---

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

I take that point, and it is clear that in such cases the right offence for someone to be charged with is dangerous driving, which addresses the question of intent. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned similar cases in his constituency, and his complaint seemed primarily to be about the sentences that the courts had chosen to impose. I do not know the details of those cases, but if the complaint is the sentences being chosen, giving the courts more options will not solve the problem, bearing in mind the fact that they are not taking up the options that they already have. The Crown Prosecution Service could perhaps do with some guidance in that regard. I welcome the fact that the Bill will allow an alternative verdict to that of manslaughter in cases where such a charge is brought; that is a sensible move. We should encourage the prosecuting authorities not simply to go for the easiest charge, for which they know they will secure a conviction. If they genuinely think that the circumstances merit the higher charge of causing death by dangerous driving, they should prosecute on that, rather than going for the easier charge. That would go a long way towards dealing with the admittedly tragic cases in which the CPS should have brought a charge of dangerous driving, but chose a different charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell also touched on enforcement. Unless there are sufficient traffic policemen to enforce offences, there is little point in having them. Speeding is a case in point. The cause of accidents in rural constituencies such as mine is often not speeding per se, but driving at inappropriate speeds. In other words, even if people are driving well within the speed limit, if they are approaching a bend, or there is poor visibility or dangerous weather conditions, they could still be driving inappropriately fast for the conditions. We can deal with that problem only if sufficient traffic officers are available to catch such people and advise them, or to take other action. Regardless of how many speed cameras there are, they are suitable only for catching people exceeding the speed limit. In many cases, driving at the speed limit is very dangerous, and we need to catch such people. That is not going to happen unless we have sufficient enforcement. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) mentioned making first aid training part of the driving test. The other aspect of an early response to accidents is ambulance response times, which will never be as quick in rural areas as they are in urban areas, even when the system is working well. We have had some very slow ambulance response times, which I have taken up with the Minister’s colleagues. An initial speedy response is important, and it is worth considering how we could build first aid training into the driving test. We could also consider how we could encourage all drivers to be more skilled in that area, without making it compulsory. I, too, have found from observing the reaction of drivers as they are triggered, that vehicle-activated warning signs have been effective. The signs appear to have the desired effect, and could be made more flexible. For example, my right hon. Friend suggested that the limits could be variable on busy roads and according to the weather conditions. Such signs are often better than speed cameras, and I commend them to the Minister. I welcome the Bill, although it can be improved. I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments that I have made—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will do so—and make improvements to make it an even better Bill.