Christina Rees I beg to move, That this House has considered
e-petition 548682, relating to police powers to suspend driving
licences. It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship Mr Hosie. As a member of the Petitions Committee, it
is an honour to open the debate. The e-petition is about Tom’s law
and was created by Christina Worsfold, Tom McConnachie’s partner.
The petition closed on 25 March 2021 with 104,868 signatures. It
states: “We...Request free trial
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 548682, relating to
police powers to suspend driving licences.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship Mr
Hosie. As a member of the Petitions Committee, it is an honour to
open the debate. The e-petition is about Tom’s law and was
created by Christina Worsfold, Tom McConnachie’s partner. The
petition closed on 25 March 2021 with 104,868 signatures. It
states:
“We want police officers to be able to provide a suspension
notice from the moment an offender is caught drink, drug or
dangerous driving until they appear in court. It would then be
for the Judge to decide whether a ban continues or they are able
to continue to drive again… With Tom's Law we want police
officers to be able to issue a suspension notice to an offender
when arrested at the Road side to stop them from driving until
they attend court to protect other road users.”
I met Christina and Charlotte McConnachie, Tom’s mother, who told
me of the absolutely tragic circumstances of Tom’s death.,
Charlotte, Christina and Christina’s mother, Sandra, are in the
Public Gallery this evening. Christina and Charlotte told me that
at 3 am on 24 February 2019, Tom, aged 34, was killed in a
hit-and-run incident on Budshead Road in Plymouth, Devon, by a
drink driver who left Tom fatally injured in the road. The driver
continued his journey to Okehampton, approximately 53 miles away,
where he set fire to the vehicle to destroy the evidence.
Tom was returning from a night out with friends to celebrate the
forthcoming wedding in August 2019 of one of the friends, at
which Tom was to be a groomsman. Tom had taken a taxi home in the
early hours of the morning and was hit by Lewis Seamen, who was
driving a black Kia Rio car, which he had borrowed from a friend
in order to pick up this friend’s partner. The taxi driver said
that he helped Tom—who he described as “happy drunk”—out of his
taxi and shook hands with him. When he got back in his car, he
saw Tom walking along the nearby pavement. He then saw Tom
standing in the middle of the road with his arms raised high.
That is when he saw a black car hit Tom. The taxi driver got out
of his car to help Tom and called 999.
A witness who was out running along Budshead Road said that he
saw a man talking to a taxi driver before the taxi started to
pull away. Then, a car travelling at around 30 mph with high revs
came from behind the runner and hit the man, who was knocked 10
or 12 feet down the road. The runner stopped to help the injured
man. The police officer who gave evidence at the inquest into
Tom’s death, which was held on 11 February 2021, said that the
police reconstruction of the fatal collision showed that the car
that hit Tom was travelling at at least 29 mph and that the
driver, Mr Seaman, may have been using a mobile phone, although
the police officer could not confirm or validate this.
Tom was taken to Derriford Hospital, where tragically he died
from serious head injuries shortly after being admitted. Tom was
much loved in his community. He was an accomplished footballer
and a Liverpool football club supporter. Everyone who had the
privilege to meet Tom soon became friends with him.
On 6 January 2020, Mr Seaman pleaded guilty to drink-driving,
failing to stop, driving without insurance and perverting the
course of justice after a collision, but not guilty to failing to
report, because he attended a police station at about 11 am on 24
February 2019, approximately seven hours after Tom had been hit.
Mr Seaman was not charged with causing death by dangerous driving
or careless driving. In his defence, Mr Seaman said that he had
drunk three cans of lager and two single whiskies at about 9 pm
on 23 February. He thought he was fit to drive in the early hours
of 24 February. Mr Seaman claimed that his view of the road was
hampered by fog, but other witnesses at the scene who provided
statements that were read out at Tom’s inquest said that the view
was clear.
