Proceeding contribution from Earl Attlee (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 10 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].
Road Safety Bill [HL]
My Lords, I support my noble friend. I was a little disappointed not to be invited to any ministerial meeting after Report. I am not sure why that was; perhaps I misheard what the Minister said on Report. I do not even agree that a 12-month automatic disqualification for a momentary lapse is appropriate. The motorist could have been driving absolutely perfectly—faultlessly—until he made one stupid but fatal error. Can that really be right? I remind your Lordships that nowhere outside Her Majesty’s Armed Forces can a momentary lapse cause a fatal accident without some underlying health and safety failing. Any motorist charged with the new offence in Clause 20 would fight like hell rather than say, ““I am very sorry. I fouled up. I will plead guilty to the charge of careless driving””. Why? Because of the stigma for a momentary lapse, because of the potential penalties, especially prison and the 12-month automatic ban, which could well lead to a loss of job—again, for one momentary lapse. Also, there is possible disappointment for relatives if a jury does not convict because it feels, ““There, but for the grace of God, go I””—exactly the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. Or the jury may accept counsel’s skilful argument that another party was responsible. If the motorist emerged from a side road and failed to see a motorcyclist, counsel could argue, ““It was not my client’s fault. The motorcycle was going too fast””. The jury will struggle to convict in those circumstances in the face of a very compelling argument from counsel. Another difficulty that I raised on Report is that an affluent motorist could be heavily fined and disqualified for 12 months, which would be a heavy penalty, but an out-of-work teenage yob may not have a valid licence in the first place, so the disqualification will not worry him. He may not have any money, so he cannot be heavily fined. The only option left is a prison sentence—I hope that the Minister will respond to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, about a community sanction. Clause 20 is fatally flawed, will not work and is extremely inadvisable. Your Lordships may think that its target may be the classic teenage yob, but my fear is that it will also unfairly hurt a breadwinner or a housewife who is taking her children to school.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 677 c82
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Death Accidents Cars Dangerous driving Cycling Fixed penalties Disqualification Driving under influence Large goods vehicles Driving instruction Helmets Electric vehicles Roads Safety Road traffic offences Speed limits
- Legislation
- Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-04-01 11:15:08 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289760
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289760
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289760