---

Column 758

Thurnham, Peter

Trippier, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Waller, Gary

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Sir John

Widdecombe, Ann

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Wood, Timothy

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Ayes :

Dr. Keith Hampson and

Mr. Humfrey Malins.

NOES

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Beith, A. J.

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Cryer, Bob

Dalyell, Tam

Dobson, Frank

Duffy, A. E. P.

Dunn, Bob

Flynn, Paul

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Lewis, Terry

Morgan, Rhodri

Pike, Peter L.

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Spearing, Nigel

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Andrew Rowe and

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session ; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with ;

That the Bill shall be presented to this House not later than the seventh day after this day ;

That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session ;

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of this House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of this House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) ;

That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the Session 1988-89 which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session ;

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1988-89 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business ;

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted ;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.

---

Column 759

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Road Traffic Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Chapman.]

Road Safety Bill

Postponed proceedings on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, resumed.

10.22 pm

Mr. McCartney : It is some time since I was brought to an emergency stop by Mr. Deputy Speaker to make way for the private business. I want to consider the issues raised by clauses 1 and 3, which I failed to deal with prior to the suspension of this debate. I want to consider random breath testing to see whether those clauses can be improved in Committee.

I make no apology for referring to specific cases that involve the death of a young child and a young adult. I dealt with one case personally and the other came to my notice as a result of a press report. I will refer to those cases not to sensationalise the debate, but to bring a different perspective to the statistics. When deaths occur in accidents, we are dealing with human beings. Young lives are lost and family life is destroyed as a result of the stresses and strains created by that loss of life.

Although I support clauses 1 and 3, I want to refer to certain cases to show why I believe that we shall need to consider strengthening those clauses in Committee. We must take account of what has happened and consider the feelings of families who have been affected by tragic deaths and injuries. We must make it clear to those involved in reckless driving and reckless driving involving drink that there is no hiding place left for them in Britain. Hon. Members must make it absolutely clear to the police, the prosecution services and the judiciary that we expect them to act accordingly when cases involving dangerous and reckless driving and drunken driving come before the courts.

I considered the Bill in the context of three criteria, whether it fitted those criteria and whether I could wholeheartedly support it or support it with reservations. In Committee, the Government should seriously consider making the Bill a non-party political issue and strengthening aspects of it. The three criteria are, first, the extent to which offences are understood by the travelling public ; secondly, the enforceability of penalties, in particular in respect of prosecution policy and interpretation by the courts ; and, thirdly, the extent to which penalties will act as a deterrent and, therefore, lead to an improvement in the standard of driving.

I start with clause 3 and refer to two young children, Christopher Varma aged seven, and Iain Varma, his brother, aged 14. I pay tribute to their father, Satinda, and their mother, Linda, who have courageously campaigned not only because of what happened to their family and the destruction that was caused by an accident on 21 June 1987, but to try to prevent such a tragedy happening to other children. Tragically, since the accident, their wish has not been carried out. Day in and day out, children are mown down and lives are destroyed in a second by a driver who has taken drink or by a driver who has no consideration for other road or public highway users.

---

Column 760

On 21 June 1987 in Blackpool, young Iain and Christopher were doing what many children do in the summer, visiting a local school fete. They became bored with the fete and decided to go to a local sweet shop and then return home to mother. Unfortunately, on their way to the sweet shop they were involved in an accident when they were mown down by the rider of a 1000 cc Kawasaki motor cycle. Young Christopher, aged seven, was killed almost instantaneously, but Iain survived with permanent disabilities. In a few seconds of madness that young life was lost and a family's peace of mind and happiness were destroyed for ever.

What happened thereafter is not only a disaster for the family but is a stain on the judicial system and a public disgrace in respect of the tragic death of one of the young lads, Christopher, and the permanent disability of his brother. As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall read a short version of a report of the court proceedings, to give an understanding of what has happened and why it has happened not just to the Varma family but to hundreds and perhaps thousands of families who have become the victims of drinking and driving or of people who just did not give a damn about others who use the highways. In the tragic circumstances, I hope that the House will recognise that clauses 1 and 3 are insufficient to meet the task before us.

