| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): I am grateful to have a chance to contribute to the debate and to give an extremely warm welcome to the Bill. I think that the remarks of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) were somewhat churlish, as I believe that it contains a variety of measures that will give the police a much wider range of sanctions for many more offences than is currently the case. It will enable them to do many of the things that the hon. Gentleman described, and it will be for them and the local authorities to work out how to use the measures to improve road safety.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said that the Bill did not have a strategic vision. I disagree: it maintains a clear focus on what is needed to improve road safety and deal with the different problems that arise. Moreover, implicit within it is a recognition that we need a culture change in our attitude to driving. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that, but running through the Bill is a much stronger awareness of the fact that a person who gets into a car is getting into something that can be a dangerous weapon. Cars can be responsible for very serious accidents, as well as being a statement of our personal freedom.
The Bill requires a culture change among the public. I ask the Government, as they move it forward, to make sure that information is issued about the change in responsibilities and that there are awareness campaigns to change attitudes to speaking on mobile phones while driving, children wearing safety belts in the back of cars, and speeding. The Opposition have a real responsibility to be party to that as well. Let us take the example of the debate about speed cameras. I suppose that we are not meant to be party political at this point, but I have heard, particularly from the Conservative party, constant criticism of speed cameras. The assumption is that they are there to raise money, when we all know—certainly, this is the case in Northamptonshire—that many people walking around today would be dead were it not for speed cameras and the move to bear down on speeding. A good number of young people have been spared very serious injury because speeding has been reduced.
If we are going to achieve the changes that we can get out of the Bill, we require a culture change. I find it odd that, having said there is a great need to deal with problem drivers, the Conservative party opposes, or questions and undermines, one of the most radical proposals in the Bill, which has been welcomed, looked for and campaigned for by people outside this place as well as inside it. I refer to the proposal for a new offence of causing death by careless driving. I do not understand how it is possible to talk tough on driving and then say,
8 Mar 2006 : Column 852
"Oh, but we aren't going to have a separate offence of causing death by careless driving." If the Conservatives are serious about dealing with road safety and the horrible tragedies that result from bad or careless driving—whatever we want to call it—they must be consistent in their approach. I hope that, in Committee, they will suddenly see the light, have a road-to-Damascus conversion, as they have on so many other things, and support this important proposal.
Over the years, many colleagues have pressed for a new offence of causing death by careless driving, because we have all heard the most harrowing tales of deaths caused by careless driving in our constituencies. I pay tribute to the predecessor of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who, as he knows, campaigned, as he has, on behalf of his constituents, and to many other Members who are still on the Labour Benches and who have done a vast amount of work over the years.
I took up the matter in a private Member's Bill following consultation with young people in my constituency. It was one of those cases of seeing further when one sits on the shoulders of giants because colleagues have done much more work than I have. The young people chose it as the piece of legislation that they most wanted to see on the statute book, which is interesting, as many of the briefings sent to us by outside organisations pick up on the fact that driving and road safety issues have a particular impact on young people and are of particular concern to them.
I thank the schools that took part in the consultation and supported the private Member's Bill: Kingsthorpe community college, Duston school, Weston Favell school, Northampton School for Girls, Thomas Becket school, Roade school and Unity college. In particular, they were moved by the story of Alexine Melnik, a constituent of the hon. Member for Wellingborough. She was a teenager who was killed by a careless driver. Her killer escaped with a derisory sentence. The schools met with Alexine's brother and parents, who joined them in lobbying the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), to get such a measure on the statute book. They followed the process through, and I hope that they will be able to come to the Committee to see the legislation they have campaigned for go through.
Mr. Tom Harris: I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in that I am not convinced that we should start jailing people for long periods on the basis that they are careless. Does my hon. Friend believe that every time a pedestrian is seriously injured or a killed by the driver of a car, the driver must always face a long prison sentence?
Ms Keeble:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. In working on my private Member's Bill, I had to talk through that issue with a number of people and, if he is happy for me to do so, I will deal with his point later. Certainly, there is an argument to be made. The details of how the measure is to work have to be spelled out, but the case for having such an offence on the statute book is overwhelming and well understood by the public, as well as being supported, I am happy to say, by the Government.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 853
Other than local cases, one reason why young people in my constituency supported the measure was the statistics on the number of young people killed in road traffic accidents each year. As we have heard, many of the people killed by careless drivers are children. A recent case that has been particularly highlighted took place in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher). A little girl was holding her mother's hand when she was killed. In 1999, some 191 children under the age of 14 were killed on the road. Road accidents were probably the biggest single category of fatal accidents among children. In addition, 42,051 children under 15 were injured. The statistics also show that young drivers are much more likely to be involved and injured in accidents. A total of 64,000 drivers aged 16 to 24 were involved in road traffic accidents during the last year for which figures were available. Although young people account for only 4 per cent. of the driving population, they account for 13 per cent. of accidents on the roads.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell also mentioned the need to focus on where accidents take place and which children are most at risk. I believe—I am sure that the Minister of State will confirm this in his winding-up speech—that the children most at risk are those in inner-city areas. There is a close correlation between poverty and road deaths among children. It is possible to consider speed limits in those areas and make sure that we tackle issues in areas where children are most likely to be killed or injured. With those kinds of measures and sanctions in place, the graduated penalties in the Bill are the right way to go about dealing with the very real problem of speeding.
The offence of causing death by careless driving will address the burning sense of injustice held by the families of people killed in such accidents. A survey for the Department for Transport found that, when people were killed in road accidents and a conviction secured, only 20 per cent. of victims' families thought that justice had been served. So, even when the driver was caught and convicted and the victim's family at least had their day in court, there was still an overwhelming sense that justice had not been served.
In addition—this comes partly to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell—there is a credibility gap in relation to offences and penalties in the existing law. There is nothing between causing death by dangerous driving and quite minor traffic offences. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is always room to consider carefully which charges can be used, but in the case of the child in the Burnley constituency, the driver could not be charged with dangerous driving, so he was charged with only the most minor offences. Imagine the feelings of someone who sees their child killed and the driver done for an offence such as driving without a licence.
In the context of the penalties at the court's disposal, I welcome the new offence and the prison sentence that attaches to it. In my private Member's Bill I proposed a sentence of 10 years, but the five-year prison sentence fills the credibility gap by increasing the sanctions available to the courts.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 854
A further aspect is the likelihood of being charged with dangerous driving, which relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. From the briefings that we have had, which I am sure he also received, it seems that more and more traffic offenders are not being charged with dangerous driving, which has a high threshold. They tend to be charged with relatively minor offences, even when their driving mistakes were caused by gross negligence. The new penalties should help to redress the balance in the patterns of charging up till now.
Against that background, I welcome the new offence of causing death by careless driving. It was introduced at Committee stage in the other place, and the penalties were reduced on Third Reading. I understand that at one point their lordships thought that they were removing entirely the possibility of imprisonment. In fact, they removed only the ability of magistrates courts to impose a prison sentence, but that reduced the effect of the provision. That flies in the face of the public demand for tougher sanctions for causing death by careless driving.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |