Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) I beg to move, That this House
has considered victims of road traffic offences and the criminal
justice system. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship
this morning, Ms Nokes. I am speaking not just as a representative
of my North Devon constituency, but primarily as co-chair of the
all-party parliamentary group on cycling and walking. I am also
here as a voice for the countless people across our country whose
lives...Request free trial
(North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered victims of road traffic offences
and the criminal justice system.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning,
Ms Nokes.
I am speaking not just as a representative of my North Devon
constituency, but primarily as co-chair of the all-party
parliamentary group on cycling and walking. I am also here as a
voice for the countless people across our country whose lives
have been or could be tragically impacted by road crashes. I am
careful to use the word “crashes” or “collisions” rather than
“accidents” because RoadPeace, the charity supporting those who
are bereaved or seriously injured after road traffic collisions,
highlights that accidents are seen as “just one of those things”.
In many cases, as we will hear today, there are a series of
actions leading up to avoidable tragedies.
This debate has been secured following the APPG’s report on “Road
Justice”, published late last year, which is a profound testament
to the urgent need for reform. It is not an exaggeration to say
that this is a matter not just of policy, but of life and death.
This inquiry was a follow-up to the first in 2017, when my right
hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (), who is now the Justice
Secretary, held my position on the APPG. I spoke to him yesterday
evening, and he is taking a keen interest in today’s debate; he
will be facilitating a meeting for me with the relevant Minister
following it.
The Government’s vision, as articulated in “Gear Change”, is
ambitious and commendable. It is to see half of all journeys in
towns and cities made accessible by walking or cycling by 2030.
However, this vision is currently jeopardised by a prevailing
climate of fear among vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians
and cyclists. It also does not consider the complexities of
active travel on rural roads, the encouragement of which requires
a vastly different approach compared to the encouragement of
active travel in more urban environments. The Department for
Transport has made fantastic efforts to include rurality in its
funding, but I ask that it extends rural thinking across the
whole portfolio, so we can have a joined-up approach to road
safety.
As many of us will know from the volume of correspondence from
constituents, road safety is an issue that affects pretty much
all of us, and pedestrians and cyclists are most at risk. To
tackle road safety and improve the experience in the justice
system, everybody needs to work together, and that includes
Government Departments. Many of the responsibilities in this area
fall between the Department for Transport, the Home Office and
the Ministry of Justice, and I am sure that collaboration can be
improved.
The inquiry conducted by the APPG included 10 recommendations
categorised into two groups: group A, requiring ambitious reform;
and group B, rapid and more uncontroversial proposals that could
be implemented quickly. They would all require support from the
Ministry of Justice, the Department for Transport and the Home
Office.
The first recommendation in group A—aiming for ambitious
reforms—is that the Government introduce escalating penalties for
repeat road traffic offences. Analysis of police data from 2014
to 2017 has revealed that 47% of those convicted for driving
while disqualified had at least one previous conviction for the
offence. However, there is not currently a means for penalties to
increase in steps. Instead, the magistrate or judge is limited to
the same maximum penalty that applies to a first offence. I
raised this point in the Chamber with the Minister for prisons,
parole and probation—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice,
my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood ()—last year, and asked about
his Department’s plans to escalate traffic offences, especially
as repeat offenders are given the same penalty as a first-time
offender. This would be an important step towards making road
justice a reality for those walking, wheeling and cycling.
The APPG also asked for compulsory retesting of offenders. Any
driver who has been disqualified should be required to undergo
retesting. This currently happens only for the most serious of
offences, such as causing death by dangerous driving. This is not
punitive, but a necessary measure to ensure that drivers possess
the skills and awareness needed for safe driving. The report
proposed increasing the maximum sentence for dangerous driving to
four years, reflecting the severity of such offences and their
potential for causing harm. We need to deter and tackle dangerous
drivers before they kill, so dangerous driving needs to be
treated more seriously.
The concept of exceptional hardship in the totting-up process for
driving disqualifications must also be revisited. We advocate a
stricter interpretation to ensure that it is not misused as a
loophole. Approximately 23% of those who amass 12 penalty points
successfully argue against disqualification on the grounds of
exceptional hardship. We should prioritise the hardship felt by
families and victims of road crashes rather than prioritising the
convenience of offenders.
The second part of the report calls for
“thorough investigation of serious collisions”.
Standardised best practice-based guidelines for investigating
serious road traffic collisions must be adopted across all police
forces. This uniformity will ensure justice and proper
accountability. There is also a need to implement a
standardisation system for third-party reporting of traffic
incidents via dashcams. Currently, this can be a postcode
lottery, and the change would facilitate a more consistent and
efficient handling of such reports.
The report recommends establishing a UK commissioner for road
danger reduction. The role would involve measuring road danger,
setting reduction targets and ensuring effective collaboration
among various stakeholders. This campaign is championed by crash
victim Sarah Hope, who I know hoped to be in the Public Gallery
today. We need to recognise that crash victims should be treated
as victims of crime, barring clear evidence to the contrary. This
recognition is vital in addressing their trauma and loss.
As we look at extending understanding of the highway code, we
need a better communication campaign to enhance that
understanding and compliance with the revised highway code, which
would also contribute significantly to improving road safety.
In addition to the report, I feel it important to mention some of
the additional issues that road safety campaigners have
highlighted to us. One is the lengthy delay in the publishing of
various calls for evidence by the Department for Transport, and
the delay in publishing its road safety strategy. The call for
evidence for the Department for Transport’s roads policing review
began on 13 July 2020, with recommendations due in spring 2021.
To date, no update has been published. In May 2014, the coalition
Government at the time committed to undertake a full review of
offences and penalties. Although this is no longer the same
Government, for 10 years various Ministers in both the Department
for Transport and the Ministry of Justice have promised that this
is coming in “due course”. I hope that today the Minister will be
able to provide a significant update on that timeline.
The Department for Transport has said that it intends to publish
a new road safety strategy. There is currently a document in
place for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not England.
It is essential that we know when such an important document will
be published and put into practice. I again ask the Minister
whether he can give any indication of a timeframe for the
publication of that road safety strategy.
Unfortunately, most Members will have seen awful cases of road
violence in their constituencies and struggle to understand the
reasoning behind the charge and sentencing. The Under-Secretary
of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and
Radnorshire (), asked me to represent the case
of on behalf of Harry’s parents in
Powys. Harry was cycling in Hackney when he was killed by a
driver. Harry was killed in a 20 mph limit area; if the driver
had been driving at the speed limit, Harry would probably have
got away with broken limbs at worst. However, that was not the
case and if someone is charged—and there is no indication that
they have been—it is regrettable that the case will not come to
court until 2025. If someone is charged and found guilty, a
criminally reckless driver will have been allowed behind the
wheel until then. Harry’s parents have emphasised that
perpetrators of road violence who have caused death or
life-changing injuries often receive shockingly low sentences;
their case is not the only one.
Not far from North Devon, my hon. Friend the Member for North
Cornwall () has worked for some time on an
upsetting case from his constituency—one in which the Saltern
family were deprived of a much-loved son, and a wife was robbed
of a life together with him. The family have since campaigned for
a change in the law—Ryan’s law—to try to widen the definition of
death by dangerous driving. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the
Member for North Cornwall was unable to attend today’s debate as
he is in a Bill Committee, but I know that he, too, has met
Ministers to discuss whether it is possible to introduce a new
offence or new sentencing guidelines relating to failing to stop.
