| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we should target certain age groups with certain messages. The increasing prevalence of accidents among born-again bikers is often overlooked. They acquire very fast machines in middle age, and late middle age. A road in my constituency, between Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Rempstone, is a death trap. The number of accidents there is significant. Should we not target groups of that kind as well?
Mr. Harper: My point was not exclusive, but the statistics show a notable prevalence of casualties and convictions for dangerous driving among younger people. In my constituency last year, a significant number of such drivers were young. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, however. All drivers need to think about the way in which they conduct themselves on the road. At many of our meetings following road accidents, many older and more experienced drivers were frank about the fact that they too might not have the right attitude to driving. They may have as much to learn as some younger drivers. Nevertheless, there is unmistakable evidence that young people account for a significant percentage of road accidents.
The pass plus course is one of the training opportunities for drivers, particularly new drivers. I have tabled some questions on that matter to the Minister, and raised it at oral questions. One of the things that I am thinking about is how to arrange things so that young drivers, in particular, see the benefit of undertaking such training. One of the blocks is that pass plus carries a financial cost. Sometimes, if a younger driver has just paid for driving lessons and is having to
8 Mar 2006 : Column 894
fund a car, taking other training is quite expensive. There is one obvious method to make that more affordable—providing young people with significant discounts on car insurance, which is a significant cost, as a result of having done pass plus or other training.
Many insurance companies offer discounts for pass plus, some of which can be quite significant—but that is not always the case. I have spoken to a number of young people in my constituency who have taken pass plus or other training courses. For example, Sarah Rudge, a 19-year-old from Mile End, and Jonathan Jones, an 18-year-old from Pope's Hill, recently took a Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents course. I presented them with their certificates in my constituency office. I talked to them about what happened. They struggled to get improved insurance quotes, even though they had taken some training and demonstrated that they were careful drivers and approached driving with the right attitude.
If it is not possible for the Government to fund pass plus for younger drivers, perhaps they can have talks with the insurance industry to look at the evidence from drivers who have taken extra training to see whether it has had a significant effect on the safety of their driving. If it has, perhaps they could try to get the insurance industry to assess the risk properly when they offer quotes. That seems a good way to encourage increased take-up.
The insurance companies have an incentive to encourage safer driving, particularly with younger drivers. If people have accidents in which they are seriously injured, which stops them from being able to work and means that they need significant support throughout their life, it can be incredibly expensive. I have been given one example of a 22-year-old driver who attempted to overtake at high speed and had a serious accident. Considering the medical costs, the damages for injury, the modifications to his housing, the fact that he was not going to be able to work for the rest of his life, and the fact that his previous job had been modestly paid, the insurance company was looking at a total claim of £3 million. That may be exceptional, but in view of some of those factors, it is easy to see that the financial arrangements could be made to work in the right direction and encourage young people to become better trained and better qualified, and to approach driving with the right attitude. I urge the Minister to do that in conjunction with the insurance industry.
I did not intend to say anything about the proposal to tighten the penalties for causing death by careless driving, but one remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) was worth elaborating on—his remark about what happens to drivers if they swerve to avoid an animal and cause a road accident and a death. In certain parts of my constituency, we have a significant deer population. The main roads through the forest are not fenced. A person can be driving perfectly safely and reduce their speed because they know deer are about—but deer, unlike some other animals, can give no warning. They can come out straight in front of the driver. They are of a significant size. The driver reacts. There is no time to think—it has happened to me; fortunately, there were no other vehicles in the vicinity. The driver swerves to avoid the animal and crosses to the other side of the road. At a different time, they could have caused a
8 Mar 2006 : Column 895
serious road accident, although there would have been no intention to do so. The person would not have been driving dangerously. I would not want people in that situation to be criminalised and put in prison.
Dr. Ladyman: I should make it absolutely clear that the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is describing would not generate a charge of causing death by careless driving, because such behaviour simply is not careless. Let us not create constructs that lead us to criticise this legislation for the wrong reasons.
Mr. Harper: I thank the Minister for that intervention, and I do not want to make too much of the issue. Some Members have focused today on what happens as a result of an accident, but however appalling such results are for the families concerned, in making law and setting penalties we have to consider the motivation and behaviour of the driver, regardless of the consequences.
Mrs. James: Like many Members present today, I have several high-profile cases in my constituency involving young people who lost their lives. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I cannot let it pass. In the past year, three young people—Lesley-Ann Morgan, her fiancé and a friend—lost their lives in a very serious crash in my constituency when returning from a happy family evening. The wedding of Lesley-Ann and her fiancé had been soon to take place; now they are buried next to each other. Although their families have received a lot of support, they remain greatly concerned about the sentence handed out. The two young men in question, who were racing at speeds in excess of 70 mph in a 30 mph zone, could have been sentenced to 22 years imprisonment. We should never think that the families' feelings should not take precedence.
Mr. Harper: I take that point, and it is clear that in such cases the right offence for someone to be charged with is dangerous driving, which addresses the question of intent. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned similar cases in his constituency, and his complaint seemed primarily to be about the sentences that the courts had chosen to impose. I do not know the details of those cases, but if the complaint is the sentences being chosen, giving the courts more options will not solve the problem, bearing in mind the fact that they are not taking up the options that they already have. The Crown Prosecution Service could perhaps do with some guidance in that regard.
I welcome the fact that the Bill will allow an alternative verdict to that of manslaughter in cases where such a charge is brought; that is a sensible move. We should encourage the prosecuting authorities not simply to go for the easiest charge, for which they know they will secure a conviction. If they genuinely think that the circumstances merit the higher charge of causing death by dangerous driving, they should prosecute on that, rather than going for the easier charge. That would go a long way towards dealing with the admittedly tragic cases in which the CPS should have brought a charge of dangerous driving, but chose a different charge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell also touched on enforcement. Unless there are sufficient traffic policemen to enforce offences, there is little point
8 Mar 2006 : Column 896
in having them. Speeding is a case in point. The cause of accidents in rural constituencies such as mine is often not speeding per se, but driving at inappropriate speeds. In other words, even if people are driving well within the speed limit, if they are approaching a bend, or there is poor visibility or dangerous weather conditions, they could still be driving inappropriately fast for the conditions. We can deal with that problem only if sufficient traffic officers are available to catch such people and advise them, or to take other action. Regardless of how many speed cameras there are, they are suitable only for catching people exceeding the speed limit. In many cases, driving at the speed limit is very dangerous, and we need to catch such people. That is not going to happen unless we have sufficient enforcement.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) mentioned making first aid training part of the driving test. The other aspect of an early response to accidents is ambulance response times, which will never be as quick in rural areas as they are in urban areas, even when the system is working well. We have had some very slow ambulance response times, which I have taken up with the Minister's colleagues. An initial speedy response is important, and it is worth considering how we could build first aid training into the driving test. We could also consider how we could encourage all drivers to be more skilled in that area, without making it compulsory.
I, too, have found from observing the reaction of drivers as they are triggered, that vehicle-activated warning signs have been effective. The signs appear to have the desired effect and could be made more flexible. For example, my right hon. Friend suggested that the limits could be variable on busy roads and according to the weather conditions. Such signs are often better than speed cameras, and I commend them to the Minister.
I welcome the Bill, although it can be improved. I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments that I have made—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will do so—and make improvements to make it an even better Bill.
5.27 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |