---

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), who spoke on the very subject that I want to talk about. After five hours of debate, I am glad that we have returned to that important issue. I also very much welcome the agreement between Front-Bench spokesman to move forward so that we find the right law to deal with the problem. The Government should be congratulated on introducing the Bill, but it needs improvement. I want to talk specifically about what has become known in my constituency as Alexine’s law. Alexine’s parents and family have taken a close interest in today’s proceedings. There is a huge gap in the law between careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving. Let me spell it out: as the law stands, if someone pleads guilty to careless driving, the maximum punishment is a £2,500 fine and discretionary disqualification; the maximum punishment on conviction of causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine and mandatory disqualification. One problem with the current law is that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are likely to accept a plea of guilty for the offence of careless driving to be sure of a conviction—the very point that the hon. Gentleman made. In many of those cases, they should push for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. However, that means that more evidence has to be gathered and more work done, and there is a chance that the defendant will be found not guilty. That is why we absolutely need something in between. It is not acceptable for someone to take another’s life, even if unintentionally, then plead guilty to careless driving in the knowledge that they will escape with just a fine. Off the record, the police say that the best way to murder someone is with a car, as the penalties are not very high, even if the perpetrator is caught. Such a statement may appear ludicrous in the light of the picture that I have painted but, sadly, it is the truth. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for the help that she has provided on the issue of causing death by dangerous driving. She has provided me with informative advice through letters and meetings, and I am grateful. I pay tribute, too, to Brigitte Chaudhry of RoadPeace who, with her colleagues, has worked hard to highlight the gap in the law. As secretary of the associate parliamentary group for justice for road traffic victims I have met and listened to the victims’ families. I have been told of extremely sad and tragic cases in which young people have been killed, yet their killers have escaped with just a small fine because it is easier for the courts to prosecute someone who pleads guilty to careless driving than find the evidence to prosecute someone for causing death by dangerous driving. There are obvious budgetary pressures on the Crown Prosecution Service as well. I became aware of the huge gap between careless driving and the offence of causing death by dangerous driving when my predecessor, together with our excellent local newspaper, The Evening Telegraph, campaigned for a new law and a new offence of causing death by careless driving. On 7 June 2004, 17-year-old Alexine Melnik was tragically killed in a road traffic accident. Alexine, whose parents live in Rushden in my constituency, had her whole life to look forward to, but it was cut short. The person driving the car that caused the crash pleaded guilty to careless driving. He was given a £500 fine and he kept his licence; 17-year-old Alexine lost her life. Alexine was returning from Great Yarmouth as a passenger in a car travelling on an A road on a hot, sunny afternoon. Her car was hit from behind—both cars were travelling at a speed of about 50 mph—and was knocked into the oncoming traffic. She lost her life, but the driver who caused the crash could not remember what had happened. He had been up since 4.30 am, and many people would conclude that he had fallen asleep at the wheel. There is clearly a case for stronger prosecution in such cases. It is not acceptable for lawyers in the House to say that there are sufficient laws in place, as those laws are not used. There is a gap, and we need to fill it. Alexine’s family has been campaigning since her death for a change in the law so that a new offence of causing death by careless driving that attracts a custodial sentence can be introduced. As I said, the campaign is known locally as Alexine’s law in remembrance of Alexine Melnik. If that law is introduced, although it will not bring her back, it will certainly mean that she did not die in vain. Mr. and Mrs. Peter Melnik and their family have campaigned tirelessly to raise the issue, and last March Mr. Melnik gave evidence when the previous Road Safety Bill was in Committee. The dedicated campaigning of the Melnik family and other families across the country who have been sadly affected by the gap in the law has made a genuine difference. It is their hard work, borne out of the tragedies that they have suffered, that has highlighted the issue to the Government and to Parliament. No one who heard Mr. Melnik’s evidence could fail to be impressed by his integrity and determination to seek justice for families who have lost loved ones as a result of other people’s bad driving. One can only marvel at the courage that Mr. Melnik and his family have shown. As a result of lobbying by road safety groups and affected families, the Home Office carried out a consultation exercise entitled ““Review of Road Traffic Offences Involving Bad Driving””. I believe that it is right that the views of the public are sought before elected representatives make decisions. In fact, I have been running a campaign called ““Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden”” since 2001. I felt that politicians of all parties had become a little arrogant and out