Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

14:30

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of sentencing for causing death by dangerous or careless driving.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, although I cannot honestly say that it is a pleasure to do so. We are here because people have lost their lives on our roads. Families have lost children, parents, partners and friends, and too many are left feeling that the justice system has not reflected the enormity of their loss. This debate is about accountability, public confidence and whether the law does enough to punish those responsible and deter others from making the same devastating choices.

I want to begin with the tragic case of my constituent Keely Morgan, a 15-year-old girl whose life was cut short while crossing the road in Cardiff. She was a much-loved daughter and a cherished granddaughter, sister and friend with so much to look forward to. On 1 May 2023, Keely was struck by a car while crossing at a pedestrian crossing in Caerau, in my constituency. She died at the scene.

The court heard that the driver was travelling above the speed limit, had been driving erratically and showing off, and had removed the vehicle’s black box, invalidating his insurance. The judge described him as an “irresponsible show-off”. He received 16 months’ imprisonment for causing death by careless driving, and 11 months for causing death by driving while uninsured, to be served concurrently. He was also disqualified from driving for two years and eight months, yet he was released after serving only around six and a half months.

Keely’s family must live with their loss for the rest of their lives. Her mother, Sian Morgan, has channelled her grief into campaigning for change. Her petition has attracted nearly 12,000 signatures, and I am pleased that Sian is in the Public Gallery today. I pay tribute to her determination to ensure that other families do not have to endure the same tragedy. Her campaign deserves to be heard, and, as her Member of Parliament, I will ensure that it is. This House must take seriously the questions that it raises.

I recognise that courts must consider the individual circumstances of every case. The distinction between careless and dangerous driving is important, and not every offence should result in the same sentence, but where a driver’s actions demonstrate a serious disregard for the safety of others and a life is lost, we must ask whether our sentencing framework adequately reflects such conduct.

Sadly, these concerns are not new in my constituency of Cardiff West. Almost a decade ago, my predecessor raised very similar concerns following the death of another constituent, in a case involving dangerous driving in Adamstown, Cardiff. The constituent was killed after two drivers deliberately pursued her and drove her off the road. Both were convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to just six and a half and seven and a half years in prison respectively. The outcome then left the victim’s family members feeling that justice had not fully reflected the gravity of what had happened. How can I find myself, almost 10 years later, representing the same constituency, arguing the same point in the same Chamber? Why and how can history continue to repeat itself in this way?

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for shedding light on those cases. It cannot be easy for the families to hear again what happened. The reason we are back here, I expect, is because the sentences are not a deterrent, and because the term “death by dangerous driving” completely underplays what happens, particularly in the cases my hon. Friend explained. This is manslaughter. Does he agree that we should think not just about sentencing, but about how we present such cases to the courts?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I entirely agree. I will shortly come on to some actions that I am calling on the Government to take forward, some of which I think my hon. Friend will be pleased and will agree with.

In 2024, a collision in Carmarthenshire claimed the lives of two young people. In sentencing the driver at Swansea Crown court on 2 April this year, Judge Huw Rees observed that, although the driver had not exceeded the speed limit, his driving was

“simply not appropriate for the prevailing road conditions”.

Visibility was limited and conditions were extremely poor, yet the driver accelerated when greater caution was required. That driver received 16 months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months on both counts of causing death by careless driving, with the sentences again running concurrently. He was disqualified from driving for 18 months and ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid work. Two young lives were lost in that case, yet the driver did not receive an immediate custodial sentence.

That outcome and the others I have talked about in the cases of my constituents inevitably raise questions about whether the seriousness of the conduct and its consequences are adequately reflected in sentencing. Road safety cannot be measured solely by whether someone exceeds the speed limit: drivers must exercise judgment, adapt to conditions and put the safety of others first. When two lives are lost, the public must have confidence that the sentences reflect the seriousness of that failure.

Of course, sentencing is not solely about punishment; it must also be a deterrent. If we want drivers to think twice before speeding, showing off, using their phones at the wheel, taking risks in poor weather or disregarding other road users, the consequences must be clear and meaningful. When families repeatedly see outcomes that they perceive as inadequate, public confidence suffers. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. We must also consider what happens after an offender has been sentenced. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Where a driver has demonstrated a serious failure to meet their responsibilities, we must ensure that their return to the road is subject to appropriate safeguards.

I urge the Government to take action in four areas. First, driving disqualifications must be reviewed. Where a driver has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to drive safely, there should be a robust process for assessing their fitness to return to the road. The Government should consider Sian’s proposal for automatic licence revocation following serious traffic incidents, notably before an appearance at or a conviction by a court. Such steps should be considered alongside mandatory reassessment before driving privileges are ever restored.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. Road safety is a key issue in my constituency, and he is absolutely right to say that the sentences should reflect these hideous crimes. Does he also agree that we must look at prevention? As part of that, will he encourage the Government to look at the introduction of graduated driving licences, which are a way of preventing these horrendous incidents from taking place? There is much international evidence that they save lives.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes the point excellently; I totally endorse what she said and I am sure that the Minister was listening carefully. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about that.

I am aware that the suspension of driving licences was consulted on as part of the Department for Transport’s motoring offences consultation. That covered not just death by dangerous or careless driving but drink and drug-related offences. I ask the Minister to do everything he can to ensure that the Department for Transport carefully considers this question, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), as it analyses those consultation responses.

Secondly, sentencing guidelines must be reviewed. The Government should examine guidelines for careless and dangerous driving resulting in death, ensuring that excessive speed, deliberate risk-taking, previous offending and disregard for safety receive appropriate weight.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I have previously spoken quite vociferously on the issue. Tougher sentences have to happen, with the revocation of licences for a very long period. Two lives were lost in my constituency: two months ago, we lost a 60-year-old man, and on the same stretch last year, we lost a 56-year-old. We have to look at the causes. If that includes people taking balloons, we have to restrict them from taking and being high on the gases in the balloons, but we also have to implement safety measures that would prevent cars doing 89 mph in a 20-mph zone.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those stories, I extend my greatest sympathies to the affected constituents who he so admirably represents, and I entirely agree with what he said.

Consistency is important, but it must not come at the expense of properly reflecting the circumstances of each crime. Relatedly, the Minister will know that the unduly lenient sentence scheme allows anyone to ask for certain Crown court sentences to be reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office if they think they are too lenient. The review is ultimately conducted by the Law Officers—the Attorney General or the Solicitor General—and if they consider that a sentence appears unduly lenient, they can ask the Court of Appeal to review it. However, only sentences passed in the Crown court in respect of offences triable only on indictment—that is, in the Crown Court—or those offences added to the scheme by subsequent order may be referred to the Court of Appeal. The offence of causing death by careless driving is not triable only on indictment and although there is a long list of offences that have been subsequently added to the ULS scheme by various orders, the offence of causing death by careless driving has not.

Following the sentence of Keely’s killer, Sian was mistakenly told by the prosecuting barrister and the Crown Prosecution Service lawyer dealing with the case that the sentence imposed might have been too lenient and that they would consider whether the matter should be referred under the ULS scheme. Regrettably, and for the reasons I have mentioned, that was a mistake. I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on that disconnect and say whether he will seek to inquire whether the offence of causing death by careless driving should be added to the ULS scheme.

Thirdly, the Government should consider whether legislative changes are needed to strengthen custodial sentences.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I want to raise the really sad case of Sophie Brimble, which was brought to me by her sister. Sophie was killed as a passenger in a car with her boyfriend, who was driving at three times the speed limit. The driver was found unfit to plead and therefore walked out of court without having to face justice. The unfit to plead law dates back to 1836. Does my hon. Friend agree that reforming it is long overdue?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing yet another tragic story. I again extend my sincere condolences to her constituents, and I entirely agree with her. I hope the Minister can address the issue she raised.

Of course a prison sentence can never bring back a loved one, but it must provide meaningful accountability and act as a genuine deterrent, as we have been saying. We must examine whether the sentences available and imposed in these most serious of cases adequately reflect the harm caused, including considering whether suspended sentences are appropriate in such cases.

Fourthly, we must address repeat offending and consider prevention. In my opinion, the Government should review whether the current penalties sufficiently address patterns of irresponsible driving before they lead to further tragedy. Stronger sentences alone will not solve every road safety problem. Enforcement, education and safer infrastructure must remain central.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Government figures show that rural roads account for 60% of road deaths but only 45% of traffic, and speed-related factors were recorded in over half of all fatal collisions in the last year. In my constituency of Gravesham, we lost two people in Sole Street who were cyclists on the road. Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural villages—where roads are narrower, without pavements, and shared by walkers, cyclists and horse riders—need particular attention and intervention?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I again extend my condolences to the people in her constituency who are affected. Part of my constituency is rural; indeed, these issues affect many constituencies across our four home nations. I am sure that the Minister was listening carefully to that intervention.

The debate is not about revenge; it is about justice, accountability and prevention. We cannot change what happened to the victims of these offences, but we can decide what lessons we learn from their deaths.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

My constituent Darran is the father of Aidan Venison, who was only 19 when he was killed by a driver under the influence of drink and drugs who was not a first-time offender—he had already been banned from driving before, and on that occasion he was also uninsured. Aidan’s parents do not understand the leniency that might have been afforded to such a driver, or why they are still allowed to be on the roads. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that sometimes sentences that are perceived as lenient add to the heartbreak of parents?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady and extend my condolences to the constituent she is so admirably representing. I agree that it is about accountability, justice and the message that it sends to the victims and their families who have to live with that loss for the rest of their lives.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I am so glad the hon. Gentleman has called this debate. I want to include the feeling of injustice that there is for those who suffer the loss of a family member. The person who killed the wife of one of my constituents with a car chose to give a “no comment” interview. There were only two vehicles involved: a bike ridden by my constituent’s wife, and a car. The perpetrator did not deny that she had done it, but she gave a “no comment” interview throughout the proceedings, which just added to the grief and injustice that that family feels.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that tragic story and I again extend my condolences to those affected. I entirely agree. We have to think of this issue holistically, because the impact is forever for the families and friends of the victims.

If two different families and two different MPs from the same constituency have been raising the same concerns for almost a decade, Parliament has a responsibility to listen. We must ask whether our laws provide sufficient punishment, deterrence and protection for the public. If they do not, we must have the courage to change them.

Every day, residents cross the zebra crossing in Caerau to visit the park. For the community there, it is a daily reminder of Keely and the life lost. I know that the community support for the family has been tremendous, but no amount of flowers, murals or kind words will bring Keely back to Sian and her lovely family. I am grateful and thank Sian and her family, as well as everyone who supported her campaign, for their courage. They have channelled their grief in an attempt to get the productive outcome that we are talking about here today.

Keely should have been able to cross that road safely and return home. She was so much more than the circumstances of her death. She was a daughter, a sister and a young girl with her whole life ahead of her. Her family should be able to remember her for who she was, rather than having to fight to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same indignity.

Ultimately, this issue is about ensuring that our sentencing framework reflects the seriousness of these offences, gives families confidence that justice has been served and acts as a meaningful deterrent to prevent further tragedies. We must ensure that the consequences are serious enough to reflect the harm caused, hold offenders accountable and deter others from taking the same risks. I urge the Government to review the legislation and sentencing framework and to take meaningful action. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and the further contributions of colleagues.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should not speak about any live or ongoing court cases or inquests.

14:48

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing this debate.

To pick up on something that the hon. Gentleman said, driving is a privilege. Allowing somebody who has killed or caused serious injury to another person to be able to return to the road immediately seems particularly injurious. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the hon. Gentleman’s call for automatic license revocation. The current situation feels incredibly lenient, especially considering that people have to wait a very long time for court cases to come around. The perpetrator can carry on with the rest of their life while the family is suspended in utter grief. My sense is that suspended sentences are not appropriate either, particularly in the case I am thinking of, where somebody has given a “no comment” interview to the police and chosen not to speak. It just seems so desperately unfair.

It has already been mentioned, but I also want to address the fact that there are people who are driving without insurance, tax or a valid MOT, but the police are so stretched that they cannot deal with those sorts of issue when they come along. Those “minor” infringements, as considered by those who commit them, only increase the likelihood of someone carrying on to behave more irresponsibly. I ask the Minister to look at what is happening in France and Ireland, our nearest neighbours, who take different views and actions. I am happy to send the Minister information on that.

I want to talk about one other aspect: how to prevent dangerous behaviour before it results in even one more death. I will concentrate on speeding and racing, which is a serious concern in my constituency. Between 2019 and 2024, 204 people were killed or seriously injured: 29 lost their lives and 175 suffered serious injuries. I am thinking about accidents that happened in Dinder, just outside Wells; in Blackford; and recently in the village of Ston Easton.

Those incidents are catastrophic, not just for the people who live nearby and the families but desperate for everyone involved. The people killed or seriously injured are not just statistics; they represent individuals, families and communities, whose lives are often changed for ever. I do not suggest that all those collisions involved speeding, but nationally excessive speed was a contributory factor in around one in five fatal collisions in 2024. That surely underlines why tackling excessive speeding must be central to any serious strategy to reduce road deaths.

It is great that the Department for Transport has published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, but we have a Justice Minister here. I ask him to work with colleagues in the Department for Transport to address my straightforward question. The strategy includes a welcome ambition to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 65% by 2035, but where will that 65% reduction will come from? Many in the road safety community question whether the currently proposed measures are sufficient to achieve that ambition.

The strategy is relatively light on specific measures to tackle serious and persistent speeding, despite recognising speeding as one of the fatal four causes of death or serious injury on our roads. Since that strategy was published back in January, there must be an urgent need to finalise the Government’s response to the consultations, set out a clear delivery plan and to begin implementing the measures that will save lives.

I attended an event here in the Houses of Parliament where I was interested to see the intervening intelligent speed assistant, or IISA. I recognise that technology is fitted to new cars, but this feature can be fitted to cars that are already on the road. I have asked for some, as I drive 25,000 miles a year, going in and out of 20, 30 and 40 limits regularly, and I do not wish to get any points on my licence. I should declare an interest there.

Unlike the intelligence speed assistance technology fitted to new cars, which can warn drivers when they exceed the speed limit but can be overridden or switched off—although it should not be—intervening technology can actively prevent a vehicle from accelerating beyond the legal limit. That is not a theoretical idea; it is already happening in Virginia in the United States. A programme was introduced this year that allows the courts to require certain speeding offenders to use vehicles that are fitted with speed-limiting technology, which is an advance. Transport for London has also demonstrated high levels of speed-limit compliance, using intervening technology in its bus fleet.

Can this Minister get Transport Ministers to reassure us that the Secretary of State’s officials have examined the progress being made in other jurisdictions using IISA as part of offender management? Might he take a slightly different angle and just ask why we would not do that rather than why we would do it. It seems that it has been demonstrated to be effective and practical, and it has the potential to save lives, so I think that we should trial it at least.

I return to the families whose experiences lie at the heart of today’s debate. They deserve justice. They also deserve to know that we are doing everything reasonably possible to prevent other families from suffering as they have suffered.

[Tahir Ali]

I agree with the hon. Lady that we welcome the target of 65% by 2035, but by 2035 we could have had at least two general elections if not more. This is not fair on the families who have lost loved ones. We need to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries more quickly—more urgently—than 2035. If that target is set, perhaps it needs to be brought forward, into this Parliament, so that we can make a significant start on achieving that objective.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would say to the Minister that, even with all the optimism in the world that there might be another two lots of elections, that does not provide a reason not to act. This timetable really does need to be contracted. When such simple wins could be achieved, we should do things as quickly as we possibly can: 2035 does seem an awfully long way away.

There is an ambitious target—I understand that—but we need the measures, the right timetable and determination. I ask the Minister to answer those questions that are relevant to him, and I ask him kindly to pass those that he will not be able to answer on to the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State in particular.

14:57

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) on securing this debate on an issue that is particularly close to my heart, having seen two young women from my constituency lose their lives as a result of dangerous driving. I know that too many colleagues in this room will have supported families who have experienced similar tragedies.

I want to begin with the story of Lillie Clack, and the extraordinary work that her family have undertaken in her memory. On Christmas Day 2021, Lillie was a passenger in a car driven by a man who had been drinking. That driver, Charlie Hilton, was fleeing the police at speeds of more than 100 mph when he lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a tree. Lillie suffered catastrophic injuries and died three days later. She was just 22 years old. In February 2023, Hilton was sentenced to 10 years and six months in prison for causing death by dangerous driving and other offences, but no prison sentence can bring Lillie back or undo the devastation caused to her family. And Lillie’s death is far from an isolated incident.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

This week marks a year since the death of Abigail Eggleston, the girlfriend of one of my constituents, in similar circumstances. She was killed by Liam Bowes in a hit-and-run incident. I am sure that the thoughts of all of us will be with her family and her partner, William Payne. Bowes was sentenced to 12 years in prison for causing death by dangerous driving. Does my hon. Friend agree that justice has to be delivered for victims of crimes like this, and does she welcome the Government’s commitment that those convicted of this crime, this offence, will not be eligible for early release, which would otherwise have effectively halved the time that Bowes would serve in prison?

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

I absolutely agree. I extend my condolences and, I am sure, those of all Members to Abigail Eggleston’s family that she died in such tragic circumstances.

According to the Stop Excessive Speeders campaign, between 2020 and 2025, 282 people were killed or seriously injured in road collisions in Mitcham and Morden, including five who lost their lives. Those figures seem extraordinary.

Another young woman from my constituency who lost her life as a result of dangerous driving was Aalia Mahomed. Aalia was just 20 years old and was studying at King’s College London. In March last year, she was sitting on a bench outside her university when a van mounted the pavement and struck her. She died at the scene. The driver, Christopher Jackson, subsequently pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Aalia had her whole life ahead of her. Her family have been left to come to terms with a loss that no sentence can undo. Her death is a reminder that dangerous driving threatens not only those travelling on our roads, but pedestrians going about their everyday lives. It is tragedies like these that have led families to campaign for change.

Since Lillie’s death, her mum Debbie and her auntie Donna have worked tirelessly to ensure that something positive comes from the unimaginable tragedy. I want to take a moment to recognise what Debbie has achieved. On what would have been Lillie’s 25th birthday, Debbie opened Lillie’s in the Garden, a beautiful tea room at Merton and Sutton joint cemetery. I had the pleasure of attending its opening, and I cannot speak highly enough of the wonderful space that Debbie has created. It is somewhere for people visiting loved ones at the cemetery to find comfort, and somewhere for anyone passing to enjoy a cup of tea, a slice of cake and a friendly conversation. I encourage any hon. Members who find themselves on Garth Road in Lower Morden to pay it a visit.

Through her charity Eyes Wet Now, Debbie is also working to support other bereaved families. It is a remarkable achievement and a wonderful tribute to Lillie. Debbie and Donna have also campaigned for the introduction of Lillie’s law, with more than 43,000 people having signed their petition. Their campaign has two demands: first, that a driver’s licence be immediately suspended following a fatal road collision, pending investigation, and secondly that anyone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should be permanently disqualified from driving, whether or not alcohol was involved. Those proposals seek justice for those who have lost their lives; they are also about preventing further tragedy.

I want to recognise the extraordinary determination of Claire Corkery, who has been campaigning for justice following the death of both her parents. In January 2024, Tom and Sue Corkery were walking their dog in Bearsted, Kent, when they were struck and killed by a speeding driver. In a single moment, Claire lost both her mum and her dad. The driver, Scott Gunn, was subsequently convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to 16 years in prison, but it took over a year for Gunn to be brought before the courts. Throughout that time, he was legally permitted to drive, and he admitted in court that he had continued to drive. Even after his conviction, Gunn received a driving ban of just eight years. Claire is understandably concerned that he could return to the roads once he has served his sentence and his disqualification has expired.

Claire has also campaigned against the early release of dangerous drivers. She is determined to ensure that their sentences reflect the seriousness of the lives lost. Her experience demonstrates precisely why the two demands of Lillie’s law are so important.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. There are 4,154 people still on the road who have 12-plus points on their licence but who are not disqualified, on the grounds that it would cause disproportionate suffering to a third party. But what about the disproportionate suffering to families? Does my hon. Friend agree that that get-out needs reviewing?

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that point.

Lillie’s law is campaigning for the power to suspend licences immediately following fatal collision, and for permanent disqualification for those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Claire’s determination, like Debbie’s, deserves recognition.

I recognise the important progress that the Government have already made. In August, the Government confirmed that those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving would be excluded from the new early release arrangements. Debbie Clack wrote to the Prime Minister personally to thank him for that decision. For a family who have endured so much, it meant a great deal to know that the seriousness of what happened to Lillie has been recognised.

I welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, which was published in January and which sets out an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65% by 2035. The strategy recognises the need for stronger action against dangerous drivers. It considers new powers to suspend the licences of those under investigation for the most serious motoring offences, resulting in death or serious injury. That is a significant step towards addressing one of the central concerns of Lillie’s law. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on the progress of those proposals and on when we might expect to see them brought forward.

I also want to raise the question of permanent driving disqualification. I recognise that courts already have the power to impose lifetime driving bans. Will the Minister explain what consideration the Government have given to mandatory permanent disqualification, and whether further measures could be considered to strengthen the protection of the public?