On 31 January 2020, in Plymouth Crown court, Mr Seaman was
sentenced by Judge Paul Darlow to 10 months’ imprisonment and a
driving ban of three years and five months, with an extended
retest condition. The court heard that a doctor had concluded
that the level of alcohol in Seaman’s system
“would have been such that it would have impaired his ability to
safely drive”,
but added:
“It cannot be said that it (the level of alcohol) contributed to
Mr McConnachie’s death.”
Judge Darlow said:
“I can tell you straight off that if there was a suggestion on
any sensible and fair basis upon which it could be said the
amount of alcohol had contributed in any way, the outcome would
have been entirely different.”
He said to Mr Seaman:
“The surest thing about this case is that you will have to live
with the consequences of your actions and that is something that
will not go away when you have served your prison sentence.”
Mr Seaman should have served half the sentence. In fact, however,
he only served three months and three weeks. Tom’s family believe
that Tom’s life was worth so much more than 10 months, so much
more than five months. and so much more than three months and
three weeks. Tom’s family appealed against the 10-month sentence
under the Government’s unduly lenient sentence scheme, but a
single judge sitting in chambers decided that there were no new
grounds to put the case forward to the Court of Appeal to
reconsider the sentence.
Tom’s family found it extremely distressing and concerning that
the offender was allowed to continue to drive from 24 February
2019 until he was eventually banned by a judge at the Crown court
hearing 11 months later. They are asking for police to be given
powers to suspend a driver’s licence when the suspect provides a
positive drink or drugs test over the legal limit until that
suspect attends court, when the judge can decide whether the
driving ban will continue.
Tom’s family told me that it was disclosed at the Crown court
hearing that Mr Seaman had previous drink-driving offences. He
had been banned for 18 months, which was subsequently reduced to
10 months after he completed a driver awareness course. Tom’s
family believe that Mr Seaman had not learned from his previous
driving ban and that being able to drive is not a human right,
but a privilege. If someone abuses that privilege, it should be
taken away from day one.
Tom’s family told me that many families in the same situation,
where an offender has been allowed to drive while an
investigation is ongoing, have pledged their support. They have
also been contacted by police officers from across the UK who
support Tom’s law because of the need to protect the public and
save lives. Tom’s family want laws regarding driving offences to
be toughened, and they want zero tolerance. They have worked
closely with the Saltern family, who are campaigning for Ryan’s
law. I had the privilege to open the debate on Ryan’s law, on
behalf of the Petitions Committee, in this Chamber on 15 November
2021.
Tom’s family want to thank all the people who tried to help Tom:
the taxi driver, the runner who gave Tom CPR at the scene, the
police, the paramedics, and the staff at Derriford Hospital. They
extend their sincere gratitude to SCARD, the Support and Care
After Road Death and Injury charity.
The Department for Transport produced a UK Government response to
the petition on 11 February 2021. It stated that,
“Turning to the suggestion that in certain circumstances a
driving ban should be imposed pending investigation and trial,
under the Bail Act 1976, the police can impose bail conditions
for particular purposes, one of which is to ensure there is no
further offence committed while on bail. A driving ban as a
condition of police bail may be appropriate for some cases.
Decisions on when to use these powers are operational matters for
the police, and the rights of a defendant, not yet convicted, and
the potential benefits to public safety from reducing the risk of
further offences have to be balanced.”
I will be grateful if the Minister answers some questions about
the current law, and about statistics concerning pre-charge bail
and released under investigation—known as RUI. How many alleged
suspects have been released on pre-charge bail from all police
forces since 2017 for the following periods: up to 28 days; 29
days to three months; three months to six months; six months to
12 months; and over 12 months? How many alleged suspects,
released on pre-charge bail for the periods I referred to, have
had a driving ban imposed as a condition of that bail? How many
alleged suspects have been released on RUI for the periods I
referred to? Has RUI been successful in its aim of reducing the
number of alleged suspects being released repeatedly on bail? Has
RUI been overused by overstretched police forces so that complex
cases are shelved because simpler cases have a better prospect of
conviction, with the unintended consequence that alleged victims
and suspects do not receive regular case updates, and so are left
in limbo for months or years?
I hope the Minister has listened this evening to the requests of
the petitioner. Will she consider introducing the power for
police to immediately suspend a suspect’s driving licence in the
circumstances set out in Tom’s law? Finally, will she meet
Christina and Tom’s family to discuss the matter further? Tom’s
family are still seeking justice.
4.44pm
It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I
pay tribute to the hon. Member for Neath () for her clear précis of
the case and her clear, direct questions to the Minister, which I
want to add to. I will not speak for long, but I want to pick at
a couple of key issues in this case that the family want to
understand, as would I and any ordinary citizen who sees such a
tragedy and the response from law enforcement, the law of the
land or, indeed, Parliament to that loss.
We have heard about Tom and what a lovely man he was. I pay
tribute to Christina, his partner, and Charlotte, his mother, who
have campaigned long and hard in the two years since Tom’s death.
I also pay tribute to the police and emergency workers involved
that night and particularly to Jason Mullard, a police liaison
officer for the family who has done an exceptional job.
There are a couple of key points that I want the Minister to
explain. Although she might not be able to answer our questions
this afternoon—I accept this broaches issues for different
Departments, such as the Home Office, Justice and so on—I want to
get these answers from Government. If you commit an offence with
a firearm—unfortunately we had one of those in Plymouth this year
as well—or are involved in a domestic abuse incident, orders can
be put in place to preclude contact between the protagonists in
the case. If you drive without insurance, your car can be seized,
but it seems that if you commit an offence such as the one that
we are talking about today, you can be taken in for the night,
sober up and get everything come out of your system, then pick up
your keys and just carry on driving.
In situations involving domestic violence, which are complicated,
terrible events, it is often hard to understand what is really
going on, but with the technology we have available now,
drink-driving or drug-driving are binary. They are black and
white: people either fail a test or they do not. So it is hard to
understand how the scenario can present itself wherein police
officers operationally decide—we have heard it is an operational
decision—that an individual who has abused their privilege of
driving can just crack on the following day as though nothing has
happened. I have concerns that the family of the individual who
has lost their life—in this case Tom—wherever it may be in this
country, will see those individuals carrying on as though nothing
has happened, waiting for a court appearance. They are not being
served by the law, and I totally understand their pain and
frustration. Where that is the case, we have a duty, as
Government, Ministers and MPs, to represent them and address the
problem.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just death caused by
driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs that we are
talking about here? Careless driving, rather than dangerous
driving, with all the subtleties around that, can cause massive
injuries. I had a constituent, Thomas Gill, who suffered massive
injuries due to a drug-driver, but the nuances in that case were
such that the driver ended up with a pathetically light sentence.
This issue is important in more cases than those involving
death.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because there is a
serious point here. I have heard it anecdotally, speaking to
prison officers and others who spend their time in prison, that
if is often said, “If you want to kill someone, run them over,”
because the sentences are such as joke. We have known about that
for such a long time in this country that it is hard to
understand why it still exists.
Even police officers who have seen Christina’s campaigning in
this case have said that they need this power. We have been
working with the family and Government, with the to-ing and
fro-ing that happens in this space, and the Government have said
in response that the police have those powers. They may well have
them, but when the figures requested by the hon. Member for Neath
come out of the Government, we will see that they are hardly ever
used, so there is clearly a problem. Either the police do not
know about it, or the problem is with their training and
understanding that seeing a perpetrator driving round for the
next 12 months without any sanction whatever, having seriously
injured or killed one of our constituents, is clearly not
acceptable, and not only for us as MPs who represent these cases.
Imagine being a family member seeing that. We clearly have to
address something there.
I reiterate my request that the Minister meets the family. It is
so important that these voices are heard. As MPs, we see a lot of
injustices and so on, but this one appears particularly
egregious. Think about your son or partner losing his life in the
way Tom did, with the perpetrator leaving the scene of the
accident, admitting perverting the course of justice,
drink-driving and so on and going to prison for three and a half
months for killing your son or fiancée. That is not right. We all
know it is not right, but no one has quite been bold enough to
grasp the nettle on this. I commend the Government for increasing
sentences from 14 years to life for some crimes, but that needs
to be broader. At the moment, there does not seem to be a clear
delineation between the damage someone can cause by, for example,
knocking off a wing mirror and failing to report it and actually
killing a human being. It is pretty basic stuff, but we do not
often see it until it is clearly painted by seeing one of the
families, as we have here today.
What do I want on behalf of the family? I want the Government to
take this issue seriously and really address that core point.
Leaving the scene of an accident is not a normal reaction. In
other instances, such as an athlete failing to take a drugs test,
it will be pretty obvious why they have done that. We need to
make the sanction for leaving the scene of an accident as bad as
being done for the crime, so that people are actually honest and
victims can actually get some sort of justice.
Ultimately, we are all accountable, and police officers are
public servants too, and I am a huge fan of them, but where
operational decisions cause this much pain and injustices of this
scale, we have to intervene and ask what is going on with these
sentencing provisions. A person can essentially kill someone,
using a car as a weapon, leave the scene drunk or high on drugs,
go and hide and then hand themselves in the next day and get away
with three and a half months in prison. That is extraordinary. It
reflects really poorly on all of us. Crucially, think about if
that happened to your son, partner or fiancé. You would be
absolutely livid if that was the price that we, as legislators,
or the House of Commons or the police put on your son’s or
fiancé’s life.
I urge the Minister to think about those things in her response.
I reiterate the request that she meet the family. We will
continue with this campaign. If someone fails a binary drugs or
drink test at a roadside with calibrated equipment and is
therefore clearly not fit to drive, they have not taken their
privilege of driving responsibly enough, and I can honestly see
no clear reason why they should not therefore lose their licence.
If the judge decides afterwards to give it back, fine, but there
should be some sort of mandate whereby someone loses that
privilege—it is a privilege, not a right—to drive if they are
caught over the limit for drink or drugs. That is a very low bar
for a Government that is committed to victims and to upholding
the rule of law to achieve.
4.53pm
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath () for the way she introduced
the debate and so clearly put the case, on behalf of the
petitioners, that change here is necessary. It is also good to
follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Plymouth,
Moor View (). Due to our various
appointments over the past few years, we have not been in many
debates together. I hope this will be the start of our coming
together on Plymouth issues, which this indeed is.
We remember Tom in this debate. He is remembered not only by the
family but by the 100,000 people who signed the petition,
including the 1,162 people who signed the petition from Plymouth,
Sutton and Devonport. I also pay tribute to Christina, Tom’s
fiancée, and Charlotte, Tom’s mum, for the way they have run this
campaign. They have spoken with dignity, compassion and clarity
about what changes they would like to see.
I understand how important this particular issue is for Plymouth,
which is the focus today. In my constituency, well over 200
people supported this petition, and it is more than just a
Plymouth issue. It is so important, and I thank people who have
brought this petition for debate today.
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He underlines the
fact that, when a petition reaches 100,000 signatures, that does
not happen by accident. It happens because there is an issue of
concern. It normally happens because there is a campaign and
passionate people behind it. The fact that we have signatures
from all over the United Kingdom speaks volumes for the case that
the family are making.
I do not intend to repeat everything that my hon. Friend the
Member for Neath and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View have
said, but I will raise a number of aspects to highlight my
concerns to the Minister. The rather brilliant Library brief that
was put together for this debate put a stress on bail conditions.
It is true that if someone is arrested for drink or drug-driving,
bail conditions can be applied to the individual to ensure that
they cannot drive. The difficulty in this case and many other
cases is that bail conditions are not being applied to those
individuals, because those individuals are released under
investigation.
