Driving Offences: Government Consultation

Debate between Wayne David and Sam Gyimah

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) on securing this debate about the Government’s consultation on driving offences and penalties relating to causing death or serious injury. In one way, the debate is timely, as the consultation closed last week—on 1 February. I want to take this opportunity to thank the thousands of people—more than 9,000, in fact—who took the time to respond. We received responses from road safety groups such as Brake, driving organisations, academics, Members of this House, police officers, prosecutors, defence lawyers and families who lost loved ones as a result of terrible driving offences. We also heard from from members of the general public who simply wanted to share what they thought about road traffic offences and penalties. I am grateful for the time and effort that all those people put into their responses.

I am sure that Members appreciate that I am not going to set out now, just a week later, the Government’s assessment and our response to the consultation. We will, of course, consider every one of those 9,000-plus responses. We will then produce a written response and bring forward proposals for legislative or other changes.

Before the consultation closed, I met a number of families who have experienced terrible losses as a result of driving offences. I was struck by how much they wanted to respond to the consultation because they needed to share their experience and wanted to make the law as effective as possible. As a Justice Minister, I cannot comment on individual cases, inlcuding the charges brought or the sentences imposed. However, from talking to those families and a series of debates that I attended last year, I know that many Members of this House will be aware of cases involving road deaths in their own constituencies.

I know that there was a particularly tragic case in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency when three young men were killed by a driver who was subsequently convicted of causing death by careless driving. I extend my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those three young men who died when they were just at the beginning of their adult lives.

Although I cannot comment on individual cases, I do want to deal with the main points raised by the hon. Gentleman. He suggests that the Government should have expanded the consultation to include a consideration of the differences between careless driving and dangerous driving. The consultation does in fact deal with that important issue, particularly the suggestion that the distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving should be abolished and replaced with one “bad driving” offence.

I recognise, as is set out in the consultation, that this can be a difficult area of law. What amounts to dangerous driving is determined not, as is more normal in the criminal law, by considering the driver’s state of mind or intentions, which in the context of driving is often difficult to ascertain, but by examining the nature of the driving. The law sets out an objective test that is designed to compare the driving of a defendant in the specific circumstances of their case with what would be expected of a notional careful and competent driver. In general terms, if the court considers that the defendant’s driving falls far below that standard, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that the manner of the driving was dangerous, the court will find it to have been dangerous driving.

Our law needs to reflect that while the harm caused in homicide cases and fatal driving offences is the same, because someone has died, the offender’s culpability for the death may be significantly different. The consultation examined the option for a single bad driving offence. It set out in detail why the Government are not persuaded of a case for change. Those who propose a single test have said that it will lead to more convictions and longer sentences. As is set out in the consultation, we do not believe that that is necessarily the case. That is because the maximum penalty for the single offence would have to be broad enough to cover the most serious cases—we have proposed a life sentence for causing death—and also the least serious when the driver’s culpability for the death is very low. If we do not have a distinction in the offences between the seriousness of the offending, it is possible that the conviction rate may actually fall because juries might be reluctant to convict a driver in lesser cases—one where they can imagine themselves in the same position—for an offence with a very serious maximum penalty.

[Wayne David]

I acknowledge the Minister’s argument, which I have heard before. If we went out to consultation on this specific issue, which we have not really done, would it not be far better if the Government were informed by a wider legal debate as well as public opinion in case they might want to change the law in the future?

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I suspect that if I were to look at his submission to the consultation, I would see that he has made points similar to those that he has raised in this debate. When members of the public have concerns, I am sure that they will have made us aware of them through the consultation process. That is absolutely fair—it is why we have a consultation—but a consultation has to start and finish somewhere.

The Government’s case is that if we do not have a distinction between the seriousness of offences, the conviction rate could fall. Sentences might not increase either, because the judge in the case would still consider the culpability of the offender when deciding the appropriate sentence. I would not want to mislead victims and families by suggesting that a broader offence would necessarily result in higher sentences.

I disagree that a single offence would mean that the Crown Prosecution Service would be unable to accept a lesser plea in circumstances when that was inappropriate. The CPS operates under the code for Crown prosecutors and will bring the most serious charge appropriate for the behaviour when there is a reasonable chance of securing a conviction that is in the interest of justice. It is worth noting that a judge may direct that there is no evidence to sustain a more serious charge in some cases.