The Government’s own road safety strategy makes an important point: holding a driving licence is not an automatic right. Principle should guide us as we consider how to protect people from the most dangerous drivers. I hope that the Minister will continue to listen to Debbie and families like hers, and work with them to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent another tragedy like those of Lillie, of Aalia and of Tom and Sue Corkery.

15:07

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and to be called to speak. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing this incredibly sensitive debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. By the very nature of life, we will have circumstances in our constituencies where someone has passed away or been killed as a result of a road accident or has died afterwards.

I have to say this: I do not believe that anyone sets out in their car intending to take a life. Tragically, however, it does happen, whatever the reasons may be—from using a phone behind the wheel to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I am old enough to remember when driving under the influence of alcohol was always the reason; then it was alcohol and drugs, or just drugs on their own. In the last few years, the prevalence of motorists using drugs that affect their driving and make them a threat to others behind the wheel, has become a massive issue.

The maximum penalty in England and Wales for causing death by dangerous driving is now life imprisonment, but in many cases, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) says, it is not applied. The hon. Lady referred to the possibility of a mandatory life sentence for the crime. That is probably what I would seek as well, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the magistrate or the judge handing out the sentence. Judges retain a large amount of discretion, allowing them to assess individual culpability. I am not quite sure how that is done. It is not for me to tell a judge that they are doing things wrong, because that is not my way of doing things, nor does my knowledge cover legal matters. However, I do believe that justice in these cases is best served by allowing judges to consider the unique circumstances of each case. It is clear that the system is largely effective, as 95% of those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving are sent to prison. The stats indicate that the majority receive a prison sentence, but often the cases that come to our attention are those in which there is no life sentence or no sending to prison.

I should have welcomed the Minister to his place; I apologise for not doing so earlier. I wish him well in his role, and I hope that Members can get the answers that we seek from him. None the less, we must continue to listen to the concerns of victims’ families, because that is what motivates us all as elected representatives.

As some Members highlighted, offenders can continue driving until conviction after causing a fatality, or can resume driving soon after leaving prison. When offenders receive a sentence and go to prison, it would be appropriate for them to have their driving licence removed. They should not be able to just resume driving as soon as they exit prison, in many cases probably after serving a small sentence. These gaps must be addressed, both to protect the public and to provide greater reassurance to families.

In Northern Ireland, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving remains 14 years. That should be brought into line with England and Wales, giving our courts greater powers to impose even harsher sentences where they see fit. My Strangford constituency has seen the blight of dangerous driving, with people losing their lives as a result. Just last year, on the same night, two young people were killed in separate incidents: Lucas Trainor, aged 12, and Jaidyn Rice, aged 16. They were two lovely young people and had not even got to the prime of life when they lost their lives as a result of accidents. My thoughts continue to be with both families, whose lives have been changed forever.

Members have explained and retold the stories of families in the Chamber today. The families who have been left behind face the impact every day of their lives. The son of one of my good friends was killed in a different circumstance. I remember that my friend always told me, “Jim, when I go to bed at night, I think of Stuart, and when I wake up in the morning, I think of Stuart.” That is the kind of thing these families do. Something like a vacant chair is very real to them, as are the anxiety, angst and pain in their hearts.

I call on the Government to make jail time mandatory for these cases while retaining some judicial discretion when sentencing. These cases are immensely complex. They cause profound distress to drivers, victims and their families. Although no sentence can ever reflect the loss suffered, the court must be allowed to assign a sentence that is truly reflective of blameworthiness. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West for giving us the chance to speak about this issue today, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

15:13

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing this important debate.

Behind every road death is a family, a group of friends and loved ones who have been changed forever. Today, I want to speak about one such family from my constituency: the parents of Jess Waterman, who have joined us in the Gallery this afternoon, and whom the Minister kindly met earlier this year. On the evening of 19 February 2022, Jess’s partner—someone she knew and trusted—picked her up from the Watermans’ home in Bishop’s Stortford. He had never passed a theory test or practical driving test, and he took to the roads in full knowledge that he was not qualified to drive. He showed brazen disregard for Jess’s safety and the safety of other road users. He crashed that evening. When he fled the scene to avoid arrest, he left Jess behind, seriously injured. Tragically, Jess died the following day. She was three days short of her 21st birthday.

The police acted to apprehend the driver, but the outcome of this case raises serious questions about whether the law properly reflects the choices people make before getting behind the wheel, and the devastation that can follow when that goes wrong. The driver responsible for Jess’s death was convicted of causing death by careless driving rather than causing death by dangerous driving, and that distinction matters. Dangerous driving will generally involve driving that falls far below the standard expected of a competent driver. Careless driving can cover errors of judgment or lapses in attention. Driving without a licence is not simply careless. This was not a split-second mistake; it was a conscious decision taken before the journey ever began. It required premeditation. The driver knew that he was unqualified and that he should not be behind the wheel, but he chose to get behind the wheel anyway, with Jess in the car.

Jess’s death was treated in law as careless driving, in the same category as offences such as forgetting to get an MOT. As a result, in 2023 the man responsible for Jess’s death was sentenced to just four years in prison. Not only was he out of prison by early 2026 but, stunningly, he was caught driving again. Despite being handed a 10-year ban, he showed no remorse for the tragedy he brought upon the Watermans or regard for the one he might bring upon another family. He was rightly returned to prison. No parent expects to outlive their child, or to receive a phone call or visit from the police to tell them that their child is never coming home, but that is the reality that one driver’s actions have left the Waterman family living with every day.