In my constituency of North Devon, 451 residents have signed the
Ryan’s law petition calling for the Government to widen the
definition of death by dangerous driving to include:
“failure to stop, call 999 and render aid on scene until further
help arrives.”
The distinction between careless and dangerous driving is
blurred, leading to inconsistency in charging and prosecution. In
my local policing area of Devon and Cornwall, the ratio of
careless driving prosecutions to dangerous driving prosecutions
is 21:1. Across England, the ratio differs greatly between 1.8:1
in Cleveland and 41:1 in Essex. That inconsistency cannot be
attributed solely to variations in local driving behaviours or to
different environments; it points to a systemic issue in our
enforcement and understanding of these offences.
(Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for North Devon () for securing this important
debate. Sentences do not reflect the impact and nature of the
crime in all circumstances. Family and friends should be able to
have faith in the criminal justice system. Does the hon. Member
agree that family and friends should be able to have faith that
the punishment will fit the crime and that justice will be
done?
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and highly recommend
that she digest a copy of the “Road Justice” report, which covers
that point. I entirely agree that there is a real need to ensure
that families feel that confidence.
I want to highlight an important campaign, by RoadPeace West
Midlands and Action Vision Zero, on the inadequacy of the law
around hit-and-run collisions. Also unable to join us today is my
hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (), who wanted to highlight
the work of local councillor Lucy Harrison, who unfortunately
lost her brother in a road crash and is running the Remain and
Report campaign with RoadPeace.
The rise in hit-and-run collisions, particularly involving
pedestrians and cyclists, is alarming. The current laws, which
allow up to 24 hours to report a collision, might be appropriate
for a supermarket prang, but are woefully inadequate for serious
or fatal collisions, especially as offenders potentially wait for
alcohol or drugs to leave their system. The existing summary
charge of “fail to stop”, which carries a maximum custodial
sentence of six months, currently applies to all collision
severities, including damage only; it is not appropriate for
serious collisions. Two new criminal charges—failing to remain at
the scene of a fatal collision and failing to remain at the scene
of a serious injury collision—should be considered.
I want to draw attention to the Vision Zero South West scheme.
Vision Zero’s ambition is to cut road deaths and serious injuries
to zero by 2040 and to reduce current numbers by 50% by 2030. In
2022, however, there were 47 fatal injuries and 743 serious
injuries in Devon and Cornwall, according to the road casualties
summary. That number must come down. Although it is one of the
safest regions when it comes to road safety, any death or serious
injury is one too many.
Throughout the evidence gathering for the report, it became clear
to me that the system has an issue with driving
disqualifications. It is important to state and remind us all
that driving is a privilege and not a right. When done correctly,
driving can be an enormous tool for good, but we should remember
that it is a dangerous activity—dangerous enough to need to be
licensed.
Another flaw in the system that needs to be looked at is the fact
that killer drivers can continue to drive while they await trial;
sometimes that can be years, because of the delays in the courts.
RoadPeace advocates for immediate licence suspensions for
offenders. Of course we need to ensure that people are innocent
until proven guilty but, as I have mentioned, driving is a
privilege. A fork-lift truck operator involved in a fatal
accident in the workplace would not be invited to carry on
operating that machinery while they were under investigation.
This change would not require new legislation, as guidance could
encourage bail conditions to more regularly include restrictions
on driving after being charged.
Finally, on the subject of disqualification, if a person kills
someone through careless or dangerous driving, why should they
ever be able to drive again? The mandatory driving ban for
causing death by dangerous driving is five years. Why is it not a
lifetime disqualification? Again, lifetime bans would not
necessarily require new legislation. They happen now, although
are exceptionally rare; guidance could change that.
The APPG’s recommendations are essential calls to action. We must
act decisively and without further delay to reform our road
justice system, protect the vulnerable and ensure that our
streets are safe for all. We must foster an environment wherein
every road user, regardless of their mode of transport, feels
safe and is protected by a just and effective legal system.
Several hon. Members rose—
(in the Chair)
As you can all see, many Members wish to contribute. I will not
impose a formal time limit yet, but I ask Members to consider
limiting their comments to five minutes or so.9.45am
(Leeds North East)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I
thank my co-chair of the APPG for cycling and walking, the hon.
Member for North Devon (), who gave a tremendous
speech outlining the content of the “Road Justice” report that
the group published in September 2023. I will add a little to
what she said, but she was pretty comprehensive, and I am
grateful to her. I took over from my hon. Friend the Member for
Brentford and Isleworth () as co-chair late last year; I
thank her for her years of dedication and the huge contribution
she made to the APPG in the years that she chaired it with the
hon. Member for North Devon.
On 21 December 2017, just over six years ago, I secured an
Adjournment debate in the Commons Chamber on the case of my
constituent Ian Winterburn, a cyclist who was killed at the
junction of Whitkirk Lane and the A6120 ring road in Leeds on the
morning of 12 December 2016. He was wearing a cyclist’s
high-visibility jacket and his helmet, and his lights were on. In
spite of that, a car turning right in front of Ian drove straight
into him, the driver claiming that she did not see him on the
road. He died in a coma 10 days later as a result of his
injuries. On 4 October 2017, the driver of the Skoda that killed
Mr Winterburn was convicted by Leeds magistrates court of causing
death by careless driving. She was handed down a four-month
prison sentence suspended for two years, a £200 fine, 200 hours
of community service and a two-year driving ban—not even the
five-year ban that is now mandatory. As I described to the House
at the time, the way in which the West Yorkshire police and the
Crown Prosecution Service dealt with the case and treated the
family was utterly appalling, as was the family’s treatment by
the court service and the coroner. I detailed the case then, so I
will not repeat what I said, but I sincerely hope that the
treatment of victims of cycling fatalities and their families has
improved over the past seven years.
In summer 2022, I received a distressing email from the daughter
of a constituent who had been killed by a taxi driver on his way
to work, early in the morning. My constituent was an experienced
cyclist who had been travelling by bike regularly for over 40
years. He was hit and killed instantly by a car that had
seemingly gone through a red light at a junction. As the case is
still sub judice, I cannot give further details except to express
my anger and that of the family that West Yorkshire police told
the victim’s wife and daughter that the case could take up to two
years to bring evidence or a prosecution for what appeared to
them to be a clear-cut case. The anguish that they suffered and
still suffer is unimaginable. It truly is a case of justice
delayed, as the saying goes, being justice denied.
In 2023, as the hon. Member for North Devon said, the APPG for
cycling and walking launched an inquiry into road justice that
reported in September and made 10 recommendations. I will briefly
repeat them at the end of my speech. However, a few years ago,
while on my routine ride from Parliament to King’s Cross station
on my way back to Leeds, I was stopping at the traffic lights at
the junction of Holborn and Kingsway, a notoriously dangerous
area for cyclists, when another cyclist cut across my path,
causing me to brake so sharply that I fell off my bike on to a
stationary taxi. The other cyclist, realising what he had done,
stopped and returned to help me—the lights were red and the
traffic was at a halt. At the same time, however, the cab driver
wound down his window and started shouting abuse at me—while I
was lying injured on the ground—for possibly damaging his
vehicle. The other cyclist made it plain that the accident was
his fault, not mine, but the cab driver would not have it and
demanded that I pay for the damage to his taxi cab. When he
finally got out of the cab he realised, after inspecting it, that
no damage had been done, but instead of helping me up off the
road, he simply told both of us that we were a menace to all cars
on the road and should not be allowed to cycle on any main road.
Thankfully, cycling infrastructure in London has improved so much
since then that I do not have to use the Aldwych/Kingsway route
any more, which is a big relief. I am sure there have been far
fewer casualties at that junction since London’s cycle routes
were created, but the same cannot be said for the rest of the
country.
It is my experience as a cyclist, and I am sure that of many
other Members, that drivers—most of us are drivers too—do not
recognise the right of cyclists to be on the road with them. As
the hon. Member for North Devon said, they do not want to share
the road with road users who are not in motorised vehicles.
Driving a motorised vehicle is a privilege, as it is a dangerous
weapon in the wrong hands if not used properly. We cyclists have
every right to use the road and should not be treated with the
contempt that most motorists show us. How many of us have
suffered abuse from people winding down the windows as they
overtake us because we are slowing them down to tell us that we
should pay tax as a cyclist—which we do anyway—or should not be
on the road at all? Sometimes, in rare cases, they take action
they think is appropriate and try to run us off the road. Many of
us have experienced that horror.
Justice for cyclists involved in these collisions is really
important, especially when a motor vehicle is involved. We want
the points we made in our report to be implemented as quickly as
possible to help more people cycle on roads, walk and get
involved in active travel.
(in the Chair)
I repeat my request for Members not to sail too close to the wind
when it comes to the sub judice regulations.
9.51am
(Aldridge-Brownhills)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon () for securing this important
debate on victims of road traffic offences and the criminal
justice system. According to Brake, someone is killed or
seriously injured on UK roads every 16 minutes or so. Although my
hon. Friend focused on the work and recommendations of the APPG
for cycling and walking, which she and others work hard to
passionately support, we all recognise that victims of road
traffic offences extend beyond that group. They include
pedestrians, passers-by and other vehicle users right across the
country. I therefore believe that the improvements that should be
made in line with the report’s recommendations have the potential
to have a much broader impact.
Like other right hon. Member and hon. Members, I have had tragic
incidents of road violence in my constituency, and constituents
who have been victims of road traffic offences outside the
constituency. That is one of the reasons I am here today. Sadly,
the victim’s family is too often left seeking the justice that
has not been provided and campaigning to improve the system.
My constituent Lola Chapman’s beloved brother, Harry, was
tragically killed by a speeding drink-driver on Aldridge Road.
She is campaigning determinedly for changes to improve road
safety, and has launched a petition seeking measures to reduce
driver speed.
In a tragic case in 2021, an uninsured car mounted the pavement
in Brownhills in broad daylight, killing an 18-day-old baby in
his pram; the community was left in shock and the family was
absolutely devastated. Some 18 months later, following a
successful campaign, the Court of Appeal increased the driver’s
sentence, but why must victims and families go through that?
Many other victims join support groups such as RoadPeace West
Midlands, which my hon. Friend mentioned. It is an incredible
volunteer group that provides support to others to raise
awareness of the impact of road death and campaign for change.
Whether it is Aldridge Road, Brownhills High Street, Pelsall
Lane, Bosty Lane or other areas of my constituency, I come back
to the fact that behind every number is a victim, a family and
loved ones. That is why we must continue to improve the system.
Sentencing should be tough, and crash victims should be treated
as victims of crime. There is so much that the APPG seeks to
change. We should create a UK commissioner for road danger
reduction and revise the 2020 guidance and the totting-up
disqualification. However, I believe that education and awareness
matter too in ensuring that there is increasing knowledge of the
highway code and driver awareness— I will touch on that briefly,
because I am conscious of the time and the fact that many others
want to contribute. Last week was Neighbourhood Policing Week, as
I am sure you will be aware, Ms Nokes. I was fortunate to spend
Saturday afternoon out with my excellent local Brownhills team,
which conducted a speed awareness operation encouraging better
driver behaviour to comply with speed limits as an important part
of the work going ahead. There is so much to do. The issue and
the work continue, and I look forward to hearing what my hon.
Friend the Minister has to say to update us on actions and the
timeline.
9.55am
Mrs (Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
I first thank the hon. Member for North Devon () for securing this important
and timely debate. I also pay tribute to Better Streets for
Birmingham, which campaigns tirelessly in my community to improve
the safety of our roads.
Road traffic collisions, certainly fatal ones, are some of the
most tragic incidents that we see across the UK, especially as
many of them are preventable. In reported road collisions in the
year ending June 2023, there were more than 1,500 fatalities and
more than 130,000 casualties in Britain. In 2022 in my
constituency, there were 338 road collisions, with casualties
rising by more than 100 since 2021. On 29 May last year, a
four-year-old boy was tragically killed after being hit by a car
in my constituency. Two days before, on 27 May, a 13-year-old
girl was reported to be fighting for her life after she was
struck by a hit-and-run driver. Just 15 minutes’ drive away, on
31 May a cyclist was killed in a hit and run. In the space of
five days, three families in my constituency had their world
turned upside down.
In October last year, I backed Birmingham City Council’s campaign
to reduce the speed limit on one of the roads in my constituency
from 40 mph to 30 mph, and the council is doing some important
work throughout this year to make our streets safer, such as
average speed enforcement, giving priority to pedestrians and
refreshing its road harm reduction strategy. However, we can and
should do more. There have already been two serious incidents on
Birmingham Road this year. One of the biggest barriers to active
travel as a replacement for driving is safety, and in the three
weeks when the three cyclists were killed on Birmingham Road in
June last year, the impact was felt right across our city.
It is also vital that people feel safe and secure when walking at
night, so we must tackle the issues of crime and antisocial
behaviour, which are soaring under this Government. We need to
rebuild neighbourhood policing to increase the number of police
and police community support officers in community teams so that
people can be confident that someone will always be there to help
them to remain safe. Government, both local and national, must do
what they can to improve routes and roads so that people can feel
safe walking and cycling, instead of driving. They must also
ensure that penalties for breaking the law when driving are
strong deterrents. Failure to stop after an accident and give
details and failure to report an accident are an offence, which
carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or six months’
imprisonment.
It is clear that we are not doing enough to prevent that kind of
driving. A maximum of six months in prison for a hit and run is
absolutely not enough, and clearly it does not deter as it
should. Sentencing outcomes for summary motoring offences
generally have not changed over the past 10 years, and most
offenders each year are only fined. For some offences, a fine is
adequate; for others, it is absolutely not—I am sure that those
families in my constituency would say the same. We should feel
safe walking to school, cycling to work and strolling to the
shops, but the reality is that in my city, between 2019 and 2021,
more than 200 collisions were caused by careless and reckless
driving. More than 120 were caused by drivers speeding; more than
100 were caused by aggressive driving; more than 70 were caused
by drivers impaired by alcohol. Currently, deterrents are not
working. We need to see a dedicated road safety strategy from the
Government, with a plan to fund active travel, deter dangerous
drivers, and make our streets safer for everyone. We can do more
to ensure we all feel a little safer on our streets—and we
should.
10.00am
(North West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon () on securing this debate,
which is of great importance to my North West Norfolk
constituents and to Members across the House. I want to focus
particularly on the sentence for causing death by dangerous
driving. In the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022,
Parliament legislated to increase the maximum sentence for this
crime from 14 years to life imprisonment, which we did to reflect
the devastation that such crimes inflict. The sentencing
guidelines issued for that change have a range for the category A
offence—the most serious offence —from eight to 18 years.
Are those guidelines effective, and are judges following them? In
the case of my constituent, Summer Mace, I do not think so. I
confirm that it is not an active case. Three members of Summer’s
family—her mother, sister and stepfather—were killed by a
dangerous driver. Having had an Adjournment debate on this case,
I return to it to highlight the devastating impact on Summer, her
family and her friends, and the inadequate sentence imposed. The
judge rightly classed this as a category A offence, owing to a
prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving.
There were six aggravating factors in the case: three people were
killed; greatly excessive speed was used; the driver knew he was
deprived of sufficient sleep; he had consumed drugs above the
legal limit; he had previous convictions for motoring offences;
and he was on police bail for a driving offence at the time,
breaking the curfew to commit the crime. The only mitigating
factor was a letter he sent to the court—not even to the
family.
It is unacceptable that after a guilty plea was taken into
account, he was sentenced to only 10 and a half years for three
separate counts of causing death by dangerous driving. He could
be out in seven years. The question that the family and I want to
ask is what is required for a large sentence to be imposed? Those
sentencing guidelines took effect in June last year. When more
data is available, I hope the Minister and the Lord Chancellor
will consider very carefully the impact on sentencing that those
guidelines have had, and whether judges are actually imposing the
sentences that this House and the House of Lords legislated for.
I hope that the Lord Chancellor uses his power to formally
request that the sentencing guidelines are reviewed.
The other point I want to raise is around disqualification, as
touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. In my
constituent’s case, a ban for a period of only eight years was
considered appropriate, extended to 15 years to take account of
the time the offender will be in prison. Again, that strikes me
as far too lenient. Courts can impose lifetime bans, and
RoadPeace is campaigning for them to be applied. The House of
Commons Library reports that disqualification for life only
happened in four cases in the year ending June 2023, out of more
than 116,000 who were disqualified. The Government should
consider whether it should become a mandatory element in some
cases because, as my hon. Friend said, driving is a privilege and
not a right. The Sentencing Council will shortly consult on new
overarching guidelines for driving disqualification, and I
encourage everyone with an interest in this topic to respond to
that consultation.
I end by noting the frequency of driving offence cases. I was
struck by the statistics that, in the case of driving under the
influence of drink or drugs, 79% of cases result in a fine, with
only 1% resulting in a custodial sentence, and 99% of people
disqualified for a year to less than two years for that offence.
Does that reflect the seriousness of the crime? Does it create a
deterrent effect? I do not think so. We need to apply a robust
approach, including prison sentences and lengthy bans, to send a
message that these are serious crimes with serious
consequences.
10.04am
(Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms
Nokes. I too would like to congratulate the hon. Member for North
Devon () on securing the debate and
opening it powerfully. I would like to raise a specific case I
have been working on for some time. In August 2017, 22-month-old
Pearl Melody Black from Merthyr Tydfil was tragically killed
while walking with her father and brother. Pearl was killed when
an occupied vehicle rolled from a private drive in Merthyr Tydfil
on to the highway, down a hill, crashing into a wall that
subsequently crushed her and injured her father and brother.
In the months after the incident, officers from the serious
collision unit of South Wales police worked tirelessly to put a
case together to provide justice for the family. In short, all
tests concluded that the car was mechanically sound, and that it
had rolled because the handbrake was not fully engaged, and the
automatic transmission was not fully placed into park mode.
The case was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service locally and in
London, and an independent QC was hired by the CPS to consult.
Everyone was hopeful of a conviction under the death by dangerous
driving category. The CPS looked into other possible options.
After a number of months, however, it stated that it was unable
to send the case to court, as a glitch in the law states that the
vehicle must have started its journey on a public road for a
prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Even though Pearl was killed on a public road, the fact that the
vehicle started its descent from a private drive meant that the
prosecution was not possible. The coroner stated that the vehicle
was well maintained. It seemed the issue was very much driver
operation. The inquest heard that the handbrake had not been
fully applied in the park mode. The inquest in October 2018
resulted in an outcome of accident.
With the support of South Wales police and the CPS, Pearl’s
parents seek a change in the law to prevent other families from
finding themselves in a similar situation, unable to secure
justice due to a legal loophole, following such a tragic and
completely preventable incident. As Gemma and Paul acknowledge,
it will not help to bring justice for Pearl, as legislation is
not retrospective, but if the law can be changed to prevent
anyone else from suffering such injustice again, that might
provide some comfort.
I have had meetings with Government Ministers in the past few
years. Although they were helpful and sympathetic, there has been
no major transport Bill to provide a way of introducing this
change. I pursued a ten-minute rule Bill, but it failed as it ran
out of time. I am hoping that an amendment to another related
Bill may be a way forward, in the absence of a wider overhaul of
the road traffic offences legal framework.
There are a huge number of incidences where private land
adjoining public land is regularly used, and is potentially
dangerous, including residential driveways, as I mentioned, as
well as verges and land for schools and nurseries, to mention
some of the most common. When we consider those examples, we can
see that driving on that specific category of land can present a
high risk to people in everyday situations, especially children,
the elderly and the more vulnerable among us.
Many hon. Members would agree that nobody who has suffered the
loss of a loved one, or who has had an accident or been injured
as a result of a driving offence, should have to endure the
injustice of seeing those responsible go free, simply because of
a loophole in the law. Prosecutions for driving offences, and any
illegal action, should be based on what happened, not where
something happened.
The campaign to amend, update and overhaul current legislation
would give people such as Gemma and Paul Black, as well as many
others, the peace of mind that there are consequences for
dangerous driving, no matter where it occurs. It would send a
powerful message to help prevent such needless and avoidable
tragedies happening in future. I thank the hon. Member for North
Devon and wish her success. I congratulate her and the all-party
parliamentary group on their work. I look forward to hearing the
Minister’s response.
10.08am
(Wolverhampton North East)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon () on introducing such an
important debate, on an issue many colleagues are concerned
about.
Urban speeding in Wolverhampton is, to my mind, getting worse.
That could be just my personal experience driving round local
roads, but I am regularly overtaken by other drivers on
residential roads with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. I have
taken taxi journeys from the station to my home, but I cannot
remember an occasion when I did not have to say to the driver
that it was a 30 mph zone.
I strongly feel that we need to do more than intervene to prevent
urban speeding only when there is a fatality. In many cases,
people will slow down only if they fear they may be caught and
fined. StreetWatch teams have been going out with speed guns, and
I have urged West Midlands police to look at having more mobile
speed cameras in vans. We need measures that create the
perception that drivers may be caught and fined, because that can
reduce urban speeding. Taxi drivers have trackers in their cars,
and licensing committees could clearly be doing spot checks on
taxi drivers to ensure that their journey time correlates with
the speed limit. All those measures could help reduce urban
speeding, which is a huge issue.
Moving on to serious accidents, City of Wolverhampton Council
will look at traffic calming and speed reduction measures only
where there has been a serious injury or fatality. Because time
is brief, I will focus my remarks on one tragic case we had in
Wolverhampton. In 2018, Mandy Gayle’s father, Hopton Gayle, was
run over and killed on the Stafford Road, which is one of the
main arterial routes into Wolverhampton. It has a 40 mph limit,
but it is estimated that the man who hit Hopton was travelling at
well over 60 mph. He had slowed down to avoid getting caught by a
traffic camera, and he was speeding up again when he hit Mandy’s
father and killed him. The case is made more horrific by several
factors, including the fact that the driver only stopped to push
the bonnet of his car back down before driving away, leaving
Hopton Gale lying on the Stafford Road.
Mandy lives on that road, and when she left her home, she saw her
father under a blanket on the road. These accidents have effects.
Mandy has now moved house, and she is campaigning with RoadPeace
West Midlands. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for North
Devon, because what happened to Mandy’s father is a case study in
the report from the APPG for cycling and walking. In the report,
Mandy comments that she does not go a day without thinking of her
father, and the consequence for her is a lifelong sentence. The
driver, who left the scene, did hand himself in many hours later,
and he was sentenced to three years and nine months and banned
from driving for only four years. When someone has driven so
recklessly and killed a much loved great-grandfather, that does
not seem a sufficient sentence.
Most constituents send us to this place to try to pass laws and
to ensure that common sense shines through when people receive
sentences. When life goes wrong, constituents want our support
and they want justice for their families and loved ones. The work
of RoadPeace and its “Remain & Report” campaign are therefore
important, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on
making leaving the scene of an accident a significant factor in
the length of sentences—sorry, collisions, not accidents; I will
remember to use the new terminology. For the sake of all our
constituents, we need to reduce urban speeding, and it would be
appreciated if we could hear what the Government’s plan is to
help with that and to punish those drivers who endanger us all
every day.
10.13am
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I thank the
hon. Member for North Devon () for securing today’s
debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East
() for the incredible work he
does on the APPG for cycling and walking. We have heard so
powerfully today about why we need greater justice for vulnerable
road users—for cyclists and pedestrians and for those who wheel
and scoot.
The APPG report articulates where those changes need to be
focused, and I trust that, in his response, the Minister will
refer to the report’s 10 recommendations and to the opportunity
to put in place a system of justice that addresses the huge
inequality that vulnerable road users experience. In particular,
the right to continue to drive needs to be examined in greater
detail, because we know that disqualification is a major
intervention that will change behaviours. That, together with
sentencing, re-testing and an escalation of penalty, is long
overdue.
I want to focus on speed limits, which other hon. Members have
talked about today. I thank the York Cycle Campaign for its work
on abiding by speed limits. In the entry and exit points of York,
in particular, people accelerate beyond the speed limit. It
cannot be beyond the mind of technology today to better audit,
monitor and provide penalty for those who exceed the speed limit.
However, across all urban areas, we need to consider whether 30
mph and 40 mph are appropriate speed limits. The Minister will be
very familiar with the 20’s Plenty for Us campaign, and we do
need to look at this issue, particularly where there are blind
corners and steep hills, which can occlude a driver’s vision.
(Rother Valley)
(Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very important point about speed
limits. In my constituency, on Swinston Hill Road in Dinnington,
we have an issue with speeding. The council conducted a speed
watch to work out how fast drivers were going. Drivers were
speeding, but the council’s response was that maybe the speed
limit was too low and that it should be raised because there were
no accidents. Does the hon. Lady understand the concerns of
residents who report speeding, when the council says that, if
there are no accidents, there is no problem? Speeding is always a
problem.
I agree, and we must ensure that we put safety first at every
juncture.
I want to address the issue of creating zones around schools,
nurseries and other areas where young people play, as well as
around heavily pedestrianised areas, to ensure that there is a
safety strategy in such locations. There are many schools across
York where young people have to navigate dangerous roads, and 30
mph is not a safe speed for children. I urge the Minister to
consider an integrated schools strategy, so we can deploy proper
measures to keep children and young people safe when they walk,
wheel, scoot or cycle to school. The work done in Manchester,
which states that the infrastructure should be there for a
12-year-old to navigate, is really important, but we need to
ensure that it is applied across the country, because it is clear
that there is inequality at the moment.
Where we see repetition in a locality, or indeed even a single
incident, there should be a duty on local authorities to ensure
that proper signage and speed mitigation are put in place to
highlight areas of risk and to ensure that junctions and other
areas are safe for walkers and cyclists. I urge the Minister to
look at that.
I draw Members’ attention to the work of the Parliamentary
Advisory Council for Transport Safety on speed limits and the
opportunities for technology in this area. Its recommendations,
too, are important, and I thank it for its work.
I also want to raise with the Minister the work undertaken by the
Institute for Safe Autonomy at the University of York, in the
light of the on-board technology that is available for vehicles,
which can act as evidence in court cases. That could secure more
convictions and ensure a chilling effect on poor driving.
The licensing of taxis is long overdue, and the Government have
had a long time to implement the Law Commission’s report on it.
We often see some of the worst driving behaviours in our city
when licences have been granted in authorities other than our
own. I really urge movement on that issue to ensure that
licensing relates to the authority in which somebody is licensed
to drive, and to bring greater safety for road users.
Finally, I want to draw attention to the work City of York
Council is doing with its transport consultation. If we are
serious about seeing an escalation of active travel and proper
safety measures put in place, it is really important that every
local authority has a proper integrated transport plan. That
would benefit not only the environment and the economy, with all
that that brings, but cyclists, walkers, wheelers and scooters,
ensuring that their safety in the road space is acknowledged and
made a priority.
10.20am
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon () on securing this important
debate.
I concur with a lot of what my hon. Friend the Member for North
West Norfolk () said about sentencing
guidelines in relation to the case he mentioned. He and I have
exchanged messages on that issue, due to tragic cases that have
occurred in both our constituencies. That is why I would like to
focus specifically on the case of Sharlotte-Sky Naglis, which has
now been dealt with, and the individual involved has been
sentenced.
The case relates specifically to section 7A of the Road Traffic
Act 1988. John Owen had put himself behind the wheel of a
vehicle, having been drinking and taking class A drugs all day,
and was using his mobile phone when he hit and killed
six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky Naglis, who was walking along the
pavement in Norton Green to buy some sweets from a local shop
with her father. The impact that that had on the local community
still scars me to this day. The hon. Member for Strangford
() was at my Adjournment debate on this issue, and he
kindly intervened to allow me to gather myself, because
Claire—Sharlotte’s mother—was in the Public Gallery listening to
what was being said.
Claire had to spend weeks—actually, months—not knowing what had
caused the death of her six-year-old daughter. That was because
John Owen was in a coma, and even though his blood had been taken
without his consent, as is allowed under the provisions in
legislation, the blood itself could not be tested unless he awoke
from his coma and gave his consent. What seems bizarre is that we
can forcibly take blood from someone, which is the most intrusive
thing we can do, but we cannot then immediately allow it to be
tested to give answers as quickly as possible to the police and,
more importantly, to the victims of the offence.
For me, this is also a perversion in the law. If someone chooses
to withhold their blood sample to stop it being tested, they may
receive a maximum of two years added on to their sentence. But if
it came out that they had taken class A drugs, their fear would
be that they would receive an even greater sentence. So where is
the incentive for them to be honest and to admit to what they
have done, when they know that two years is far better than the
four, five, six or whatever it is that they will receive because
drug abuse, particularly involving class A drugs, is such an
aggravating factor?
I have been campaigning with Claire since that awful event in
2021 to get Sharlotte’s law introduced. I am looking to secure a
ten-minute rule Bill opportunity to bring this issue to the Floor
of the House so that we can tidy up this area of law and say
that, when blood has been taken, it will be tested, regardless of
whether consent has been given, so that victims get answers to
their questions. Why should we allow the police to store blood
when, God forbid—by accident, I am sure—it could be contaminated
and that evidence could be lost, or when it might not be stored
correctly, meaning that that sample would no longer be fit for
use? Why even risk allowing the perpetrator of a crime the
opportunity to escape the justice he should face?
Sadly, in John Owen’s case, because the incident took place
before the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, he was
sentenced under the old guidance. He received only a pathetic six
years of prison, and within two years he has already had the
opportunity to be considered for transfer to an open prison. I
would like to put on record my thanks to the Lord Chancellor and
Secretary of State for Justice, who has intervened to ensure that
John Owen remains in a full custodial prison—I believe it is a
category B—to make sure that, at the very least, he understands,
albeit very briefly, the consequences of his heinous crimes.
The campaign I mentioned has the backing of 5,500 petitioners,
many of whom are Claire’s colleagues, and I thank them and her
boss for sharing it with other employees and with clients to get
them to sign up. I have also secured the backing of charities
such as Brake, SCARD and the Campaign Against Drink Driving and
of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, which in September 2023 voted
unanimously across the political divide to fully endorse and
support the campaign. When this issue comes to the Floor of the
House, I hope the Government can, as they have with other
legislation I have worked on, put their full weight behind it and
ensure that we get it on to the statute book, so that we can tidy
up this perversion in the law and ensure that victims get answers
to questions and people get sentenced for the crimes they
commit.
10.25am
(Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon () on highlighting this issue
and giving us all the chance to be part of this debate. It is
always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent
North ()—he knows he is a dear
friend, and I am looking forward to him coming to my constituency
in the first week of March and renewing that friendship on the
ground.
Although the UK legislation does not extend to Northern Ireland,
we have a very similar legislative system in place. Consequently,
issues faced by people here on the mainland are replicated in
Northern Ireland, and so, too, must the solutions be replicated.
My contribution to this debate will be from a Northern Ireland
perspective. The Minister will not be able to automatically
respond, and nor does he have any duty to, but I just want to add
to the debate and to support all those who have contributed.
In Northern Ireland, we have had an awful year for road deaths,
with 71 people losing their lives on the roads in 2023—that is
the highest number for eight years, and the annual death toll had
not risen above 70 since 2015. In addition to those families
losing their loved ones, figures from the Police Service of
Northern Ireland show that some 679 people were seriously injured
on the roads between 1 January and 31 October 2023. The data also
shows that there were 13 motorcyclists and 19 pedestrians among
the deaths in 2023. Provisional figures also show that
single-vehicle collisions accounted for almost one fifth of all
road deaths in the first months of 2023. That clearly shows that
there is a need to enhance safety. So the question for me, and
probably for others as well, is: with all the new safety features
in cars, including anti-lock braking systems and greater
non-slide technology improvements, should those numbers not be
declining rather than increasing? The facts, of course, disprove
that, and that is why this debate is so important.
While I have seen indicators that as many as nine in 10 accidents
are avoidable, I also believe that road infrastructure has a
major role to play in these statistics. We see people crossing
dividing lines to avoid potholes or being pulled into the verges
and ending up—as we would call it—in the sheugh in the dark, due
to no fault of their own. I am sure the hon. Member for North
Devon would agree that part of improving safety has to be the
improvement of road structures and surfaces, and the Minister
must take that aspect back to Cabinet colleagues and bid for
enhanced funding. I think it was two weeks ago that I met one of
the companies from the mainland, and it had a brand-new idea for
solving pothole problems that looks really good. It is
financially viable, quicker and more efficient, and maybe there
is an onus on the Government to try to put these things in
place.
In my time as an elected representative, I have seen too many
deaths on our roads and the impact that that has on families. I
have also seen the impact of seeing the perpetrator receive what
seems to be an unfair sentence, which is nothing short of
devastating. One case that springs to mind is drink-driving case
where the driver was substantially over the limit, and the
accident resulted in death, yet the judge handed out a suspended
sentence. I was heartened by a recent case, in November last
year, which resulted in a nine-and-a-half year sentence for the
drunk driver. I believe that the message is starting to make its
way through: driving over the limit will not be treated as a
mistake but as a decision, and that decision has
consequences.
I support the hon. Member for North Devon in her view that
sentences should not simply reflect the damage of the crime but
send a message to others. I was shocked to read that PSNI
officers conducted 7,250 preliminary breath tests during the
Christmas drink-driving campaign between 1 December 2023 and 1
January 2024. Of those 7,250 tests, 4.9%, or 355, resulted in a
fail or fail to provide. Males accounted for the majority of
those arrested for drink or drug-driving offences in the 2023-24
campaign, and half of those arrested were between 30 and 49 years
of age.
However, the most shocking statistic is that the youngest person
arrested for drink-driving offences during the 2023-24 campaign
was 14. My goodness—how on earth could that happen? The oldest
person, and they are not guiltless either, was 82. It is clear
that the message is still not getting to the people who need to
hear it. I believe that a means of lowering the prevalence of
drink-driving would be to enhance the penalties and to remove the
ability for mitigating circumstances to affect any form of
punishment or rehabilitation.
I will conclude now, Ms Nokes, so as to adhere to your
five-minute rule. The issue should be considered UK-wide. I
support the hon. Member for North Devon and all the hon. Members
who have called for action, and I have absolutely no doubt that
the Minister will respond positively and give us some of the
assurances that we wish to hear.
10.30am
(Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Ms Nokes, to have you here in the Chair
today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon () on securing the debate as
well as everyone who has taken part in it. The strength of
feeling from everyone who has spoken has come across extremely
well, including in the personal stories and those told on behalf
of constituents who have been victims of road accidents. I
completely agree that referring to “road accidents” is exactly
right, considering what happens on our roads. There has been a
sense that driving offences are not viewed as as serious as they
are in reality; that has come across loud and clear. I also
congratulate the APPG on its work, as well as Roadpeace and the
other charities mentioned today.
I want to mention some personal stories of my own. A friend of
mine decided to return to cycling recently. On his first outing
on his bike, he hit a pothole and was badly injured, and he has
not been able to go back to work. I mention that incident because
one of the issues that has not come up today is the need for
decently repaired roads. Before I move on to what others have
said, let me briefly say that road safety, in its widest sense of
ensuring that we can all travel safely on our roads, means
investing in proper repairs. I am glad that we are going to see
some more money for repairs after the cuts—indeed, the halving of
the budget.
(in the Chair)
May I gently remind the shadow Minister that the title of the
debate is “Victims of Road Traffic Offences: Criminal Justice
System”?
Indeed, and I will say why road repairs are relevant. In October
2023, the AA had the highest level of call-outs in any October
ever, and accidents are sometimes caused by or related to poor
road conditions. We still need justice, whatever the cause of an
accident is.
I hope that we will see a proper level of investment in our road
repairs, including—I say this gently to the Minister —the
specification of a higher quality of sustainable repair. The
technology exists, although it is not always applied. That is all
I have to say on the matter of road repairs, but I wanted to
refer to it because I think it is relevant to the debate.
The other personal story I have is about a motorcyclist, who is
the friend of a friend. A driver pulled in front of him and he
crashed, and is now in a coma. The prognosis is that he will
never recover, because he is paralysed. I was reminded of his
story while I listened to some of the others. I have no idea
whether there will be a prosecution in that case. I will make no
further reference to it, to where it happened or to who was
involved, but it is a reminder that accidents cause life-changing
injuries and even deaths.
In her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for
Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) mentioned the very high
level of deaths on our roads—1,500 fatal injuries, as well as
130,000 casualties in Britain. We all have a duty to reduce that
level of accidents, and I have mentioned repairs.
Just to clarify, given that every person in the Chamber today has
asked for these events not to be referred to as “accidents”—we
are talking about “crashes” or “collisions”—is it the
Opposition’s policy to persist in calling them “accidents”?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but she
heard me say at the start of my remarks that it was entirely
appropriate that we spoke about “collisions”—
If the hon. Member refers back to Hansard, I think he will see
that that is not what he actually said at the start of his
remarks.
Well, I was referring to what the hon. Lady said in her speech,
but I think we are talking at cross purposes. I completely accept
that it is correct to talk about “collisions”, and all I would
say in response to her intervention is that this shows just how
easy it is to slip back into calling them “accidents”. I accept
her point, and I am happy to correct the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington told us how
many deaths and how many casualties there are from collisions,
and we all have a duty to reduce the number and to prevent them
from happening. What we have so often heard today is that that is
not happening. The way that drivers are allowed to continue is a
real problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr
Bradshaw) spoke in a previous debate about a driver who had been
banned something like nine times, and went on to be involved in a
collision in which somebody died. This is about the short nature
of such bans, and that point has been well made. I welcome the
Government increasing the length of bans, and we supported the
amendment to do that in legislation that went through a few years
ago. The question is: what more can be done? I very much welcome
the recommendations made by the all-party group, and I am very
keen to hear what the Minister has to say in response to
them.
I will say a few things about what Labour wants to see. We have
published our approach to government, with our mission to raise
confidence in the police and the criminal justice system to their
highest levels. We want to see 13,000 extra police on our
streets, and to address the cuts in the police and in support
staff. I know that the Minister will say that police numbers,
having declined first, have increased again, but there has not
been a return to the previous numbers of support staff.
As Her Majesty’s—now His Majesty’s—inspectorate of constabulary
and fire and rescue services said in 2020:
“The number of dedicated roads policing officers has
declined”.
It also said that they have been moved to addressing
“responsibilities for supporting general policing”.
That has to change if we are to support victims, investigate the
incidents—collisions—that happen on our roads and deliver justice
in a timely fashion. We heard about how long it is taking to
bring one case to court; I think it was my hon. Friend the Member
for Leeds North East () who made that point about
a constituent. The challenge for us is to support victims and to
ensure that justice is seen to be delivered, and that it is not
delayed. There were 83,581 cases in a nine-year period where
drivers were not disqualified due to mitigating circumstances. I
think we should address the recommendation in the all-party
group’s excellent report on mitigating circumstances.
I will quickly reiterate those questions for the Minister,
because I am keen to learn whether he accepts the
recommendations. Whoever is in government has a duty to seriously
consider the requests.
(in the Chair)
Very quickly.
Indeed. We have 20 minutes left, but I do not intend to use many
more of them.
Does the Minister support the all-party group’s 10
recommendations? Does he want escalating penalties? Does he agree
that we should require retesting for those wanting to drive again
following disqualification? What is his view on increasing the
maximum sentence for dangerous driving to four years? What is his
view on issuing guidance to police officers and increasing their
use of bail powers so they can remove the right to drive from
people arrested for dangerous driving? Does he agree that we
should revisit sentencing guidelines so that exceptional hardship
should be granted only in truly exceptional circumstances? What
is his view on removing tolerances in speed enforcement, creating
consistent guidelines for forces to investigate serious
collisions, implementing a standardised system for third parties
to report actual or suspected road offences, creating a UK
commissioner for road danger reduction, and implementing
guidelines so that victims of crashes are considered victims of
crime unless there is clear evidence to the contrary?
The debate is about justice for victims. I am very keen to hear
whether the Minister agrees that we really need to consider
victims of road traffic collisions as victims, and that they
should be covered by the victims code and other aspects of
criminal law. Far too often, drivers who commit serious offences
are not regarded by society as guilty of a serious crime.
Everybody in this debate is calling for that to change, and I am
very interested to hear whether the Minister agrees.
(in the Chair)
I am sure the Minister will want to leave a couple of minutes for
the hon. Member for North Devon at the end.
10.42am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport ()
Thank you very much indeed for your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon () on securing this very
important debate. Sometimes Parliament is knocked or decried for
its lack of impact, but nobody could have listened to the debate
and not realised that what is being raised is of real importance
to individual Members of Parliament, on a cross-party basis, and
the families who have been so affected.
Road safety matters to all of us. As we are all aware, the
solutions are complex, but that does not mean that we should not
try to grasp them or engage with them, or that we do not take
debates of this nature very seriously indeed.
We are on a journey. I am a veteran of a 20-year legal career,
having prosecuted many of these types of cases and defended some,
and there was no victim impact statement when I started out. It
just did not exist; the victim was never consulted in any way
whatever. I have been a cyclist for the past 40 years, and there
were no such thing as cycle lanes in days gone by. The hon.
Member for Leeds North East () is entirely right that
things are getting better, albeit we have a way to go.
Having just been with the fantastic people who work at Active
Travel England, which is based in the constituency of the hon.
Member for York Central (), and having cycled around
the Roman and medieval streets of York with all their
complexities, I fully understand that putting cycle
infrastructure in such a town is very difficult. Active travel
did not exist before, and it clearly has a way to go before it is
as good as all Members would like it to be. We are all on this
journey, and solutions will not be ticked by this Government or
the next one straightaway, but there is an acknowledgement that
we are all, on a cross-party basis, trying to improve the
situation, and that is something we should get behind.
Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the debate, I put on
record that colleagues are entirely right to state the impact
that this issue has had on individual families, including that of
, represented by my hon. Friend
the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (); the Saltern family,
represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall
(); the Winterburn family,
represented by the hon. Member for Leeds North East (); and the Chapman family,
represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for
Aldridge-Brownhills (). There is also the tragic
case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk
(); the case specifically raised
by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney ()—I will come to new clause 49
of the Criminal Justice Bill in a second—as well as the case of
Sharlotte, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent
North (); and the Gayle family
case, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North
East (). Those families all have
tragic and terrible stories to tell, and it is right that their
representatives make the case for a better system. I take all the
points on board. There is much being worked on by various
Departments, which I will try to address in the limited time I
have.
I represent the Department for Transport and have supported the
all-party group; in fact, many years ago, I sat in this room
while our colleague Lord Austin led a debate on these issues in
this Chamber. This is clearly a cross-departmental matter, and we
need to stress that the solution is cross-departmental. I give
apologies from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (), and the Minister for Crime,
Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon
South (), who are debating the Criminal
Justice Bill as we speak and addressing, for example, new clause
49, tabled by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, on
the use of private roads and the impact of particular cases that
arise. That is something to be discussed in the House, in the
Public Bill Committee.
I should also point out that I bear scars myself. On 23 June
2019, I was the victim of a pretty serious road traffic accident.
