Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hanham (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 22 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].
Road Safety Bill [HL]
My Lords, this has been one of the most interesting debates that I have heard in this House for a very long time. It has been enormously thoughtful. I hope that the Minister will not push ahead with the amendment today, but provide an opportunity to discuss it further. As has already been said, this is a very late stage in the Bill at which to table an amendment which turns out to be of some magnitude. By the sound of it, some pretty hasty consultation has taken place on the matter externally. This House, by and large, was not expecting it until it saw it in on the Marshalled List. There has not been quite enough time to put it together and to allow us to come to sensible conclusions about it. All the points have been extremely well made. The need for a balance between a court having to consider the absolutely disastrous effect on a family of one of its members being killed and the fact that the person who caused it had no intention of doing so has been well stressed. A balance has to be struck in deciding whether that careless moment is of such a magnitude that it should result in a possibility of a custodial sentence, because it would be the last weapon in the armoury of a court. It is one of the options that a court could consider. But I am mindful of the fact that a court is required to decide whether its sentence should be a punishment and, in this case, for whom. Should it be punishment on behalf of the victim’s family? Should it be punishment for the person who has caused whatever injuries are suffered? Should it be retribution for the common good, to enable people to see that a sentence is a retribution for what has happened and a deterrent? In all those three respects, there are some considerable difficulties with the possibility of a custodial sentence. I cannot add anything more to this debate. We on this side of the House want to consider further what the Minister is putting forward. If he intends to proceed with the amendment, I can promise that it will be reviewed at Third Reading by way of further amendment. If the Minister is prepared not to proceed with the amendment today, I think that a number of noble Lords will be very happy to discuss it before it reappears. As Amendment No. 19 stands, it seems to be too controversial. Therefore, I cannot offer the Minister my support on it today.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 675 c1559-60
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Death Convictions Dangerous driving Cameras Disqualification Exemptions Prison sentences Motorways Safety Roads Road signs and markings Speed limits
- Legislation
- Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:10:43 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_278394
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_278394
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_278394