of touch, and that they were happier to preach to people than to listen to them. My campaign seeks the views of local people, groups and organisations, and then campaigns for change on their behalf. As part of the campaign, I contacted many people to make them aware of the Home Office’s consultation, and urged them to submit responses in favour of the creation of a new offence of causing death by careless driving. The response was huge, with people from all political parties supporting a change in the law. In my response to the consultation, I stated that I felt it was imperative that the new offence of causing death by careless driving needed to be created. I also said that people so convicted should face heftier punishment, which should include a prison sentence. There are two reasons for that, and the first is that a tougher penalty will act as a deterrent. As Mr. Melnick said:"““We have a duty of care to others when we take to the wheel of a care. We cannot wash our hands of that responsibility when things go wrong and the outcome doesn’t suit. If we are put through the pain and anguish of a proper and intensive investigation in order to establish . . . an understanding of what happened, I contend most people would consider it to be a minor inconvenience when compared to the trauma and finality of death.""We are a civilised society and one of the cornerstones of it is the value and respect for human life. Just because we drive a car doesn’t absolve us of the responsibility to uphold that value.””" Secondly, the new penalty will give the victim’s family a sense of justice. Although a life cannot be brought back, a small fine imposed by the courts is no justice for a family who have lost a love one because of bad driving. I was pleased when the Minister of State intervened earlier to make it clear that, with this Bill, we are talking about bad driving, not about people who suffer a lapse of concentration or who swerve to avoid a deer in the road. They will not be prosecuted, but at the moment those who drive badly get away almost scot-free. I have raised this issue on many occasions in Parliament. In my maiden speech, I stated that I would do all in my power to bridge the existing gap in the law. I have addressed two oral questions to the Prime Minister, and several written questions to the Home Secretary. I was very pleased that, as a result of the Home Office consultation and the pressure brought to bear by MPs and the public, including Mr. Melnik, the Government introduced a new offence of causing death by careless driving in the Road Safety Bill. The provisions of the new law would have given the courts the option of handing down a custodial sentence of up to five years for someone found guilty of causing death by careless driving. That was a major step forward in closing the gap between the offences and the punishments of careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving. There is well documented opposition to the heftier punishments associated with the new offence. Members of the legal profession have concerns about a custodial sentence because of the issue of intent. There are also concerns that a custodial sentence could be given when a person has committed an unintentional act rather than a deliberate one. Some people say that no one gets into a car with the intention of killing someone, but I believe that the courts should be allowed to decide whether to dole out the maximum penalty on conviction. It may be that, in most cases, a prison sentence of five years is not appropriate, but we need to give the courts the option of deciding whether it is. They need the widest discretion, after hearing all the facts and evidence. We are always hearing from the judiciary that the Government dictate what they can and cannot do, but this Bill gives us an opportunity to give the courts the option of different punishments. When the House of Lords considered the Bill, it voted against a custodial sentence being handed out in a magistrates court, but the vote was very close. It was still in favour of the option of a custodial sentence if someone was convicted in a Crown court. I reiterate my belief that we should give both courts the option of different punishments. That includes a custodial sentence to be handed out on conviction. I urge the Government to adopt the right course of action and reverse the decision made in the House of Lords. I believe that the Secretary of State gave that assurance earlier. I would like the new offence of causing death by careless driving and the maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment to be part of the Bill. My main fear is that, if the Bill is left as it stands, people will plead guilty to careless driving in the hope that their case will be heard in a magistrates court, where there is no chance that they will receive a custodial sentence. That would still result in a weakening of the law because defendants would know that if they pleaded guilty to careless driving, they could get off with a punishment that was much less severe than the one that they deserved. Given the tragic and sad stories that I have heard as secretary of the all-party group on road traffic victims, that is just not acceptable. I urge the House to give the courts—both Crown and magistrates—the opportunity to impose a custodial sentence following a conviction for careless driving when a death has occurred. I congratulate the Government on listening to the concerns of victims of road accidents and the House of Lords on introducing the new offence of causing death by careless driving. The new law needs to be considered in detail in Committee. It is very encouraging that Parliament is working as it should. Both sides have concerns, but want to move things forward. I hope that Alexine’s law passes on to the statute book as quickly as possible.