In conclusion, let me repeat that there can be nothing more tragic than the loss of young lives—any lives—especially when that loss is avoidable. I know only too well that many hon. Members have seen cases where people have died in such circumstances in their constituencies, and where there are concerns about the sentences imposed. As I said in a debate at the end of last year, for too long these concerns have not been acted upon. At that time, I reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to consulting on the offences and penalties for driving offences resulting in death and serious injury. That is what the Government have done. We will analyse all the responses and come forward with plans in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Wayne David and Sam Gyimah

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

I appreciate the point the hon. Lady is making; I am happy to have a look at it, assess the situation, see whether what we are discussing has any bearing on the issues she has outlined and write back to her.

I commend these clauses and schedules to the Committee.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I want to make a few brief comments and ask the Minister some questions about clause 6 and schedule 1, and clauses 7 and 9. These provisions relate, as he said, to the petition officers who will be appointed.

My questions are about the costs incurred in this process. The Bill is non-specific and refers to the condition that

“the total of the officer’s charges does not exceed the amount…specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Minister”.

However, one of the interesting things about the Bill is that it is accompanied by a detailed impact assessment, which goes into such meticulous detail on the likely costs incurred during the process that it lists the estimated total costs of one recall petition, which include the cost for the petition officer, at £500, the cost of the petition signing place, at £734, and the cost of the petition notice card, at £20,891. I was wondering why, if that much work has been done, the Government are waiting for secondary legislation. Why not build it directly into the Bill, so we could see exactly the cost that is likely to be incurred? If we are committed to secondary legislation, when are we going to see the provisions for it coming forward? Will it be done quickly? I presume it will be, because if the work has been done, I see no reason at all why it cannot be brought forward immediately. Perhaps it is, in reality, already available and could be presented to us.

My second point relates to clause 7, which refers to a “maximum of 4 places” where the petition can be signed. To his credit, the Minister has said that he has taken into account the opinions of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but why has he not taken into account the representations made, not just by the Member who tabled the amendment, but by the Electoral Commission? The Electoral Commission has provided a circular, which has gone to all Members. It says that it sees no reason why there should be “a maximum of four” places in which to go and vote, suggesting there should be “a minimum of four” places. It makes the very good point that our constituencies vary enormously in their size and geography, so four places might be appropriate for a compact constituency, but nowhere near enough for more rural constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my point, he will realise that I was speaking specifically about expenses. We have used the hard facts that the AV referendum gave us to develop some estimates, but the question is: how much detail can the Bill go into? The truth is that expenses may be incurred during a petition process that the Government could not have anticipated, so it will be down to the petition officer to submit expenses and costs, and we will set out a fees and charges order to cover that. That is why the Bill does not go into as much detail as the hon. Member for Caerphilly would have liked.

Rightly and understandably, there has been much discussion about whether the petition signing sheet will be user-tested. I hope I can reassure the Committee that its wording has been developed with the input of the Electoral Commission to ensure that it is balanced and fits with the commission’s guidance for referendum questions. The wording that we and the commission have devised gives petitioners the information they need, including the important addition that if the Member in question loses their seat as a result of a petition, there is nothing to prevent them from standing. It is worth making it clear that during the petition process, the Member in question is no longer a Member of Parliament: when recall is triggered their seat is vacated, but there is nothing to prevent them from standing in the subsequent by-election.

[Wayne David]

The Minister says that there has been consultation with the Electoral Commission, but the commission itself says that it would be far better if the opinion of a panel consisting of a cross-section of the population were tested before the final wording was agreed. There must be a sliver of doubt in the Minister’s mind, because the Bill itself says that

“The Minister may by regulations amend subsection (4).”

If the Minister wants to be able to amend it, why not take it out, and let us have a proper consultation?

[Mr Gyimah]

There is not a sliver of doubt in my mind. I am smiling because I actually agree with the hon. Gentleman on user-testing, which we would look to undertake as we go through the process of setting out the regulations, if need be amending the petition signing sheet. So the Government have not set their face against user-testing, which I believe is the main concern, and understandably so.