On 21 June, a 24-year-old baker called Henry Staals on his new motor cycle killed Christopher and seriously injured Iain. He was travelling at a speed that was recognised to be at about 60 mph in a residential part of Blackpool. Indeed, it was said that even the 30 mph limit on that road would have been far too fast in the circumstances.

Mr. Richard Isaacson, who was prosecuting, told the jury that the tragedy happened when Christopher and his 14-year-old brother, Iain, had attended a fete at Highfield school. It was a perfect summer day but the boys, who were not with their parents, were apparently bored and decided to return home to Ashworth court. But when they were crossing Highfield road at about 4 pm a 1000cc black Kawasaki motor cycle, with its headlights blazing, knocked them down. Mr. Isaacson claimed that the bike was driven in such a manner as to make an accident almost inevitable if anyone got in its way. Mr. Isaacson told the jury :

"Tragically for him, as well as for those young boys, they got in his way."

Some witnesses who were overtaken by the motor bike or who saw it from the pavement thought that it was travelling at 60 mph. Mr. Isaacson told the jury :

"If you are sure he was travelling at speeds of up to 60 mph, that is a very reckless course of driving on any basis."

The prosecution alleged that Staals was so determined to enjoy driving his motor cycle that he gave no thought to the manner in which it was driven.

At the end of the trial, Staals was found guilty, but I shall tell hon. Members what happened and the advice of the judge--not in my words, but in those of Christopher's mum, Linda, who wrote to me on 20 February this year, stating :

"20 June 1987 : My seven-year-old son Christopher was killed and his fourteen-year-old brother Iain critically injured by a speeding motorcyclist.

October 1988 : At Preston Crown Court the motorbike rider was found not guilty of causing death by reckless driving, guilty only of careless driving, fined £250 and banned for two years.

---

Column 761

Murder--for that is what it is--on our roads is condoned by society. Innocent victims have no redress even when a Miscarriage of Justice is admitted by the authorities.

I want to change the law to give the innocent victim"

the same rights as those appearing before other courts, such as the Court of Appeal.

In those anguished words, that mother was saying that her son's life was worth only £250. However, what made it worse for the family was that when the judge passed the sentence, he then advised the court of the defendant's previous convictions. In 1984 that gentleman was fined £450 and banned for 18 months for riding a motor cycle at a police officer who had tried to stop him for speeding. This was the motor cyclist's fourth serious offence, yet he did not suffer the loss of his liberty, only a miserable fine of £250. There was no redress for the family or the victim.

I could quote many other cases because I have with me a file of similar cases involving children or young teenagers throughout Britain who were mown down by motorists and motor cyclists, some of whom were drunk while others were simply completely out of their heads with concern about themselves, but for no one else. None of the drivers has ever served a prison sentence or had a fine of more than a few hundred quid, and none has ever been banned from driving for life or faced a severe ban of more than three years. Surely that cannot be right when someone drives recklessly or in such a way as to be a danger to someone else, and when that person ends another person's life or damages another person, destroying the rest of her or his life. Surely someone who does that should not walk away with only a paltry fine and with no other consequences and be quickly back on the road either on a motor cycle or in a car.

That is why I believe that in Committee we should seriously consider whether the balance is correct. I am not a solicitor or barrister--I know that the Secretary of State is a distinguished member of the legal profession in Scotland--but, as a lay person, I believe that we need seriously to consider a charge of culpable manslaughter in such cases.

I disagree with the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) who suggested that people who are drunk do not know what they are doing when they drive. That is no longer true. Perhaps 15 or 20 years ago people could make the excuse, albeit the weak one, that they did not understand the impairment to their driving abilities that would be caused by their taking drink. After the years of campaign by Government and non-Government agencies and the change in attitude in society to drinking and driving, anyone who takes a drink must understand the consequences for their driving ability. When, as in the next case to which I shall refer, someone drinks four or five pints of lager before driving, that person is as guilty as anyone of lifting a weapon and deliberately striking a person down. There is no doubt in my mind that people make a choice to drink and to drink to excess and that their action leads them to maim or kill another person. Therefore, they have a liability. They are culpable. Manslaughter is the only relevant charge in those circumstances. Any lesser charge does not match the consequences of the action taken by the driver. That is even more true of drivers who do not drink but deliberately, as in the case which I shall mention, drive recklessly.