Out of their loss, the Watermans have campaigned for change, calling for death caused while driving without a licence to be treated automatically as dangerous, and for stronger deterrents. They have worked tirelessly to ensure that no other family has to experience what they have endured, and I promised them I would do all I can to support their campaign and ensure that their voices are heard in the House.

As we consider these issues today, I ask colleagues to think about this: how can it be just that someone taking to the roads in the full knowledge that they are not qualified is not considered dangerous? How can we claim that there is a sufficient deterrent when Jess’s killer spent so little time in prison and immediately took to the roads again upon his release? We owe it to the Watermans, and to victims and their families, to ask in cases such as this whether sentencing powers properly reflect the profound harm that has been caused.

I stand with the Watermans as they call for a change in the law, and I thank the Minister for meeting us earlier this year. I would be grateful if he could update us on what actions he has taken, and if he would commit in this debate to working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and across Government to review whether causing a death while knowingly driving without a licence should automatically be treated as dangerous driving. The law should better reflect the poor choices made before a tragedy occurs and the consequences that families must live with forever.

I want to conclude by paying tribute to the Watermans. Out of grief, they have sought to make change and to protect others. I can honestly say that I cannot imagine showing the strength, determination and courage that they have shown, were I in their shoes. I am humbled by their commitment and their work, but they deserve more than just our admiration; they deserve our support. We must not fail to meet their call—for Sue, for Del, for their younger son, Jess’s brother, and, most importantly, for Jess.

15:14

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) on securing this really important debate. I also commend him for his campaigning efforts on behalf of his constituents, especially the family of Keely Morgan, whom he referred to so powerfully in his speech. He was absolutely right that proper deterrents should be in place for offenders. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain that Keely’s family have been through following her tragic death, and the subsequent pain of navigating the justice system to address such serious failures of accountability and justice. Sadly, it is the same story for so many of our constituents up and down the country, including in one tragic case in my constituency, which I will touch on later.

I would like to take the opportunity to commend all hon. Members across the House, who have spoken so powerfully about their constituents’ tragic cases. Ther e are far too many similar experiences. On behalf of too many grieving families and the victims themselves, we Liberal Democrats are fighting for changes to sentencing for causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving. We believe that the sentences handed to those who kill someone by dangerous driving should properly reflect the seriousness of their crimes. We supported much tougher maximum sentencing and longer disqualification periods in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and we have long been calling for an updated road safety strategy, which must be delivered as quickly as possible, following years of neglect of Britain’s roads by successive Governments.

One shocking case relating to road safety in my constituency of North Cornwall involved the hit and run of a young man named Ryan Saltern. In 2019, Ryan was hit and killed late at night by a drunk driver who sped away from the scene, leaving Ryan alone in the middle of the road to die. Despite killing Ryan, fleeing the scene and hiding from the police for 36 hours, Ryan’s killer was spared prison entirely and was handed a four-month suspended sentence and a 12-month driving ban in a magistrates court. Because the Crown Prosecution Service could not prove that he had been driving dangerously, he was charged only with failing to stop and report a road accident—essentially the same charge as if he had clipped someone’s wing mirror and driven off without reporting it. As in the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), witnesses at the scene gave a “no comment” interview and experienced no consequences whatever. Imagine the heartbreak that that added to Ryan’s family.

In response to Ryan’s tragic death, his parents, Mark and Helen, and his sister, Leanne, launched their Ryan’s law campaign. Their aim is to widen the causing death by dangerous driving offence by including a failure to stop, call 999 and render aid at the scene until the emergency services arrive as an aggravating factor. Their online petition garnered 167,000 signatures, and support for the change is extremely strong, both locally in Cornwall and across our country. Sadly, hundreds of families do not see justice served.

During my first two years in this place as North Cornwall’s MP, I have been taken aback by the sheer dedication and perseverance of the Saltern family in campaigning on this vital issue. They have committed to ensure that no more families in Britain are left feeling badly let down and lost in the justice system after a road traffic collision. They are doing incredible work with RysHaven, which provides a safe, dedicated space where families grieving a loved one killed in a road accident can escape and process what happened.

I have joined the Saltern family in meetings with various Roads Ministers at the Department for Transport, the most recent of which was last month. I also raised their case with the previous Solicitor General, and I have tried to champion their cause in a number of debates in this House to demand the change that they and so many other families are calling for. That is why I was pleased that the Government announced a new road safety strategy at the start of this year, given that previous road safety strategies successfully delivered good improvements in road safety. But almost one year on, we are still seeking clarity on when the strategy will be implemented and how the several consultations that have already taken place will feed into it.

[Monica Harding]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as part of the road safety strategy, we should consider graduated driving licences, which have been introduced in Northern Ireland? He talked about the risks of dangerous driving, and he mentioned drink and drugs, but youth is also a danger, because if kids get into a car and start to speed, it can end up being a tragic situation. Does he agree that England, Wales and Scotland should have the same rights as Northern Ireland?

[Ben Maguire]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent contribution. I agree that there is a strong case to be made for graduated licences—the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) referred to international research showing the success of that scheme in Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend talked about it too. Hopefully, the Minister was listening to that.

I welcome the Minister to his place. From having served with him on the Home Affairs Committee, I know he is very diligent, and I hope he will at least speak to his colleagues in the Department for Transport to get an update on the timing of the road safety strategy, which Members are still waiting to hear about. At the heart of submissions to each consultation on that strategy was the actual impact of road traffic collisions on victims and their families. The human cost of inaction is staggering: each of the 1,500 fatalities on Britain’s roads last year left a grieving family who wanted justice to be properly carried out on behalf of the loved one they had lost.