I have significant concerns about RUI and the effect that it has,
not only in parking many crimes, but in not giving victims and
their families justice or updates. It elongates the process. We
know that there is a crisis in our courts, and our police are
stretched, so RUI does give them with the ability to provide
longer periods for investigation. That is certainly true, but
justice delayed is justice denied. My fear about the increased
use of released under investigation, especially in cases of drug
and drink-driving, is that it is not giving the police and the
authorities the pressure to deliver swifter prosecutions, nor is
it delivering the important justice for the families to see
someone charged for their crime and that crime brought forward to
a court.
I think the police would say that they have a certain period of
time in which they can hold people, pre-charge, on bail, and that
is why they use RUI. When it comes to the issue of drink and
drug-driving, the technology is now so good that someone will
have a test on the roadside and it will be clear whether they
have failed. It is not like investigating an assault or something
where there are two sides to the story. It is black and white,
and there is no real reason why a bail condition cannot be
imposed that someone is not allowed to drive, having abused that
privilege by being caught drink-driving.
The hon. Member raises a good point. One of the difficulties the
Minister has in replying to this debate is that, as a Transport
Minister, she will only be able to speak on behalf of the
Department for Transport. However, this issue stretches across
the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. The 11 months that
Tom’s family had to wait for justice is far too long. That is
because of pressures on the court service and the police. As much
as I would love to put the responsibility on the Minister
herself, it is the responsibility of other Departments. We need
to see a joined-up approach to make this work.
Release under investigation is a particular problem that is
delaying justice. It is delaying justice in cases like this and
in many others. That is why the police and the authorities can
attach those bail conditions to individuals. If someone is
released under investigation for something that happens many
times in the future, there are no such bail conditions attached
to a release under investigation status. Therefore, the
provisions that exist in law, quite correctly, to limit the
behaviour of an individual—in this case, probably to ensure that
another crime is not committed in that way—do not apply.
From my interpretation, that is effectively why Tom’s law is
seeking to backfill and repair some of the legal fabric that has
been changed by release under investigation. If the suspect in
this case were bailed, I suspect those bail conditions would have
been attached. That is one of the difficulties we have in this
case. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet the family to
discuss this, but I would also be grateful if she would put in a
good case for a meeting with the Home Office and the Ministry of
Justice. I think there is a cross-Government approach that needs
to be adopted here.
I mentioned the short sentence. I, too, welcome the increase in
the tariff in the sentencing for those people who kill via
drink-driving from 14 years to life. However, that did not apply
in this case, and I think it is entirely legitimate for any
family who have been robbed of the life of their loved one to
look at the sentence that has been afforded and say, “Three
months and three weeks is not justice.” I have sympathy with the
family for the way in which they seek to pursue that aim through
the courts, and now through politics as well. My hon. Friend the
Member for Neath mentioned one of the remarks of the judge in
this case: that “the surest thing” was that the offender would
have to live with the consequences. No, the surest thing is that
the family will have to live with the consequences for much
longer, and with a much deeper sense of pain and loss, than the
offender. That is why there is a real difficulty in relation to
this issue.
My hon. Friend echoed the words of the family: driving is a
privilege, not a right. One of the questions that we must ask
ourselves in this place is, “To what extent does that privilege
apply where a vehicle has been used to either kill or maim
someone and the driver has been under the influence of drugs or
alcohol?” At that point, it is reasonable for us as Parliament to
take a view as to whether there should be a legal ability to
prevent that person from driving. Indeed, to a certain extent, we
have already taken that view: long before I or my neighbour, the
hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, was in this place,
Parliament passed legislation that put bail conditions on those
individuals. There is precedent here, but that view has not been
applied to release under investigation in the same way, so there
is a sound argument for looking at whether RUI has changed the
social contract—the deal—between the state and victims as to what
applies in the event of someone being maimed or seriously hurt
when a driver has been under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It is important to look at that issue.
The challenge in this debate is not only how we can remember Tom,
and give the family who have campaigned so thoroughly,
professionally and compassionately in his memory the justice that
the courts, through the low-bar sentencing, did not deliver. The
challenge is also how we can we prevent this from happening in
future. The responsibility and obligation that falls on
parliamentarians is to ensure that no other family goes through
what Tom’s family have gone through. The hon. Member for
Plymouth, Moor View has been pursuing that aim with the family
for some time, and I act as his assistant in this respect to
support the measures he has taken.
