|
Mr. Stinchcombe: My hon. Friend has heard the Opposition's argument that retaining the culpability test is appropriate, in order to mark bad driving more seriously. Is he therefore surprised that the amendment would prevent a more serious mark in any incident where death did not occur?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes. One of the other inadequacies of the amendment is that it refers to ''serious injury''. However, there is no definition in law of ''serious injury'', so there could be wrangles about whether an injury was serious or not. I am not sure that trying to decide in a court whether a broken leg or serious bruising was a serious or minor injury would be entirely helpful. It is important that the effect of what someone has done should be taken into consideration, but the degree of bad driving should determine the punishment.
We said in our original road safety strategy of 2000 that there was more to be done about careless driving and we reaffirmed that in the review of penalties in 2002. I understand the argument that the hon. Member for Christchurch advanced, which is that a distinction might be made between careless driving that causes injury and that which does not. However, some people are properly suggesting that courts should be given scope to impose a more severe sentence even than a level 5 sentence for the worst cases of causing injury by careless driving. That will be looked at after the more careful and wider consideration in the Home Office's review.
The hon. Gentleman talked about blue light vehicles causing injuries. Occasionally, police vehicles engaged in emergency responses are involved in crashes, which underlines why we must be careful about extending the groups who could exceed the speed limit in certain circumstances, as we debated the other day. For example, the figures for police vehicles engaged in emergency responses in 2001-02 show that there were 24 deaths, 168 serious injuries, and about 1,700 minor injuries. Generally, the trend seems to be that serious injuries are decreasing. Nevertheless, it concerns us that those in the emergency services, acting to protect us, sometimes find themselves involved in those casualties. However, regarding the hon. Gentleman's point about the Sunday Express, that does not in any way undermine our thinking.
I think I have covered the matter of disconnection from the courts. In conclusion, we have here a small opportunity to see the fine penalty raised for those involved in careless driving, but the major review taking place outside the remit of the Bill will be far
Column Number: 172
more important. That has been given careful consideration, and will be the subject of careful consultation.
Mr. Chope: Can the Minister tell us precisely when we will see the outcome of the review?
Mr. Jamieson: I cannot give a precise answer. That is in the gift of the Home Office. The hon. Gentleman can ask the Home Office about it. Some urgency is being given to the review, mainly because of the concern that has been expressed at the various stages of the Bill. There were some powerful remarks on Second Reading by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and the Home Office has taken due note of those.
Mr. Chope: This has been a useful debate, and a curtain-raiser for the one we will have later on new clause 4. With regard to culpability, we must remember that the culpability test is already put on one side when dealing with offences of causing death by dangerous driving, for which the maximum penalty is greater than that for dangerous driving alone. Similarly, the maximum penalty for causing death while driving carelessly with drink is greater than the maximum penalty for driving carelessly with drink without causing death. The culpability test has already been eroded in those circumstances, as it has been in cases of assault where the assault results in the death of someone who has an eggshell skull.
Mr. Stinchcombe: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I ask him once more to state clearly whether he believes that it is right or wrong for there to be a more serious offence, marked by a more serious potential sentence, when careless driving causes death, than where it does not.
Mr. Chope: I think ultimately that that has to be a matter for the courts.
Mr. Stinchcombe: It is manifestly not a matter for the courts because, unless we enact it, there is no offence of causing death by careless driving.
Mr. Chope: Obviously, there is no such offence at the moment. We will discuss that later. With my amendment, I was seeking to put into words what I thought was always the Government's intention—that is, to raise the maximum penalty for careless driving by doubling the maximum fine to cover the situation where that driving results in death or serious injury. The Minister says that that is not his intention and that this measure is not meant to be a proxy for some other consideration of the whole area.
Mr. Stinchcombe: I give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity again to say whether he believes that it is profoundly right or profoundly wrong—the words of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in the House last week—that we should mark more seriously the offence of careless driving where it causes death.