In August, the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, set out six clear recommendations in relation to road safety in her report on barriers to justice. She said:

“Behind every road death or serious injury is a victim, a grieving family and lives changed forever. Yet too many victims told me they felt road crime was not treated with the seriousness it deserved”.

Her formal recommendations set out areas for improvement, including implementing stronger national standards for investigating road collisions, trauma-informed training for police officers and staff, and sustainable funding for specialist traffic collision victim support services.

I ask the Minister, when he winds up, to confirm whether he has read the Victims’ Commissioner’s report in full, and whether his Department is working cross-departmentally to implement its six recommendations. Will he also please provide clarity around the timeline for the road safety strategy, including when the Government will respond to the consultations held earlier this year? Finally, will he look into adopting a much more victim-centred approach in the new road safety strategy so that families like the Salterns and parents like Keely Morgan’s, as well as the countless families hon. Members have spoken about so powerfully today, can finally feel that their voice is being properly heard?

15:26

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing the debate, and for the way in which he spoke about his constituent Sian and her daughter Keely; he made their case powerfully. Preparing for the debate has given me the opportunity to read more about Sian and her campaign, and about Keely. As the hon. Member described, Keely was just 15 years old when she was killed in May 2023, struck by a car while crossing the road. The driver was convicted of causing her death by careless driving and of causing death while uninsured. He was sentenced to 16 months in prison.

In my work with victims and campaigners, I have got to know that until we speak to a person individually, we do not always know the ins and outs of a case, and I would not want to say anything incorrect. However, I can say confidently that a 15-year-old girl died, a family have been changed forever and the sentence was measured in months, not years. I know how I would feel if my similarly aged niece was killed in the same circumstances, given the criminal background of the individual concerned. I want to speak out for Sian and the way in which she has campaigned. More than 11,800 people have signed her petition calling for tougher sentences and for changes in the way such cases are handled.

As other hon. Members have said, under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, introduced by the last Government, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving and for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs was raised from 14 years to life imprisonment. I know that those were not the exact same charges involved in Keely’s case, but that penalty demonstrates an attempt to recognise such offences and the impact they have. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described, maximum sentences are one thing and what judges give is another.

I will talk about a family with whom I have worked directly and about whom I can speak more confidently. Glenn and Rebecca Youens lost their daughter, Violet-Grace, in March 2017 when she was four years old. She was walking with her grandmother in St Helens when a stolen car driven at 83 mph in a 30 mph zone hit them. Violet-Grace died and her grandmother was left with life-changing injuries. The driver fled the scene. He was later sentenced to nine years and four months, but because he pleaded guilty he received a reduction and was released after around four and a half years. As Glenn powerfully described, the driver spent less time in prison than his daughter was alive.

I have been proud to support Glenn and his family. They are part of a group called Justice for Victims. In what I hope will be an inspiration to Sian, they also launched a petition and campaigned vociferously in their daughter’s memory, and they were a big part of why the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was increased. I also mention them because, like so many of those mentioned today, they really understand what it is to not get justice: they cared deeply and loved someone deeply, and they live in a country where they expected that if you do the right thing and someone does the wrong thing to you, the system will deliver justice for you. You cannot bring somebody back, but you do not want revenge; you want justice.

The concerns in these and many other cases demonstrate that, for many decades—this is not about one Government or another—the justice system in this country has not been delivering justice anywhere near as often as it should have been, particularly for serious offences and serious offenders who commit crimes again and again. During our time in government, we took some steps to try to address that. We did so in a major way by rolling back the automatic release point from halfway to two thirds of a sentence for some offenders. We have talked today about sentences, but we have to remember that the time someone spends in prison can be very different from the sentence that was passed down in court. Prior to that change, essentially everybody except those serving a life sentence served only half their sentence, so that was an important step.

Since then, this Government have taken a sledgehammer to victims’ ability to get justice by introducing even earlier release, at the one-third point of a sentence, for offenders sent to prison for most crimes. Prior to the later changes that we managed to help secure, offenders just like the person who killed Sian’s daughter would have been asked to spend only a third of their sentence in prison. That was disgraceful, and the Government’s aim was to make the release point even earlier, not just for those responsible for causing death by dangerous driving, but for those committed of rape and a whole series of other very serious crimes—this Government attempted to let them out of prison earlier, too.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West talked about whether Parliament listens enough. Very many MPs from different parties did listen to what people said about that and attempted to stop the Government doing it.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

Is the hon. Member prepared to give credit to my constituent Miss Corkery, who campaigned tirelessly for death by dangerous driving to be excluded from the early release scheme, and to recognise that she and other campaigners were successful?

[Dr Mullan]

Yes, I will go on to speak about that in detail.

It is important for people watching and listening to the debate to know when the Minister gets up and gives us lots of warm words that he is the Minister who argued specifically to let people just like the gentleman involved in this case get out of prison after serving just a third of their sentence. It was only as a result of campaigners like Sian and the person that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned, who fought the Government and had to tell their stories again and again in public, which I am sure Members know is a deeply traumatic thing to have to do, that the Government were forced into U-turning.

