Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Peter Soulsby (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 8 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [Lords].


Road Safety Bill [Lords]

It is important to remember that the defendant admitted careless driving, and it was very clear, too, that the judge was most dissatisfied by the gap that existed between the maximum penalty that he could impose for the admitted offence of careless driving and the very high hurdle for dangerous driving, which he had been unable to establish. That gap is significant, and the Bill sets out to fill it. As I have said, Callum’s parents know that nothing can bring him back, but their campaign has been actively supported by the community in the Saffron lane area and by the Leicester Mercury. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who has some connections with Leicester, paid tribute to that paper earlier, and I do the same: it is has actively campaigned on behalf of Callum’s memory, and its headline, ““Insult to our boy’s memory””, is very much a reflection of local feeling on the issue. As is typical of the Leicester Mercury, it very much reflects the community that it serves.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c898 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Death Casualties Cameras Cycling First aid Driving under influence Large goods vehicles Motor vehicles Mobile phones Registration Schools Safety Roads Road signs and markings Speed limits Road traffic offences Safety belts Summertime Sleep apnoea Driving licences
Legislation
Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk