§ 7. Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham)What recent representations he has received regarding the penalties available in cases of causing death by dangerous driving. [147093]
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke)The Government published a consultation paper on road traffic penalties on 19 December last year. Both before then and subsequently, we have received a large number of representations from members of the public, Members of Parliament—including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), whom I met to discuss the matter—and a wide range of organisations. We shall take all those representations into account before reaching final views based on the consultation paper.
§ Mr. LoughtonAs he said, the Minister is aware of my concern about the inadequacy of penalties for causing death by dangerous driving following the tragic killing of PC Jeff Tooley in my constituency. Yet in the year of his death, only 13 of 152 people convicted of causing death by dangerous driving were given sentences of five years or more.
Why, in the document to which he referred, has the Minister ducked living up to his own tough words about making life sentences available for the worst cases of causing death by dangerous driving, rather than the current woefully inadequate 10-year maximum? What message does that send to the families of victims, and to perpetrators, when 190 killer drivers have been let out on the Government's early release scheme having served, on average, 42 per cent. of their time?
§ Mr. ClarkeThe hon. Gentleman's point about the penalties available is important. Since the beginning of 2000, we have received representations from 29 Members 653 of Parliament about the deaths of constituents during that period as a result of dangerous driving. In our consultation paper, we included a set of proposals which I believe took the situation significantly forward, not least by sending courts the message that we expect them to impose penalties that are appropriate to the crimes rather than being laughably less than that, as is too often the case.
The hon. Gentleman's general point about life sentences is legitimate. No doubt he and others will continue to advance that argument as we decide what action to take, on the basis of responses to our consultation paper.
§ Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton)I implore my hon. Friend to have regard for the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service has a large part to play in sentencing. The offences of dangerous driving and careless driving must be divorced, as they carry different sentences. Will my hon. Friend assure us that magistrates who hear evidence about such offences will be backed up? They listen to all the evidence before making decisions, and it would be wrong to undermine their work.
§ Mr. ClarkeI can give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. I can also tell him that the average sentence for the causing of death by dangerous driving, for instance, has been rising rather than falling; but the Government feel that that is not enough, which is why we published the consultation paper and why we intend to take action once we know what responses have been received.
§ Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)I am extremely concerned about the number of accidents caused by drivers who have taken illegal substances. Would the Minister consider organising an education programme involving leaflets for those who apply for driving licences or to renew their tax discs? It should be explained to people that certain drugs stay in the bloodstream far longer than alcohol, and that, while they should not take such drugs in the first place, they certainly should not drive if they have been taking them.
§ Mr. ClarkeThe hon. Gentleman is entirely correct in all that he says. We already have a substantial education programme on drug and alcohol abuse and driving, but I shall be happy to consider his specific proposals. This is a serious problem, and it needs to be addressed seriously.
§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)My hon. Friend will know that the best way in which to murder anyone in this country is to kill them with a motor car. The problem has been with us not for a short time, but for a very long time. Will my hon. Friend please give us an undertaking that decisions will be made as a matter of urgency? The agony of families who lose someone in this way is almost unbearable, and it is terribly important for us to show them that we take the matter seriously.
§ Mr. ClarkeMy hon. Friend is entirely right in every respect. The consultation paper was a major step forward. It is one of which I am personally proud and it advances significantly the argument on penalties. In my role as a Home Office Minister, I have met many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and families who have been bereaved as a 654 result of dangerous driving. Significant support can be given to the families of victims of road crime and we have increased the resources for major educational programmes on drinking and driving, but there is no doubt that the most effective cure is to prevent the accidents from happening in the first place. That is why higher penalties are necessary and why the legislation to reduce speeding through the use of speed cameras, which has just gone out of the House of Commons and is being considered by the other place, is important.