---

Dr. Iddon: I have cited the Haque case, which went from arrest on suspicion of manslaughter through the Crown court, where the charge of dangerous driving was dismissed, and ended recently with an acquittal in Chorley magistrates court. I have discussed that matter with the Crown Prosecution Service, which referred to the Kondeh Conteh appeal case. Kondeh Conteh was a man who was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and who got off in the Court of Appeal, where it was stated that the case did not meet the threshold for dangerous driving. The definition is difficult to interpret, and the precedent set by such cases has caused problems.

Mr. Paterson: That intervention is helpful. Perhaps we can examine the definition of dangerous driving, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, to see whether we can plug that gap. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised examples, and there is clearly a problem.

We are concerned in principle that the sentence will depend on the effect of the action, which could be capricious. As I have said, a fit young man hit at 30 mph in a town might survive because of an effective intervention—a doctor or nurse might be nearby or the ambulance might be very quick—but the same impact would kill a person in the country. In such cases, someone will go to jail and someone will not.

Ms Keeble: When a stabbing takes place, the victim might or might not die, which determines what the perpetrator is charged with. We are considering the degree of care exercised in driving and the level of culpability, which is the difference between dangerous driving and careless driving. The problem is that the gap between dangerous driving and minor traffic offences is too great.

Mr. Paterson: I am grateful for that comment, but I am not sure whether the hon. Lady has answered my point. We acknowledge the existence of a problem, which we intend to address. We should probably move on from that point, because we intend to discuss the matter in detail in Committee. If a fit young man were hit by a car in a town as a result of dangerous driving, the impact may not kill them, but if they were hit in the country, where ambulances take longer to arrive, the offence would be triggered.

Ms Keeble: Like the hon. Gentleman, I read that point in the briefing. Whether a person is killed as a result of an offence depends on a series of issues, including their level of health, and the charge is determined by that outcome, so I am not sure whether his point holds.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Lady probably wants to include serious injuries, too.
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 907
 

Ms Keeble rose—

Mr. Paterson: I will move on, because we will discuss the matter in detail in Committee. We have concerns about clause 20, which we want to discuss, but we acknowledge the existence of the problem and want to find a solution. We are not convinced that clause 20 is right, and we will table amendments that will hopefully lead to a constructive debate in Committee.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, South touched on 20 mph limits. Picking up on the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, we agree that there should be various speed limits and greater flexibility. I, too, have been impressed by the impact of self-illuminating signs that are triggered by vehicle movement, and I like the suggestion that more of those signs should be erected near schools. It is worth remembering that 70 per cent. of all accidents involving injury occur in urban areas.

Fifty per cent. of deaths and injuries on roads occur on main roads, and many of those accidents are caused by car drivers overtaking lorries and creating head-on collisions. We should like to discuss raising the maximum speed for lorries on unrestricted single carriageway roads from 40 mph to 50 mph. That would lead to serious environmental gains. Moreover, it is ridiculous that modern lorries have to grind along in a lower gear given the new braking and suspension systems. There would be a safety gain because frustrated drivers would not be provoked to overtake at inappropriate moments.

Mr. Tom Harris: Might not that increase the likelihood of accidents? Car drivers will still inevitably want to overtake, but they will be given far less time to do so because the vehicle that they are overtaking is going faster, leaving a much smaller window of opportunity.

Mr. Paterson: There is a sporting chance that the hon. Gentleman will get on to the Committee, and we can discuss this in some detail. I do not agree with him. I think that holding lorries back to 40 mph is frustrating for car drivers. The figures are pretty dramatic. As I said, 50 per cent. of deaths and injuries occur on main roads, and many of those involve head-on collisions.

We are looking to toughen up our amendment on reflective markings. That would be very effective. Forty-five per cent. of all fatalities occur at night. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred to the evidence from the University of Darmstadt that 37 per cent. of all side collisions occur because trucks were seen too late. The cost of reflective markings—about £100 to £150—is trivial compared with that of a new truck, which is worth £100,000 to £150,000.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr.   Scott) mentioned rudimentary first aid training. We are strongly in favour of introducing that in the theory part of the driving test. More than half of all road accident casualties occur before the emergency services arrive, so the actions of bystanders are vital. Research by Hussain and Redmond in 1994 showed that up to 85 per cent. of preventable pre-hospital deaths involve factors such as a blocked airway that could be avoided
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 908
 
if people at the scene knew rudimentary first aid. According to the Red Cross, a person with his airway blocked will probably take about four minutes to die. That is far too short a time for an ambulance to arrive. All that one has to do, apparently, is to tilt the person's head backwards, although I am no medic—I would not wish anyone to find me around at the time of an accident.

Drivers under the age of 29 make up more than a third of those involved in accidents, and drivers between the ages of 17 and 20 are six times more likely than a driver over 40 to be involved in a collision that causes injury. It is interesting that some of the new EU countries—Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia and Estonia—have practical first aid tests as part of the process of learning to drive. We support proposals to make a few simple changes to the theory test that would impart vital life-saving skills and be of real benefit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) made some excellent points about young drivers. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) touched on the good work that is done by the Institute of Advanced Motorists. We would like to discuss the idea of having different tiers of licence and different tests so that there is, in effect, a graduation process. It is somewhat irrational that we allow young people, who have probably taken a few driving lessons and passed their test having had experience only in towns, to be suddenly let loose on motorways, with no limit on the horsepower of the car. As the institute says, there would be real benefits in people continuing to develop their driving skills after passing the basic test. It is well worth pursuing discussions with the insurance industry to see whether that would have a financial bite. As the Secretary of State said, people might be more inclined to take it up if there is a financial gain. We would therefore like to pursue that in Committee.

We are not happy about the way in which the Bill treats training as an alternative to punishment. We believe that that is psychologically wrong. Driving should be perceived as a progression and people should be encouraged to take driving courses voluntarily. The psychology of making it an alternative to punishment is not quite right and we would like to discuss the matter further.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that, in Cheshire, the police have employed such a practice for a long time. Young drivers who experience minor incidents such as small bumps, in which nobody is hurt, and may have been prosecuted for a road traffic offence, are given the option of going on some driving awareness courses. That is a good idea.

Mr. Paterson: That is a helpful intervention. Any sort of training or driving course is a good idea. However, it should not be viewed as a punishment, but a sensible action and a progression from the basic test. It should be like getting scout badges, with the benefit of reduced insurance. However, that is the sort of detail that we could discuss further in Committee. Looking at the clock, I see that I am beginning to run out of road, but I should like to make a couple of other points.
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 909
 

The prohibition on the use of hand-held mobile phones while stationary in a traffic jam is absurd and we would like to raise that in Committee. There are safety gains to allowing people to use their phones in such circumstances. For example, a carer for an elderly person or a young child waiting to be picked up at school may need to be contacted or make contact. If the car is stationary with the hand brake on, or if it is in park, I do not understand why the phone should not be used.

Motor cyclists should be allowed to use bus lanes. I do not understand why they would interfere with their function for buses. We would like to probe that in Committee.

We are behind the Government in trying to improve road safety and we will co-operate in every way to introduce sensible and workable provisions. However, we want to improve the Bill. We will try to toughen some aspects and restore the balance in road safety regulation to ensure that ordinary people who happen to drive cars are fully engaged and committed to and co-operative in the urgent and vital task of reducing the carnage on our roads.

6.17 pm

---