---

Ms Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a case like that of Levi Bleasdale, which was mentioned, would be partially tackled by the Bill? Nothing will compensate parents for the loss of their child, but it would make it possible to get such a driver for causing
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 845
 
death by careless driving and to give him the increased prison sentence for driving without a licence. If the two sentences ran consecutively—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was asked about that—the driver could be imprisoned for up to seven years. It would not compensate for a life lost, but it would be much more than the six weeks, or whatever, that the driver got.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady misses the point. I am not talking purely about fatal accidents, but about minor accidents as well.

Ms Keeble: It was a tragic case.

Chris Grayling: Of course, and it needed to be prosecuted with the force of the law. Having read the case, a charge of dangerous driving should have been seriously considered. As I recall, the driver was unlicensed, and the measure that we support to tackle the problem of unlicensed drivers would do the job. However, it is not always about dealing with accidents that cause death. We also need to deal with accidents in which there are serious or relatively minor injuries. There is no excuse whatever for any driver who is involved in an accident simply to drive away. There are times when the law provides a perverse incentive to do so. If someone has drunk too much, has a minor accident and drives away, he is probably slightly less likely to be disqualified for a year than if he stops and is breathalysed. That cannot be sensible. There is no excuse for driving away from the scene of an accident.

We also need to change the rules under which the DVLA operates when false addresses are used. I had a case in my constituency recently of a family barraged with legal notices because the previous owners of their house had not changed the address on their driving licences. They did that entirely deliberately so that they could use false information to commit offences with impunity. Yet the DVLA is not allowed under current rules to amend its records without written notification from the licence holder. If I move house, commit offences everywhere and leave the people who bought my house to pick up the problems that that causes—police and bailiffs knocking on the door, and so forth—the only person who can get the details changed is me, and since I am the offender I am hardly likely to do that. I hope that we can also tackle that problem.

Dr. Pugh : The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the DVLA has a sophisticated database that enables it to take a registration plate and work out who the owner is, but it does not enable it to go the other way by starting off with the owner and finding out what cars are registered in his name. That would be a small technical change that would approve things ahead of legislation. There is no case for not doing it.

Chris Grayling: That is an interesting idea, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman include it in an amendment and discuss it with Ministers. I am not familiar with the detail of the issue, but it could be debated constructively during the passage of the Bill.

I do not condone any motoring offence, but sometimes the Government choose the easier option when they regulate against motorists and thus fail to get
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 846
 
to grips with the serious challenge posed by people who systematically ignore the law on tax, insurance, drink-driving and related issues. The Bill is therefore a missed opportunity. We will work constructively in Committee to address that, and we will try to introduce measures to strengthen the provisions against the most lawless drivers. I hope that the Government are willing to work with us constructively as we seek to do so.

There are three areas in which we want to change the detail of the Bill including, first, the most controversial part of the Bill—the provision to introduce much tougher sentences for careless drivers. I understand clearly and in detail the Government's motivation for proposing a change. There is a serious problem with the distinction between the offences of careless and dangerous driving. We are all aware of instances in which the Crown Prosecution Service has not pursued a dangerous driving case so the offender has escaped with a sentence that appears much too lenient, given the crime that was committed. We therefore understand why many families are angry when a motorist's actions lead to the death of a loved one but that individual is charged with dangerous driving and escapes with only a fine.

Those families and the organisations that work with them have made a powerful case to all hon. Members in the past few weeks. We accept the need to change the current system, but we have genuine reservations about the detail of the Government's proposals. When we debate those proposals, I hope that Members on both sides of the House will accept that our concerns are genuine and not party political. We are not interested in playing off the interests of motorists against the interests of road safety, as we have a duty to get these things right. I have two concerns about the proposals, including the use of the term "careless or inconsiderate" in the wording of the proposed new offence.

In framing legislation, the House must find the right balance between acceptance that people make mistakes, sometimes with terrible but unintended consequences, and the need to ensure that if people act in a way that they can reasonably be expected to know is unsafe they can be held to account when their action results in tragedy. That is not an easy dividing line for any politician to find, and I accept that there is a dilemma facing Ministers. There are serious difficulties. How do we judge whether someone should have looked a little harder when leaving a junction? How do we judge someone who swerves to avoid an animal and kills a cyclist instead? Is someone driving just within the speed limit on an icy road on a dark morning—conditions that could be considered dangerous—driving carelessly or dangerously? I do not believe that this country's tradition of fairness and justice makes it sensible to provide in law for long sentences for careless drivers. What does "inconsiderate" mean? Are we going to send someone to prison for five years for being inconsiderate? We therefore have serious reservations about the drafting of the offence. We will debate it carefully in Committee and introduce proposals to improve the current system.

Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab): I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest, but is not the case that he cited, of someone who swerves to avoid an animal but inadvertently kills a cyclist, a
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 847
 
classic example of careless driving, but with the extraordinary consequences to which he referred earlier? Is it not right to impose a heavier penalty in those circumstances for that level of carelessness?

Chris Grayling: I am afraid that I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sometimes on the road people make snap judgments that are wrong and that have devastating consequences. There is no intent to kill. There may have been misjudgment—with greater experience, they might have avoided that misjudgment—but that does not make them criminals who deserve a long prison sentence. We must make suitable provision in law. There are cases in which people slip through the net, and in such cases the penalty should probably have been stronger. However, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the introduction of a penalty that is so wide ranging that it drags people who have committed an offence in the circumstances that I have just described into the net of a long prison sentence.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): May I clarify something so that I can respond properly to the hon. Gentleman later? Is it the principle of the offence of causing death by careless driving about which he is concerned, or is it just the detail of the way in which we have defined "careless"? If we manage to agree on that detail in Committee, will he withdraw his objection?

Chris Grayling: It is the principle of the word "careless" that is the problem. If the Government can define in detail a form of words with which we are comfortable we are happy to look at their proposals. Traditionally, there has been an acceptance in British law of the dividing line between carelessness and dangerousness. The way in which that dividing line operates is not satisfactory, as it is handled differently by the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service. I therefore have reservations about "careless" and "inconsiderate", particularly the latter word, which is very loose indeed.

Ms Keeble: Can the hon. Gentleman expand his argument? I introduced a private Member's Bill that dealt with penalties for causing death or serious injury by careless driving, and I thought that he was supporting that approach earlier. What hierarchy of offences and penalties does he propose to introduce to achieve justice for the public, as the Bill would, if he does not accept the offence of careless driving?

---