---

Mr. Darling: I will, but then I must make some progress. Although this is a six-hour debate we are taking up a large chunk of it, and I have not yet begun to deal directly with the Bill.

Mrs. Ellman: In the context of child casualties, and indeed other casualties, will my right hon. Friend think again about one of the variable penalty proposals, which will reduce the number of penalty points for breaking the 30 mph speed limit? The Department's own publicity depicts a child saying:

"Hit at 40 mph: There is an 80 per cent. chance I'll die. Hit at 30 mph: There is an 80 per cent. chance I'll live".

Mr. Darling: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will deal with that point at the stage when I planned to deal with it. I would be the last to claim that my speech has a shape to it, but such shape as there is will probably disappear if I deal with points in a different order.
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 830
 

The Bill has four key themes. The first is the need to deal with bad or irresponsible driving, whether it consists of speeding, drink-driving or carelessness. The second is the need to deal with motorists who break the law by driving without insurance, or using vehicles that are not roadworthy. Thirdly, we want to make it more difficult for foreign drivers to escape penalties for a specific range of driving offences in this country. Fourthly, we have proposed measures to raise standards and improve awareness. Let me say now, for the benefit of Members who may seek to intervene, that I will deal with those themes in that order.

Research shows that all drivers consider themselves to be better than average. I do not know whether that applies to everyone who is present today, but apparently it is the case. Nevertheless, poor driving is a key factor in many accidents. For example, nearly a third of car occupants who die have been involved in single vehicle accidents—accidents involving no other vehicle. Unfortunately, statistics suggest that the number of such accidents is increasing. It therefore seems sensible to bear down on some of the possible causes. One moment of carelessness or lack of attention can lead to serious consequences.

Clauses 20 and 21 introduce new offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.

Much of our Second Reading debate on the earlier Bill, which my hon. Friend missed out on, concerned precisely those issues. Until now, while it was possible to convict someone for causing death by dangerous driving, if the driving was merely careless it was not possible to convict. It is also important for us to be able to deal with drivers who are not insured, have not paid their tax or are disqualified. Until now a high level of proof has been required for conviction, and the clauses will make a substantial difference in that regard.

Kitty Ussher (Burnley) (Lab): I am very heartened by what my right hon. Friend is saying, as will be the family and friends of Levi Bleasdale and all those affected by her tragic death in my constituency. She was three years old when she was killed by a hit-and-run driver last year. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand my shock, and that of many of my constituents, at the lack of custodial sentences available for those who kill through careless driving. Does he share my outrage at the Conservatives' attempts to water down our provisions in the other place? Will he commit himself to reintroducing a charge of causing death by careless driving with a maximum sentence of five years, triable in a magistrates court?

Mr. Darling: We will do that. I think it important for magistrates courts to have that disposal. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, conviction for causing death by dangerous driving will carry a sentence of up to five years.

It is of course for Parliament to determine the penalties, and the range of penalties, but I do not think that I am the only Member who thinks it important for the courts to regard someone who kills someone else using a car in the same way as someone using any other means of killing people. I suspect that most of us know
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 831
 
of cases similar to that raised by my hon. Friend, in which constituents have lost young children, and someone has been convicted but justice is not seen to have been done. It is equally important for drivers to realise that the minute they sit behind a wheel they are driving something with the potential to cause death or serious injury.

There has been a good deal of support in the House for the creation of that new offence. If the measure is passed, it will be on the statute book by the end of the year or the beginning of next year. The courts will have adequate powers; I hope that they will convict if the evidence justifies conviction, and, in particular, that the punishment will fit the crime. Taking a life is taking a life, no matter how it is done.

Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): As my right hon. Friend says, drivers need to be more aware of their own technical ability. Will he congratulate the Institute for Advanced Motorists, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year? Does he agree that it is not a fuddy-duddy organisation, but an organisation for young and new drivers, and for very good drivers? Only last year, its president, Nigel Mansell—a man of great driving talent—recognised that it was appropriate for him to take the IAM course. His lead should be followed by every Member of Parliament.

Mr. Darling: I have sometimes been tempted to take the course myself but have not got there yet. I agree that the institute is very important, and people should be encouraged to take its courses. I believe that some insurance companies give their clients credit for having taken them. In my experience, pointing to a financial advantage sometimes helps people along the way.

The Bill also seeks to change the law relating to drivers who are not insured. The present law allows illegal drivers to be prosecuted only for disqualified driving, driving without insurance or driving without a licence, unless their driving was at fault, in which case a charge of careless or dangerous driving would be applicable. Under the new proposals, a driver who was on the road illegally—without insurance—would be liable if, but for his presence on the road, an accident and consequent death would not have occurred, even if the standard of his driving was not at fault.

That is a major step forward. It deals with a particular cause of concern throughout the country: people who steal cars, or do not bother to insure their cars. If such people are on the road and a fatal accident occurs, it must be right to enable the courts to act.

Adam Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC): Taking a life is taking a life, but in this context we are surely talking in some cases about momentary misjudgments when there was no deliberate intent on the part of the individual to take a life. Surely that should be reflected in the Secretary of State's comments.

Mr. Darling: Yes. A substantial body of case law in relation to that and other matters allows the court to hear the evidence and then come to a view as to whether someone is guilty of that offence. Careless and inconsiderate driving is defined in the Bill. The hon.
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 832
 
Gentleman is right: before someone can be sentenced, they have to be convicted in law beyond reasonable doubt, so the courts are well used to determining these matters. For example, prosecutors have to decide whether there is sufficient evidence that someone has caused death by dangerous driving or careless driving. The court has to decide whether that is the case, but it would be wrong of us not to give courts the option of being able to convict someone where the evidence points clearly to the fact that their conduct was such that the natural result was someone being killed, even though they perhaps did not intend that.

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the new proposal goes further than existing law, but I think that it is fully justified. The courts will, of course, be able to hear the evidence and come to a view. However, as with all these things, if he is making a bid to get on to the Committee that will scrutinise the Bill, he can no doubt explore the issue at greater length there.

Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that the current situation is that if someone pleads guilty to careless driving, the court is in many cases not even told that someone died?

Mr. Darling: I will need to take some advice on that. The hon. Gentleman may be right but, in my view, when passing sentence, a court needs to be aware of all the circumstances. There is a world of difference between careless driving resulting in knocking over a flower pot and careless driving resulting in someone dying. The offence I have just described relates to someone who should not be on the road—because their car is not insured, for example. The Bill goes a lot further. It would be inconceivable in such cases for the court not to know that there had been a fatality.

---