---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am no lawyer, but that is exactly the point—they have not deliberately driven through a red light, which would be dangerous driving; they carelessly drove through a red light. The Crown Prosecution Service identifies that in its list of careless driving offences. It is the very illustration that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, put forward. If careless driving, defined in those terms and subject to a charge of careless driving, results in a death, it is reasonable that we should look at the question of custodial sentences. That is the basis of the principle. I hear the arguments for different levels with regard to the custodial sentence that should be imposed. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked whether non-custodial sentences were available only in conjunction with custodial ones. When non-custodial sentences, where a custodial penalty is not being imposed, are available the test that the judge would apply is whether the conduct of the convicted was serious enough; he would then make the judgment with regard to the sentence. That particular concept was introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, argued that his objection to the Government’s proposals was the possibility of an automatic prison sentence, which would be abhorrent. I stress—and this is where I hope I am at one with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell—that nothing in the Government’s proposals says that it is automatic. The appropriate punishment is of course for the court to decide; we are talking about the availability of the range of sentences. We had a very long debate on Report on this issue; we had conflict on the issue of principle, and met as best as we could in a very constructive spirit to discuss these issues. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, has indicated that he does not accept the Government’s position; Ministers at that meeting indicated why we intend to stand by the principles identified in Clause 20; so I hope that it will be recognised that we are quite clear about the concept expressed in the Bill. I accept the chiding from the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that the Government’s amendment was introduced later on in the passage of the Bill than we should otherwise have wished—although it was introduced for a very full debate on Report. We have had opportunities for further informal discussion since then, and we have had a very good debate today. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will feel that he has expressed his case with his usual clarity and forcefulness and will agree to withdraw his amendment.