Mr. Chope: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to put clear blue water between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, he will certainly not
Column Number: 173
succeed. My hon. Friend is a highly respected member of the Bar and what he says on a range of criminal justice issues is listened to with great care. He is not suggesting that we should erode the distinction between causing death by dangerous driving and the maximum penalty for dangerous driving. I have not discussed with him whether there should be a similar distinction between the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving and that for straightforward careless driving. I will draw his attention to the debate we are having, which is certainly useful.
The hon. Gentleman has accepted, by inference, that there is already scope within the law for having different maximum penalties which relate to the consequences of unlawful behaviour. In principle, if we go down the road of careless driving resulting in death—the issue of causation might be buried there—it would not be wholly without precedent.
The Minister commented on the casualties as a result of blue lights. It was not the Sunday Express but today's Daily Express which says that the annual death toll for civilians involved in crashes with police cars has risen from the figure the Minister gave for 2001-02—he said it was 24, while the Daily Express says 23—and that last year that figure rose to 30. Also, the number of people injured almost doubled, from 615 in 2003 to 1,181.
Clearly, there is a major and worsening problem there. That is the concern being expressed and there is a desire to ensure that the Home Office's attitude to this area of law is not unduly influenced by the police's seeming involvement in an increasing number of fatal collisions—and not always in responding to 999 calls. In the last year, the number of police car accidents was 20,221, but those involving 999 calls was only 5,940. Therefore, three quarters of police accidents did not involve 999 calls. Clearly, as the Minister has accepted, the standard of police driving is not as universally good as some people, certainly myself, would wish.
We have opened up a good debate and in the light of what has been said I will not press my amendment to a vote now. We will reserve our judgment on whether to come back on Report after listening to the new clause 4 debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Breach of requirements relating to children and seat belts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Chope: I should be grateful if the Minister explained a bit more about clause 20. There is an assertion by the Government that not wearing a seat belt in the rear seats should be subject to the same maximum penalty as not wearing one in the front
Column Number: 174
seats. Does he not accept that a child sitting in the front of a car, whether with a seat belt or not, is much more vulnerable than a child sitting in the rear? It is therefore much more important that a child sitting in the front seat should be wearing a seat belt—or preferably, for a very young child, a safety seat. That higher risk was the reason for the differentiation in maximum penalties.
10.15 am
Fortunately, notwithstanding the differing penalties, compliance with front-seatbelt laws is high. The problem with rear seatbelts is that it is more difficult to supervise children in the back of the car, as you probably know, Mr. Pike. Often, there are more children in the back of a car than there are seatbelt fittings, and children can therefore get used to travelling in the back without additional seatbelt anchorage.
The clause would put the wearing of seatbelts in the back and front of cars on a level footing. I should think that it is better that children travel in the back of cars, rather than the front, because they are less exposed to danger. We should not create the impression that the risk of travelling without a seatbelt in the back is equal to that in the front. The front is and always has been a more dangerous place in which to travel. Can the Minister justify the assertion underlying the clause that there is equal risk and should therefore be equal culpability and maximum penalties?
Mr. Jamieson: The clause amends part 1 of schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 so as to increase the punishment for an offence under section 15(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which concerns driving a motor vehicle in contravention of seat belt requirements in respect of a child carried in the rear seat of a vehicle, from a level 1 fine on the standard scale of £200 to a level 2 fine of £500. This means that the penalty on conviction for a seatbelt-wearing offence in respect of a child in a rear seat will be the same as that in respect of a child occupying a front seat.
I refer briefly to our previous debate. The law will never be able to get rid of human error, but we can take action to reduce its effect in a crash. That is why we have taken measures such as those concerning airbags, seatbelts, front-end crumple zones and improved engineering of cars and roads: so that when somebody inadvertently makes an error, it does not result in death or injury. We have been moving toward that approach in recent years. We have to accept that human beings are all frail and will still make errors when driving cars, whereas, these days, the likelihood that the mechanical failure of a vehicle will cause a crash is low.
It is important that we concentrate on issues such as the wearing of seatbelts, which has gradually gone up in this country since they were introduced. That has had a substantial effect on the number of casualties inside vehicles, particularly with children. We could have a long argument and do some academic research
Column Number: 175
of great import as to whether it is more dangerous for a child to be in the front or the back of a vehicle, but what purpose would that debate have?
| 