I refer to these cases on a general basis. In this House or anywhere else we should not impose double jeopardy.

---

Column 762

The gentleman involved appeared before a court and received a fine, however derisory. However, on the general principle, is it right that someone who has a record of serious accidents involving motor bikes or cars, flaunts good road sense and the rules of the highway on a regular basis and as a consequence destroys the lives of young people should not be culpable and should not be charged with homicide or manslaughter? Those are the only charges that such people should face when they come before the courts. Minimal sentences in such cases are not a deterrent.

If we are to seize the opportunity to challenge that small but significant minority who consistently drive motor bikes or cars in such a way as to put people's lives at risk, we should make it clear to them that we shall remove their liberty and that when they come out of prison we shall remove their ability quickly to go back on the roads. It is important that in Committee we seriously consider improving and upgrading what has been suggested in clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill.

I and the vast majority of people who are put in the appalling position of having their families destroyed by the loss of one, two, three or, as has happened in some cases, four members of their family do not seek revenge. Revenge is not my motive. Nor is it the motive of many of the people to whom I have spoken. They genuinely feel that, in their terrible and tragic disaster, the lives of their families should not have been wasted by allowing the carnage on our roads to continue. A change in the law is sought, not for revenge but out of genuine concern for others and the desire that in the years ahead people are not destroyed or disabled by drivers who drink or drive in a reckless and dangerous manner.

The last case to which I shall refer is that of Martin Allsop. His case is not one with which I have dealt personally but it was highlighted earlier this year in the Daily Mirror in such a way as to give Martin's mum Pam the chance to say things that she would have liked to say but until then had not been able to. Martin's case not only demonstrates the tragedy of the loss of his life, but says a great deal about our position in the House, the law as it currently stands, alcohol abuse and the way in which the Crown prosecution service and the police can contrive that someone who should be charged with a more serious offence is not and, as a consequence, walks away almost free from killing someone--for surely that it what they have done.

Two years ago Martin Allsop was killed on a pedestrian crossing by Howard Orpwood, a driving instructor. Mr. Orpwood was charged with causing death by reckless driving. He ploughed into three people--Martin and his two friends--at 60 mph after overtaking a car which had stopped to let Martin and his friends cross the road. Witnesses claimed that Orpwood had drunk five pints of lager before getting into his car. At the time of the accident he had more than twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood. Martin's two friends were badly injured but, fortunately, they survived. Orpwood was acquitted of the imprisonable offence of causing death by reckless driving and found guilty of the lesser charge of careless driving, which does not carry a custodial sentence. He was banned from driving for two years and fined £250.

That is the sort of disgrace which we should not allow to continue. We should amend clause 1 or clause 3 to make it clear to the judiciary and the police what we mean. I have

---

Column 763

reservations about the elements of part I and enforce-ability. We must ensure that the Crown prosecution service and the police have clear guidelines and understand how the House feels about offences of the sort to which I have referred. We must ensure also that the courts interpret properly and reflect accurately the view that we take in this place. Let us ensure that sentences act as a deterrent to those who drink and drive.

The two tragic cases to which I have referred are typical of thousands of others. Before the Bill becomes an Act, more young people will be killed as a result of reckless or dangerous driving, with or without drink. How many more children's lives are to be destroyed? How many more will have to live through the loss of their loved ones? I am sorry that I become emotional, but I have met families that have suffered in that way. Let us think of the parents of a seven-year-old child who are told by an ambulance driver that their child has been ripped from them, and who learn about a year later that the person who killed their child is driving a vehicle once again after paying a fine that most people would regard as entirely inappropriate.