I broke my ankle and ruptured my knee ligaments when I was
knocked off my bicycle by a car on a London street, also not in a
designated lane. I still bear the scars, and my running days are
definitely over as a result.
We want to foster an environment of safety. Great work is being
done to pursue that. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for
North Devon that the word “accident” should no longer be used;
indeed, the Department for Transport no longer uses it. The
appropriate terms are “crashes” or “collisions”, and we encourage
others to use them. My hon. Friend will understand that
“accident” is the correct word in certain pieces of legislation,
but the prevailing approach of various Departments is a
difference and a change in words. I hope it is of benefit that my
brief includes not just roads but road safety and active travel,
as we try to bring those things together. I have certainly been
fighting to address them.
In the time allowed, I will try to address the particular points
raised. I will start with the issue of escalating penalties.
Section 65 of the Sentencing Act 2020 provides a statutory
aggravating factor, stating that:
“The court must treat as an aggravating factor each relevant
previous conviction that it considers can be reasonably be so
treated”.
Judges must therefore consider the appropriate level of any
sentence uplift justified by that factor as part of considering
the full circumstances of the case. I will come to the point made
by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, but the
point is fairly made that these are relatively young pieces of
legislation. The changes that the Government brought in to make
sentencing take account of aggravating factors are still being
worked through the criminal justice system.
Although I cannot speak specifically for the Lord Chancellor and
the MOJ, it is unquestionable that, as cases take place, one can
review guidance, take a second look at each situation, and see to
what extent and how sufficiently the aggravating factors are
being taken into account. That is not something that one can do
straight away, but one can step back, take a proper review and
look at that in a bit more detail. I will come to the increases
in sentencing in a second, but first let me turn to the issue of
compulsory retesting. I take the point that has been raised.
Clearly, it is a cross-departmental issue, but there is, none the
less, a mandatory retesting requirement on causing death by
dangerous driving, dangerous driving and causing serious injury
by dangerous driving. I accept, however, that the last update in
the guidance was 2015, so it is something that the Department for
Transport is considering. That is an ongoing process and, as
Members will see when I come on to mention particular cases,
there are many factors at play, ranging from insurance to
consequential impacts on sentencing.
Let me turn now to increasing the maximum sentence for dangerous
driving. As was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North
West Norfolk, the sentence has been increased: the maximum
penalty for dangerous driving while under the influence of drink
or drugs went from 14 years to life. I accept that that was of
little comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent
North and his constituents, but, at the very least, the
Government have listened and taken action. I take on board the
criticisms of the sentences. It is a dangerous thing for
Ministers to start criticising individual judges for the way in
which they reach their decisions, so I will not get into that
without being fully party to all the circumstances. None the
less, as I think the Ministry of Justice will do, there is a
legitimate case for reviewing the sentences and the totality that
followed those particular cases and establishing proper guidance.
That is what is done with other offences. That is what will be
done in this case and I hope the affected families will feel
assured to know that that process is in hand.
In respect of the exceptional hardship point, having prosecuted
and defended a similar case, I know that it is up to the
individual defendant to raise exceptional hardship; the
presumption is not that one can bring that forward. The
Sentencing Council’s explanatory guidance makes it absolutely
clear that it is for the offender to prove that these
circumstances exist and that they are, and must be, exceptional.
If it is genuinely the case that the argument has been made that
the exceptionality is not being implemented in the appropriate
way, that is something for us to review. I take the assertions on
board, but it is ultimately up to the sentencing court to
genuinely take that into account. I stress very strongly that it
cannot be that it is an inconvenience; it cannot be anything
other than truly exceptional hardship. The loss of one’s driving
licence does not constitute exceptional hardship in any way.
Let me turn now to the extraordinarily vexed issue of speeding.
Any Welsh MP will know of the issues relating to the 20 mph
situation and the complexities that that has brought, but at the
same time, as I said in this Chamber barely a month ago, there
is, in my respectful view, a consensus that 20 mph zones outside
school are utterly accepted. There is no question of any of us
going back on that—in fact there is massive encouragement.
Frankly, those schools that do not have 20 mph zones need to take
a long hard look at that, which might involve local councils and
parish councils as well. Exceptional circumstances may apply in
relation to the location, but, as a broad presumptive, this House
is utterly committed to that in those circumstances. The blanket
application of that, in my respectful opinion, is much more
difficult to achieve, but, at the same time, just because a
policy may be difficult to achieve does not mean that we cannot
attempt to address it. The point is fairly made in the report and
it needs to be made again here: the impact evaluation of the
national speed awareness course, which was published in 2018,
found that participation in that course was more effective at
preventing speed reoffending than fines and penalty points. That
is proper evidential data that we should take on board. I think
that there is a widespread and strongly held view across the
House that greater use of such courses is the way ahead and a
much better approach than the simple approach that has been put
forward.
I will briefly touch on new clause 49, proposed by the hon.
Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (). I met him yesterday, having
met him previously when he raised his constituent’s case at
PMQs.
Will the Minister give way?
No, I will not. Sorry, I have only three minutes, and I have
loads of points to address.
New clause 49 is a cross-departmental matter. Clearly, it will be
debated, but complexities are involved in doing what the hon.
Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney proposes for private land.
Those range from military vehicles and the extent, to issues with
insurance and the like, but I very much take on board the point
that the hon. Member raised.
I entirely accept that police forces have differing approaches
when it comes to the thorough investigation of serious
collisions. Effort is being made by the chief constables to
change that, and I would urge the Home Office to drive that
forward. Without a shadow of a doubt, some police forces are
better than others in relation to the issue of recognising crash
victims as crime victims. It is clear that the victims code
permits and, frankly, encourages victims of road traffic offences
to seek the support that they require. The Ministry of Justice,
which provides police and crime commissioners with annual grant
funding to commission local, practical and therapeutic support
for victims of all types, should apply that to individual crime
victims who have suffered crashes or collisions.
I respectfully suggest that the Department for Transport is very
keen on the expansion and understanding of the highway code. It
has spent millions of pounds on that, whether through its Think!
campaign, social media campaigns, factual awareness campaigns or
other particular ongoing campaigns on radio, digital,
video-on-demand and social media. We genuinely wish to push those
campaigns.
I totally accept that this is a work in progress, and on a
cross-departmental basis. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for
North Devon and this House that we will meet the three key
Departments to try to drive forward an integrated Government
policy on all these matters. It is not for one Department to fix
this; it should be done on a cross-departmental basis. I thank my
hon. Friend for securing this debate and all my colleagues for
bringing this matter forward.
10.57am
It has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes.
I thank the Minister for his response and all right hon. and hon.
Members for participating in the debate. I pass on my thanks and
heartfelt sympathy to the families that we are representing
today.
I fully accept that this is a journey, and while it has been
great to reiterate some of the legal points and things that we
have done to move these things forward, we all might like to see
this journey speeded up a little—without wishing to break any
speed limits—to enable us to get better justice for the victims
that we have come to speak about today.
I put on the record my commitment to continue this journey with
the APPG, through meeting with the Departments. We all recognise
that when things fall between Departments they are often harder
to keep on the road, but we really need to progress this.
I will take one more opportunity to thank everyone for who has
taken the time to join this debate and to thank the APPG and all
those who helped contribute to the report who are with us in the
Gallery.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered victims of road traffic offences
and the criminal justice system.
|