I would, however, like to add some words of caution. I am
concerned that if we give extra responsibilities to the police or
the courts system without adequately resourcing them, justice
could be further delayed. If steps are to be taken, I would like
them to be accompanied by the proper resources, to ensure that
doing so does not elongate the process in relation to any cases
and that we continue to reinforce the primacy of the courts in
this matter. The ability of the police themselves to deliver
restrictions on the kerbside or from the point of charge should
always be tempered by the ability of a court to judge the person
involved. Drink and drug-driving is one of those offences that is
peculiar among cases in the criminal justice system, in that the
courts see people from every single walk of life. It is important
that when applications are put in, everyone can have justice when
their cases are heard, but most importantly, that the victims and
their families in those cases can have justice at the same
time.
I would be grateful if the Minister could look at some of those
aspects of this issue. I appreciate that, as a Minister in the
Department for Transport, many of the aspects I have raised are
not her responsibility. However, there is a need to join up with
the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the
right questions are being asked of the competent Departments in
relation to this issue, so that Tom’s family can truly have
justice and the likelihood of something like this happening again
can be reduced.
5.04pm
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first
time, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath
() for having secured this
debate on behalf of over 100,000 petitioners, and for the time
she has spent with Tom McConnachie’s family, working with them to
get to this point. I also thank the hon. Member for Plymouth,
Moor View () for his very logical and
clear demand that action be taken, showing how simple it could be
to make a huge difference. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for
Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (), who spoke so passionately
and raised a number of serious questions that need to be
answered, and the hon. Member for Sedgefield () for making sure we all
realise that this debate affects every corner of the British
Isles.
Following the touching and heartfelt contributions from Members
across the House, no one can doubt how loved and admired Tom
McConnachie was by his family and friends. I am glad that they
are able to be here today to hear legislators in the House of
Commons take this issue seriously, as he and his legacy deserve.
The manner of his death is a tragedy beyond words: a young man,
happily returning from a night out—a groomsman’s fitting ahead of
a friend’s wedding—struck and killed by a drunk driver. I have
read what his mother, Charlotte, has so powerfully said about the
immense pain caused by his loss, and how she, along with Tom’s
partner, Christina, is now living her own life sentence.
Drink, drug and dangerous driving destroys lives—it is as simple
as that. Last year, 230 people shockingly lost their lives in
drink-driving accidents, destroying the lives of hundreds of
families forever. For many, the sentences handed down to
offenders seem not to reflect the devastation caused by these
crimes. The families’ grief in these cases is immeasurable, and
seeing their relatives’ killers escape with limited sentences
simply adds to that anger and grief.
We need a justice system that recognises the life sentences given
to families who lose loved ones. That is why Labour—in particular
my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East () and for Barnsley Central
(), who could not be here today—and other Members in the
House, such as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May),
have fought a long campaign to extend the maximum sentence to
reflect properly the seriousness of the crime.
The urgent need for this change is illustrated by the fact that,
in 2019, more than 150 people were sentenced for causing death by
dangerous driving. Some 95% of those offenders received an
immediate custodial sentence, of whom more than 15 received a
sentence in excess of 10 years—that is only 10% of offenders
already being sentenced near the maximum threshold. It would
appear that the time is ripe to provide the courts with increased
sentencing powers for these offences, so that offenders are dealt
with consistently and fairly.
It is right that the courts are given a wider range of penalties
to ensure that sentences are proportionate and reflect the
seriousness of the offence. It is clearly time for action. No
more families should have to come to the House of Commons to hear
legislators not taking action when, as we have heard, there are
so many logical things that can be done to make people’s lives
safer, such as simply removing an offender’s licence, which
should be taken away after the crime.
