---

Mr. Bone: The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Does she accept that even with the Lords amendment, the new offence of causing death by careless driving will reach the statute book and in most cases a prison sentence would be available to the judge if the person were found guilty?

Ms Keeble: The offence would be on the statute book, but the penalties would be weaker and the magistrates courts would not have the option of imprisoning offenders. The possibility of community sentencing would also be lost. Outside organisations are concerned about the impact that that would have.

There is a further point. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell talked tough about dangerous driving and bad drivers, but resiled from that when it came to some of the details. I hope that he will reconsider. If we tell people that they must pay more careful attention to their driving, and if we take the bold step, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, of saying that they will otherwise go to prison, there is a need for consistency and care in the message that we send out and in what we tell drivers to do. If we blow hot and cold, people are left not knowing where they stand. That also dilutes the effectiveness of a Bill that deals with the range of driving behaviour, introducing more penalties and sending out robust messages about what people ought to be doing when they are in cars.

Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Lady not accept, though, that we in the House have a duty not simply to send messages, but to make good law?

Ms Keeble: I entirely agree. The courts should have at their disposal a proper range of offences and penalties. There is clear consensus among everybody except the lawyers that there is a major gap between imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving and the minor traffic offences—except, of course, in the case of drink driving. There is a great gap in the middle as regards what the courts can do. It is important that they have available a range of offences and penalties—what the courts do is down to them—that properly recognise the
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 855
 
different types of accident and levels of culpability, and that delivers to the public a sense that justice will be done if their loved ones are involved in an accident.

Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): If the law was changed as the hon. Lady hopes and the court had the power to impose tough sentences in cases of careless driving, the expectation would be set that that would happen. If, having considered all the circumstances, the court decided that what happened was a momentary lapse and did not merit a prison sentence, is there not a danger that victims would have an even greater sense of injustice if the penalties available were not used by the court?

Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. When there is an accident, it is often difficult for people to accept that no one was to blame. If a relative is killed, they might never be satisfied with what happens afterwards and might always feel that no price is high enough to pay for the death of their relative. People must be supported through that process, by agencies such as Victim Support. That is a different matter from the proper range of penalties that should be available to the courts, that fill the credibility gap and that meet the public's sense of justice.

The courts must receive proper guidance about the powers that they are to be given. I would not dare to interpret the case cited by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell about a driver avoiding an animal and hitting a cyclist instead. There must be proper guidance about what constitutes culpable carelessness. Everybody who has driven has had momentary lapses. The question is when that is culpable and when it is a case of driving without the due regard and attention expected of a careful, competent and considerate driver. All that can be dealt with in guidance.

Earlier, I raised the issue of driving under the influence of drugs. It is acknowledged that there are problems in testing for that. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department, in their work with the Home Office, to ensure that progress is made in developing a scientific test that can be conducted at the roadside. I understand from the Library notes that the roadside tests include walking along a straight line, touching the tip of one's nose and standing on one leg. To people who have seen the consequences of an accident resulting from someone driving under the influence of drugs, citing such evidence in court seems a less than convincing argument or test.

Dr. Ladyman: I want to make sure that my hon. Friend realises that that test is used only to indicate to a police officer that somebody might be under the influence of drugs. The person will be taken back to a police station, where they will be tested properly and convincing evidence produced.

Ms Keeble: I understand that, but I hope that we might develop, even as a rule of thumb at the roadside, an approach that is more convincing than such tests, which are subjective, as I think is commonly recognised, and are inadequate given the problems of drug taking that exist in society, particularly among younger people.

I strongly support the Bill. I hope that we can get it through the Committee stage and on to the statute book very quickly. I also hope that the Opposition will change
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 856
 
their mind on death caused by careless driving. For one thing, some of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will be placed in some difficulties, after they have campaigned very strongly for a different approach. I think that the Bill will be warmly welcomed by people outside this place, and it will contribute to real improvements in road safety.

2.31 pm

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): Perhaps not surprisingly, I support many of the measures in the Bill, as well as the Government's objectives of reducing deaths and serious injuries on the road by 40 per cent. by 2010, and by 50 per cent. among children.

Good progress has been made on this issue, which we welcome, but as the Secretary of State said, nine people still die every day on our roads, and we need to ensure that the issue is given necessary priority. I tabled some parliamentary questions today to see how many people are working on road safety in comparison with rail or aviation safety, to find out how many resources are put into these different areas and whether we are giving the right priority to this important issue.

There are some areas in which progress is not as speedy as in others. On teenagers, for instance, and particularly cyclists and pedestrians in the 12 to 15-year-old group, there are clearly problems. I welcome the fact that some specific advertising campaigns are being run to try to address that group. As hon. Members will know, accident statistics for motor cyclists have risen since 1997. More focus is needed on that area, as well as on deaths involving drink-driving, which have increased by 2 per cent. since 2002. Progress is being made, but there are areas in which we are slipping back or on which more focus is needed.

The Government cannot take action soon enough on hand-held mobile phones. I am sure that all hon. Members will have witnessed improper use, whether by a lorry driver who uses his mobile phone while negotiating a narrow road or by someone driving a car with their phone jammed to their ear by their shoulder, while they steer with their free hand if we are lucky, or with their knees if we are unlucky. The message that using a hand-held mobile phone is dangerous—more dangerous, in fact, than drink-driving—has not got through. I hope that the measures before us will ensure that that message hits home.

The Bill must also focus on speed, on which there is some agreement between the parties, but also some disagreement. I was interested that the official Opposition spokesman was unable to say whether the Conservative party would call for the speed limit to be increased to 80 mph. We have on record, however, the fact that in June 2005, the Conservative spokesman in the House of Lords clearly called for an 80 mph limit to be considered. We will await with interest the Conservative transport policy, which I have been told will be launched by the end of this year, and in which we will perhaps see the detail of the policy. If the proposal is to increase the speed limit to 80 mph, I shall be interested to see how the environmental aspects will be addressed.

The Secretary of State has explained the reasons why he thinks that it is appropriate for a reduced number of points to be available to people who exceed the speed
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 857
 
limit by only a "relatively" small amount. I am very worried about the message that that sends out. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that there was a need for consistency in Government policy. I am not convinced that saying to people, "Well, if you exceed the speed limit by only a small amount, the number of points that you get will be lower than those given to someone who exceeds it by a greater amount" is a consistent message. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that pedestrians or cyclists who are hit by drivers travelling at 35 mph as opposed to 30 mph are twice as likely to be killed. Sending out any message suggesting that people can get away with breaking the limit by a small amount and that that is not a problem will be a matter of significant concern.

---