to the increase in cable theft is the ease with which illegally obtained copper cable can be sold on and laundered into the legitimate trade. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is inadequate to regulate the modern industry and reform of this legislation is necessary."

Clearly the scrap metal trade is the weak link in efforts to combat metal theft crime. The Committee's recommendations were not dissimilar to those put forward in the motion, and ultimately these additional steps might be required to finally bring about a reduction in scrap metal theft.

However, there has already been a swift response from the Government. In November they provided £5 million to establish a dedicated metal theft taskforce that will improve law enforcement on the illegal sale of scrap metals. Moreover, the Home Secretary laid a ministerial statement before Parliament only four days after the Transport Committee's report was published. The statement proposed amending legislation and creating a new criminal offence to prohibit cash payments for

the purchase of scrap metal and to significantly increase the fines for all offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which regulates the scrap metal industry. That will be done by amending the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill-

Does the Minister not accept that in many areas there is no alternative social rented accommodation to move to, and that, therefore, people will be expected to move from social rented housing to smaller, private rented accommodation, which will end up being more expensive and, therefore, increase the housing benefit bill, not decrease it?

Can we be assured that the transfer of staff from the Department to the CAA will not result in a loss of expertise in the security sector within the Department for Transport?

Under planned housing benefit changes, more than 2,000 of my constituents in social housing are expected to move to accommodation outside the social rented sector. They will be forced to move to smaller, more expensive accommodation in the private rented sector, thereby increasing the housing benefit bill. Is it not about time that the Minister for Housing and Local Government, along with the Department for Work and Pensions, scrapped those ludicrous plans for existing tenants?

Would the term "major redevelopment" be based on the proportion of business rates that were to be lost? If a redevelopment resulted in a small reduction in business rates, that would perhaps not be classed as a major redevelopment, whereas a smaller redevelopment could result in a bigger loss of business rates.

Will the hon. Gentleman say exactly what he defines as a major redevelopment scheme?

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that most accidents happen during the period of the day that would benefit most from the change in time zones?

Does the Minister agree that no station operator should be allowed to close ticket offices where there are any real concerns about security and safety as a result of creating an unmanned station?

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of legal advice submitted to her Department by Animal Defenders International on 7 June 2011 on the conformity of a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses with the (a) Human Rights Act 1998 and (b) European Services directive.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were placed in employment through the future jobs fund in each parliamentary constituency since October 2009.

Does the Minister agree that local authorities such as Manchester City council should not be trying to pass on the cost of providing crossing patrols to local schools because schools should be using their additional pupil premium funding to improve educational attainment?

if he will bring forward legislative proposals to require local authorities to provide safety crossing patrols outside schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the oral answer to Baroness Parminter of 4 October 2011, Official Report, House of Lords, column 1014, on health: animal testing, what her policy is on the transposition of EU directive 2010/63/EU into UK law.

Before the election, an Opposition MP wrote:

"I share your concern about the potential implications of moving to the European standard of roadworthiness testing. It seems to me that the road safety and environmental costs of moving from annual to biannual testing, and extending the initial period from three to four years, may far outweigh the predicted costs savings."

Given that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will the Secretary

of State hold discussions with him in order to avoid the Government making a fundamental mistake on changes to MOT testing?

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will meet representatives of the learning disability sector to discuss implementation of the steps to provide services for people with a learning disability following the outcome of the Dilnot Commission.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I shall be brief to allow others time to contribute. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), my colleague on the Transport Committee, on securing the debate.

It is good to see that the subject is the impact of high-speed rail in the north, rather than concerns about its impact on particular constituencies. I am conscious that the debate about high-speed rail has so far been dominated by MPs with understandable concerns about the effect of HS2 on their constituencies and the lives of their constituents. I would not decry any hon. Member for doing their job in representing the interests of their constituents. Any infrastructure project of this size will cause a significant amount of disruption and heartache for the people it affects.

I have personal experience of the issue in my constituency, because of the difficulties with the Metrolink extensions, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) has mentioned. Constituents have understandable concerns about changes to the local infrastructure and the impact of those changes on their lives. I understand why some residents turn against schemes that they support in principle, because of incidents in their area. That is why it is vital that the decisions that are made about the local environment and how it will be protected are clear and transparent to the people most affected on the particular route. No doubt we will have the same issue to contend with when there is more clarity about the exact routes through to the north of England, once the decisions about those routes have been made.