Turning to the suggestion that, in certain circumstances, a
driving ban would be imposed pending investigation and trial, I
commend the campaign for Tom’s law and all those who signed the
petition that we are debating. The excellent House of Commons
Library briefing notes that at present
“the police can impose bail conditions for particular purposes,
one of which is to ensure there is no further offence committed
while on bail. A driving ban as a condition of police bail may be
appropriate for some cases.”
However, due to the lack of available statistics, we simply do
not know in how many instances that has been used to suspend a
licence while someone is awaiting a trial, or whether police
forces are making use of these powers, or even regularly
considering them. We only know from an answer to a parliamentary
question from 2015 that the power is rarely used.
However, there are clear potential benefits to public safety from
reducing the risk of further offences. We know that
drink-drinking tests have a high degree of accuracy, so there is
a compelling case to be made for the precautionary powers made
available to the police to be much clearer.
Last year, a former Transport Minister said that the Department
was closely exploring options that could be pursued in this area.
Can the Minister update us on those conclusions? Will the
Department consider a broader power for police to revoke
licences, as happens when a driver fails an eyesight test at the
side of a road, as has been said by the hon. Member for Plymouth,
Moor View? Given that bail conditions are rarely used, is the
Department working with the Home Office to ensure that police
forces are made better aware of their ability to revoke a licence
as part of the bail conditions for someone awaiting trial? If
police forces are more aware, perhaps that option could be used
more often and more effectively.
It seems sensible that, by working with the National Police
Chiefs Council, a new, thorough review could swiftly establish
how often these powers are being used and whether guidance for
police bail could be updated. Is that also something that the
Transport Minister would be willing to consider? The tragic case
of Tom McConnachie and the evidence that powers to revoke
licences are poorly understood and rarely used demonstrate that
the status quo is continually failing to protect the public. I
urge the Minister to consider the calls across the House to act
swiftly to protect the public from the scourge of drink driving,
drug driving and dangerous driving.
5.10pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am
particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Neath () for the way in which she
opened this debate on e-petitions relating to police powers to
suspend driving licences. Those petitions raise specific concerns
about allowing drivers who are suspected of committing road
traffic offences to continue driving.
I also put on the record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the
Member for Plymouth, Moor View () for his effective and
convincing portrayal of the situation and for his work with Tom’s
family. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for
Sedgefield () for noting that although
Plymouth has been well covered in the debate, the issue affects
the whole country. I thank all Members for the way in which they
have contributed to the debate.
I reassure Members that the Government take road safety
seriously; it is at the core of the agenda of the Department for
Transport. Any death or serious injury is, of course, an absolute
tragedy, and our deepest condolences go to Tom’s family, who are
here today. My ministerial colleague with responsibility for
roads, Minster , has met the
families of victims of similar incidents, and is aware of the
devastating effect on the families involved. I am not the roads
Minister, but I can confirm that Baroness Vere is willing to meet
Tom’s family. I understand the tragic circumstances surrounding
Tom’s death, and I extend my sympathy to all.
I recognise the concerns that in some cases the police should be
able to issue a suspension notice with effect from the moment an
offender is arrested at the roadside until they appear in court.
Although we must do all we can to improve the safety of our
roads, we must not, in an attempt to resolve perceived problems
with the way in which the law operates, make a decision that
could ultimately make things worse or have other unforeseen
effects.
Let me turn to the current offence of failure to stop and report,
and the calls for the suspension of driving licences. Currently,
under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the police can
impose bail conditions for particular purposes, as was mentioned
earlier. One of those conditions is that no further offences are
committed by the suspect while on bail. I asked the very question
that the hon. Member for Neath raised, but I was unable to get
the answers that she wants, so I will endeavour to write to her
with that information. That might not be possible, because the
information may not be collected in the first place, but I
understand the need for more information, which it might be
possible to seek through the courts. I assure Members that we
will work with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.
