---

Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): In many cases, a driver who kills commits a multitude of offences, but the feeling among families of the victims is that not all those offences are totted up. The three new offences that my right hon. Friend referred to a few minutes ago have a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. Is it his view that if a driver has committed multiple offences, the court should tot up the sentences?

Mr. Darling: What to charge someone with is a matter entirely for the prosecutors in each case. It is not uncommon, as my hon. Friend knows, for someone to be charged with a number of offences. If they are convicted of all of them, the court has to take that into account. Equally, in some cases, someone is charged with one or two offences, rather than the lot, because that is what the prosecution thinks it can get a conviction on.

I strongly believe that decisions on whether to prosecute and what to charge someone with are matters for the independent prosecution authorities, not for Ministers or Parliament, but it is for Parliament to set the range of offences and decide what is the mischief that we are trying to get at. That is what we are attempting to do.

Mr. Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): On a point of clarification, if the right hon. Gentleman was driving in Edinburgh, for example, and someone
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 833
 
walked in front of him, he hit them, knocked them down and, unfortunately and heaven forfend, killed them, after the Bill had been enacted, what would the difference be in the way he was treated?

Mr. Darling: As I explained earlier, the position would not change as regards someone who was driving along and was insured. The question would be whether they were driving carelessly or dangerously. Under the Bill, if someone were driving carelessly because they were not paying proper attention or doing something that reduced their attention to the road, they could be charged with causing death by careless driving. On the other hand, they could be blameless. If the person driving along was not insured and there was a fatality, then, depending on the circumstances, under the additional measure to which I referred, it might be possible to charge that person with an offence.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that much depends on the circumstances of each case. We are plugging a gap because, until this Bill, hopefully, becomes law, it is not possible to charge a person with causing death by careless driving. Nor is it possible in every circumstance to get at someone who should not be on the road in the first place and whose car is involved in an accident involving a fatality. All those issues will no doubt be explored further in Committee.

I have mentioned uninsured driving. Continuous registration has helped. The additional powers to which I referred earlier have helped in tracking people down and dealing with them where they have broken the law. Equally, electronic registration in the renewal of tax discs, which we introduced just last year, is helping to catch people who try to skip a month on their insurance, for example. However, the Bill also introduces a new offence of being the keeper of a vehicle, the use of which is not insured. Unless people have registered a statutory declaration and the thing is off the road, there will be an offence of keeping the car where it is not insured.

The Bill increases penalties for careless and inconsiderate driving. The fine doubles to £5,000. As I said, clause 30 defines careless and inconsiderate driving for the first time. There is already a statutory definition of dangerous driving. For using a hand-held mobile phone while driving and for failing to have proper control of a vehicle, a mandatory endorsement is introduced. For repeat offences of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, there is mandatory disqualification if the offence is repeated within three years. That is a minimum of six months' disqualification.

Excessive speed contributes to just over a third of fatalities—that means about 1,000 deaths every year—as well as being a factor in another 40,000 injuries. Several police forces now offer "low-end speeders" the option of going on speed awareness courses, and that will be in the Bill as a disposal available to the courts. The Association of Chief Police Officers is putting in place a national programme of awareness courses, which, of course, we welcome.

The greatest reduction in such casualties would come from reducing speed across the board, and that is where speed cameras come in. I believe that, on any view one cares to take, speed cameras are saving lives and
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 834
 
reducing speed. However, as I said in 2004—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) raised the point—we need to do more to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. A graduated system of penalties from two to six points, rather than the present system, would ensure that a distinction was made between someone who was just over the limit and someone who was driving way over the limit.

I said last time—the Bill provides for this—that the Government would undertake consultation. Under the Bill, we have to consult and people will be able to respond. I think I am right in saying that, in the consultation on the principle of the measure in 2004–05, just over half of respondents said they were in favour of graduated penalties. Obviously, when we consult fully, we will see what people have to say. After that consultation, there will be proposals. A measure will come before the House, and it will be subject to the usual affirmative procedure.

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD) rose—

Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con) rose—

Mr. Darling: I will give way in a moment.

There is probably a range of views in the House, but I yield to no one in my belief that speed cameras are playing an essential role. The changes that I announced towards the end of last year will help further, but I think that it is right to introduce a graduated system, using points and the fines that flow from them, to reflect the fact that different speeds are sometimes involved.

Andrew Selous: Does the Secretary of State agree that we should all be equal under the law as far as speed cameras are concerned and that it is therefore not right that people who incorrectly register their vehicle details are able to avoid penalties from speed cameras? I can show the Secretary of State details of one vehicle caught 73 times in my constituency doing speeds of up to 119 miles per hour, but the police are powerless to deal with it. Does he agree that, at the very least, that is a serious issue, which he and his Ministers should look into?

Mr. Darling: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue with the Minister of State, who has agreed to meet him to discuss it. If we need to amend the Bill to deal with that problem, we will see what can be done. I am not making any promises, but let us explore the issue because the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. If people are using a false address or fiddling the system and the police cannot get to them, we need to sort that out, and we will do so.

Paul Rowen: The other place introduced an amendment on the use of income from speed cameras. What does the Secretary of State plan to do about it?

Mr. Darling: We have already dealt with that issue, so the amendment is not necessary. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when the three-year assessment of speed cameras was published last year, I changed the funding arrangements. Part of the problem is that
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 835
 
people have tended over the years to regard speed cameras as a free option because it cost nothing to put them in. I want to ensure that where there is a particular safety problem, local authorities and the police can consider various factors such as changing the road layout or the speed limit, as well as the introduction of speed cameras. The amendment tabled in the other place might have been worthy of consideration had we not decided to change the funding regime, but as we are in the process of changing it—some £110 million will be available to local authorities—the amendment is not appropriate, and we will deal with it when it comes before the Standing Committee.

Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Will the Secretary of State make a comparison between normal speed cameras and the clever electronic advisory signs used in many villages, in order to see which works best at producing slower traffic movements?

Mr. Darling: I am with the hon. Gentleman on this. These signs, which are used more in villages and small towns than in cities, are very effective. They light up to warn drivers that they are going at 35 mph—so I am told. [Interruption.] I have never noticed them myself. To be fair, a policeman drove me through a village outside Edinburgh to show me what happens, and I sat in the passenger seat marvelling at the technology. Such signs are effective, but if we give the money to local authorities and the police, they can decide what measures are best. In some cases, speed cameras are the best solution, and they are effective; but in others, different measures might be more effective.

---