The last time that I took part in a debate on high-speed rail, it was timely because the Transport Committee was about to embark on its inquiry into high-speed rail. By coincidence, this debate comes the day after the Committee took quite some time to discuss the draft report. After listening to all the arguments, both for and against, I am even more convinced of the need to press ahead with high-speed rail to the north and beyond. I have always been a strong supporter of creating a high-speed rail network that connects not only Birmingham and the west midlands but the northern cities of Manchester and Leeds, and Scotland. There is clear evidence that a new network is required to cope with capacity demands in the future, which is the principal argument for supporting high-speed rail to the north.

By pressing ahead with a high-speed rail network, we can ensure sufficient rail capacity for the foreseeable future. Some opponents of high-speed rail have argued that upgrading the existing main line networks would deal with any capacity constraints, but that would only address the problem in the short term. Ultimately, at

some point a high-speed rail network will be necessary. For a change, we are considering long-term need rather than short-term necessity.

Some £10 billion has already been spent on upgrading the west coast main line, but on 1 March this year the new chief executive of Network Rail made it clear that the west coast main line would be at full capacity within six to 10 years. In answering my question, he said that

"the West Coast line, within 10 years at the absolute maximum, and probably six years, will be at capacity, and that is with additional carriages included in the area. We can look at other tactical interventions in that line to put more capacity in there, but in the end it comes down to capacity: we will, across a number of key parts of our network, run out of capacity."

The chief executive of Network Rail is absolutely clear that, even with extra costly improvements, the west coast main line will not have enough capacity to deal with growth in rail travel. We need the high-speed rail network to accommodate future rail travel.

Competing services and franchises are already battling for space on the existing network. We in Manchester are lucky that we have three trains an hour to London-a train every 20 minutes. Due to the success of that franchise, Virgin wanted to extend the service to four trains an hour, but doing so would have adversely affected both local and regional services, and so Virgin's plans were opposed locally. At every review of timetables, certain services lose out. As attempts are made to tweak the timetable to optimise capacity and services, local trains are always the losers. The creation of a high-speed rail network will release significant capacity on the existing network, allowing the expansion of those regional and local services that are completely constrained at the moment by the needs of longer-distance inter-city services.

High-speed rail is about not only improving capacity, but economic benefits. The HS2 business case concluded that phase one to the west midlands would generate £20 billion in economic benefits, and the total benefits for the "y" network to Leeds and Manchester were estimated at £44 billion, including an estimated £6 billion in wider economic impacts. Geoffrey Piper, the chief executive of the North West Business Leadership Team, has argued that HS2 is

"vital for the long term prosperity of the region."

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys has rightly mentioned our visit as members of the Transport Committee to France and Germany, where there are clearly big differences in the economic benefits of high-speed rail between different areas. What is certain, however, is that high-speed rail brings economic benefits.

My only word of caution about high-speed rail relates to the potential impact on investment in the classic railway network. The north of England is crying out for investment in the rail network, and we are desperate to see the announcement of funding for the northern hub in the next control period. Opponents of high-speed rail sometimes argue that we should not proceed with the scheme because it will result in a lack of investment in the existing network as all the money is diverted into paying for the high-speed network. That must not happen, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that it will not happen.

The coalition Government have already shown a commitment to investing in rail infrastructure despite the difficult economic times. In Manchester, we all

warmly welcomed the announcement in the Budget of funding for the Ordsall curve-or the Ordsall chord, or whatever people might want to call it. That project will have a dramatic impact on capacity and journey times. The investment in high-speed rail must not come at the expense of investment in the existing rail network. Instead the two must go hand-in-hand to ensure that Manchester and the rest of the north of England reap the full benefits of high-speed rail.

As a fellow member of the Transport Committee I, too, was on the visit to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Although we heard that argument made in Lille, in Frankfurt we heard a counter-argument: the Frankfurt to Cologne line had a significant impact in improving the whole region, not just the two places where there was a station. People argued strongly in Frankfurt that there was a benefit for the whole region between those two areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change whether he has any plans to reduce the future rate for feed-in tariffs; what timetable he has set for any such reduction; and what the feed-in tariff rate will be in each of the next three years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people of working age with a learning disability in each local authority area who are known to social services are in (a) paid full-time, (b) paid part-time, (c) unpaid full-time and (d) unpaid part-time work.