The criminal courts also have the power to impose an interim
driving disqualification before sentencing in a case involving
discretionary or obligatory disqualification from driving, or
when transferring such a case to another court. I want to make it
clear, however, that the Government do not dismiss at all the
concerns that have been raised. We are, of course, aware of the
traumatic effects of such incidents.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members appreciate that this
is a complex issue that should fit within the current driving
offences framework. Department for Transport officials have been
exploring options that could be pursued, and they will consider
with interest the points that have been raised in the debate as
part of their consideration of road traffic matters. In respect
of any potential law changes for road traffic offences, we will
consider the triangulation of interests—those of the victim, the
suspect and society. A call for evidence will enable issues to be
fully explored, so as a next step, the Department will conduct a
call for evidence on parts of the Road Traffic Act 1988. While
details on its scope are being worked on, I am sure close
attention is being paid to the points raised and to the campaign
for Tom’s law.
I appreciate the Minister’s response. She said that her officials
will look at this debate and build it into a consultation. Will
she ask her officials to write to me, as the constituents’ MP,
with a reflection on today’s debate? The points raised are clear.
I do not know if she has a reason, but there appears to be no
clear reason why, with the technology available today, if someone
fails a drink and drive test by the roadside, they should retain
their licence. I would be interested to hear the Department’s
position on that.
I will endeavour to do just that. I will ensure that we write to
my hon. Friend with that information as far as we can.
Most of all, I would like to thank Christina, Charlotte and
Sandra for their bravery and courage campaigning for Tom’s law,
and for being present for this debate. I expect the issue of
police powers in serious road crime to form part of the call for
evidence.
It is welcome news that the Minister’s Department is looking into
this matter. I think she made a commitment for a consultation,
and it is welcome that it will be included. Her officials may say
that the suspension of a driving licence should be a Home Office
matter, but in her Department, would she look at penalty points
notices? As it stands, someone who causes death by careless
driving with alcohol and drugs above the limit can be subject to
three to 11 points on their licence, and over that their licence
is removed. The option of suspended penalty points means they can
be applied to the licence in the period before conviction, which
is another means of achieving what Tom’s law seeks to do. That is
not necessarily a licence suspension, but an application, albeit
temporary until a court process, of penalty notices or penalty
point endorsements.
I thank hon. Gentleman for making those points. He will
understand that I am not the roads Minister, and I am responding
on the behalf of the roads Minister, . Officials in the
Department will be listening closely to what he says and will
endeavour to take that into account. He is correct to mention a
consultation; a call for evidence will be taken forward.
I thank the Minister for her magnanimous delivery, which is very
measured. However, I have trouble with three things. First, if
someone is released under investigation is that under guidance
rather than under statute? Secondly, she referred to the data for
which I asked—is that because it is not collected nationally, or
because separate police forces do not have the IT or the staff to
do it? Thirdly, I have a problem with RUI as opposed to police
bail. The Minister must be aware of the tragic case of Kay
Richardson, who was murdered by her estranged husband after he
was released under investigation. He had previous domestic abuse
convictions, but bail conditions might have protected her.
I am afraid I cannot answer the wider questions on RUI. When I
asked for the information, I was led to understand that it was
not collected, which is why I am seeking further information
through the courts system. We will get that information and I
will endeavour to respond to the hon. Lady on those specific
requests as soon as I can.
I thank hon. Members again for raising this important issue and
for the campaign for Tom’s law.
5.19pm
I thank Members for their contributions, and give special thanks
to the two Plymouth MPs who represent Christina and Tom’s
families and have served them well in this debate: my hon. Friend
the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport () and the hon. Member for
Plymouth, Moor View (). Most of all, I thank
Christina and Tom’s family for campaigning for Tom’s law, so that
other families will not have to suffer the grief and injustice
that they have gone through for nearly three years.
When I met Christina, Charlotte and Sandra this afternoon,
Christina reminded me that on 24 February this year it will be
the third anniversary of Tom’s tragic death. They are still
suffering. On behalf of Christina, Charlotte and Sandra, I thank
the Minister for confirming that Baroness Vere will meet with
them. I look forward to receiving in writing the statistics that
I asked for. Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 548682, relating to
police powers to suspend driving licences.
|
