---

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

As I explained earlier, the position would not change as regards someone who was driving along and was insured. The question would be whether they were driving carelessly or dangerously. Under the Bill, if someone were driving carelessly because they were not paying proper attention or doing something that reduced their attention to the road, they could be charged with causing death by careless driving. On the other hand, they could be blameless. If the person driving along was not insured and there was a fatality, then, depending on the circumstances, under the additional measure to which I referred, it might be possible to charge that person with an offence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that much depends on the circumstances of each case. We are plugging a gap because, until this Bill, hopefully, becomes law, it is not possible to charge a person with causing death by careless driving. Nor is it possible in every circumstance to get at someone who should not be on the road in the first place and whose car is involved in an accident involving a fatality. All those issues will no doubt be explored further in Committee. I have mentioned uninsured driving. Continuous registration has helped. The additional powers to which I referred earlier have helped in tracking people down and dealing with them where they have broken the law. Equally, electronic registration in the renewal of tax discs, which we introduced just last year, is helping to catch people who try to skip a month on their insurance, for example. However, the Bill also introduces a new offence of being the keeper of a vehicle, the use of which is not insured. Unless people have registered a statutory declaration and the thing is off the road, there will be an offence of keeping the car where it is not insured. The Bill increases penalties for careless and inconsiderate driving. The fine doubles to £5,000. As I said, clause 30 defines careless and inconsiderate driving for the first time. There is already a statutory definition of dangerous driving. For using a hand-held mobile phone while driving and for failing to have proper control of a vehicle, a mandatory endorsement is introduced. For repeat offences of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, there is mandatory disqualification if the offence is repeated within three years. That is a minimum of six months’ disqualification. Excessive speed contributes to just over a third of fatalities—that means about 1,000 deaths every year—as well as being a factor in another 40,000 injuries. Several police forces now offer ““low-end speeders”” the option of going on speed awareness courses, and that will be in the Bill as a disposal available to the courts. The Association of Chief Police Officers is putting in place a national programme of awareness courses, which, of course, we welcome. The greatest reduction in such casualties would come from reducing speed across the board, and that is where speed cameras come in. I believe that, on any view one cares to take, speed cameras are saving lives and reducing speed. However, as I said in 2004—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) raised the point—we need to do more to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. A graduated system of penalties from two to six points, rather than the present system, would ensure that a distinction was made between someone who was just over the limit and someone who was driving way over the limit. I said last time—the Bill provides for this—that the Government would undertake consultation. Under the Bill, we have to consult, and people will be able to respond. I think I am right in saying that, in the consultation on the principle of the measure in 2004–05, just over half of respondents said they were in favour of graduated penalties. Obviously, when we consult fully, we will see what people have to say. After that consultation, there will be proposals. A measure will come before the House, and it will be subject to the usual affirmative procedure.