The House owes it to the Varma family and all the other families that have suffered so grievously to take every step possible to ensure that those who drink and drive and kill will be charged with manslaughter. We must ensure also that those who drive recklessly or dangerously and cause the death or injury of others are dealt with in the same way. I have no doubt what the CPS should do. The advice that we give to the judiciary should leave it in no doubt how we want it to deal with such offenders. To deal with them in any other way would be a denial of the rights of families. We cannot bring back their loved ones who have gone, but we can ensure that others do not go the same way.

10.43 pm

Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle) : First, I join all those who have welcomed my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities. I take the opportunity to congratulate the Department of Transport on its recent announcement on adult rear seat-belt wearing.

I wish to put forward the views of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which I am joint chairman. The council welcomes the Bill's provisions, especially those on speed cameras and red-light cameras. It welcomes also the new penalties, but is concerned that enforcement should be given a higher priority than appears to have been attached to it. It welcomes the provision to make disqualified drivers who have been found guilty of serious driving offences undergo a driving test before they are able to regain their licence. It is concerned that driving with excess alcohol is exempt from that provision. We believe that there are serious omissions from the Bill.

Who worries about the penalties if the chances of being caught are not great? Rationalisation of police effort in some forces has transformed mobile traffic units into multi-purpose mobile units with the resultant loss of a highly visible police presence on the roadside. PACTS believes that, due to the increase in traffic volume, traffic

---

Column 764

policing establishment levels should, if possible, be restored to those of the early 1980s--about 11 per cent. of all policing should be concerned with traffic.

We support the greater use of disqualification and the proposals for the retesting, retraining and rehabilitation of offenders. However, we do not understand the logic of omitting drink-driving offences from the retesting proposals. Drink-drivers are, by definition, irresponsible drivers and their omission from retesting removes a useful penalty.

The Government's reliance on retraining is misconceived for, as the road traffic law review pointed out, the effectiveness of retraining has yet to be demonstrated even for those who might be identified as suitable. We believe that the retesting proposals of the White Paper should be extended to cover drink-driving offences as well as bad driving and other offences requiring disqualification.

The new offences and changes in penalty proposed in the Bill are welcome, but they must be seen as part of a package of measures to reduce drinking and driving. Since the introduction of the breathalyser in 1967, the number of excess alcohol offences detected has quadrupled. Surveys have shown that the chances of detection of excess alcohol when driving are extremely low, ranging from one in 250 trips in some areas to one in 4,000 in others. In most parts of the country the perceived chances of detection are similarly low. A recent survey by the transport and road research laboratory suggested that 42 per cent. of those who admitted to drink-driving believed that their chances of being caught were small. It is true that the figures of those guilty of drink-driving have been steadily improving. Why does the Minister believe that leaving the situation as it is will make any impression on those 42 per cent. who drink and drive and believe that they will not be caught? Clearly, further action is necessary.

The Government have acted, rightly, on adult rear seat belts because that will save lives. They have accepted that persuasion has gone as far as it can in achieving their targets. Given that more lives could be saved with the introduction of random breath testing, why does not the same logic apply? The present law allowing breath testing under two separate sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988--the result of a court decision--is a mess. It leads to anomalies in enforcement and it gives no clear public message.

Ministers appear to accept the principle of random breath testing every time they quote the fact that it is possible for the police to act under the present law. Why will not they make the principle explicit in practice? In principle, the argument appears to be accepted. Therefore, we are merely debating the most practical methods of enforcement.

PACTS believes that existing breath testing powers should be supplemented by an additional power to allow random breath testing as well as signposted roadside checkpoints, authorised by a senior police officer. That would provide the element of deterrence that is lacking from current procedures, which is necessary to allow the police to secure a significant reduction in road accidents. Of the 3,400 responses to the Home Office consultation paper on changes to the breath testing legislation, 3,000 favoured additional powers to be given to the police. A recent survey published by the Government's transport and road research laboratory in November suggested that 77 per cent. of those interviewed supported such powers

---