All this was based on a set of plans for an independent review that did absolutely nothing to engage with what victims actually want from sentencing policy when it comes to justice. As I said, this issue has gone on for decades. There was an opportunity to grapple with it properly and seek to understand why there is such a big gap and why we see these campaigns again and again, in relation to not just driving offences but a whole series of offences where victims feel so badly let down. Nothing was done to engage with what victims actually want from sentencing. Even today, the Government describe those early releases as “earned releases” when in fact they are automatic. These people automatically walk away from prison even earlier. Thank goodness that because of the campaigners, that does not apply to those more serious offences. I welcome that.

It is not only on this issue that Parliament sought to improve the situation. A new clause tabled during the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026 would have provided for automatic disqualification of those convicted of causing death by careless or dangerous driving. Hundreds of MPs clubbed together to defeat that amendment, including, I am afraid, some of those who have spoken in this debate in support of the people who have been affected by these sorts of cases. I understand that the hon. Member for Cardiff West actually did not oppose that measure and saw the sense in it that many other MPs saw. I congratulate him on that.

The Minister has to answer some basic questions. Do the Government believe that the current sentencing framework and the way it has been applied properly reflect the seriousness of causing somebody’s death through dangerous or careless driving? If the answer is yes, the Minister must explain why so many families and members of the public believe otherwise; if the answer is no, he needs to tell us what the Government intend to do about it.

Other Members have described things that the Government could do in the short term that we support. The ULS should absolutely be extended to those who cause death by careless driving—surely, if an offence was so serious that it led to the death of a person, it should be eligible. We continue to want to see automatic disqualification of those convicted of causing death by careless or dangerous driving. There is absolutely merit in providing the police, for example, with an opportunity to ensure that someone’s licence is temporarily revoked as they consider the facts on the ground. The police seek bail conditions to restrict what suspects can do prior to conviction all the time, and I see no reason why that should not also be applied in this case.

There is a broader question that this Government and previous Governments have failed to grip and sort out. With these serious offences, there is a massive, yawning gap between the justice that the public, and victims and their family members, just like Sian, want to see, and the justice that they actually get in court. The Opposition have committed to seeking to address that if we get back into government, but whichever party is in government, we have to finally grip this—even if it is difficult or expensive—so that we do not see victims of serious crime deeply let down, again and again, by a system that they expect to be there for them.

15:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing this incredibly important debate and raising these issues, both in the Chamber and outside of it with me and others in the weeks preceding the debate.

I start, as many have, by paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent Sian, who is here today. She has shown extraordinary courage in fighting to make sure that the death of her daughter, Keely, was not in vain, and to make changes to improve the country for others. We should applaud her for that. It is not easy, and it is hugely admirable. I want to apologise Sian, too, because she wrote to me, through her Member of Parliament, and did not receive a prompt response. There has been an error in my office. That is unacceptable, and I am getting to the bottom of it. I look forward to meeting her later today, hopefully to talk about the substantive issue, but also to apologise to her personally.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean). I met him and the Watermans, and it is good to see Derek and Sue here again today. After that meeting, I committed to raise the specific issues of their campaign and the tragic death of Jess with the then Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I did so in writing and then met her, her officials and her special advisers, who are political appointees in the Department for Transport, to make sure that those issues are really high on the agenda as the Government’s strategy on road safety comes into force. There is more that we can do; this is work in progress. The Roads Minister has changed since then, but I have also met the current Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders)—indeed, because of the debate today, I wrote to him again this morning—to make sure that the campaigns and issues we are talking about are right at the top of his agenda.

I am not trying to duck the issues raised during the debate, but some of them are for the Department for Transport. I will try to address as many of them as possible and, of course, to deal with the sentencing aspects, but if I cannot address an issue, I will make sure that the Member who raised it gets a written response from the Roads Minister, who deals with some of the road safety issues.

[Jim Shannon]

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) referred to graduated driver licensing in Northern Ireland, which we introduced after a long consultation and deliberation with all the bodies concerned. That seemed to be a strategic way forward, and it has certainly been received well by all sections of the general public in Northern Ireland. Is that something that the UK Government and the Ministry of Justice will consider introducing?

[Jake Richards]

Critically, it is not for my Department to consider it, but the Department for Transport is certainly looking at it and is alive to the international evidence that has been raised by a number of Members. I cannot get ahead of what the Roads Minister will set out, but I will make sure that he has heard the contributions to this debate.

I thank hon. Members from all parties for raising difficult cases, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). I was not aware of the work that Debbie has done around Lillie’s tragic death, so it was very moving to hear about that, and particularly about the café, which so many people will enjoy in her memory. I am very happy to meet Debbie if that would be helpful to her—or, indeed, I will get the Roads Minister to meet her if that would be more beneficial.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

Debbie and Donna both met the previous road safety Minister to discuss their case and their reasons for asking for licences to be suspended after an accident, and then for there to be a lifetime ban. I thank the Minister for offering to meet them. I am sure Debbie will be marching her way towards him as she hears him speak.

[Jake Richards]

I look forward to Debbie marching into my office. Victims do not want to meet with a conveyor belt of Ministers from all different Departments. It is important that we have those meetings, because it is important that victims are heard and it is important for us to understand that behind every statistic in every paper we get to read in our ministerial boxes is a human life and a human tragedy, and I look forward to meeting her in due course, but what victims want is action. I hope that as I develop my speech, she will be reassured that we are taking these issues seriously and taking action.

Many other Members, some of whom made interventions and are longer here, raised important cases. It struck me, having been a Member of Parliament for only just over two years, that MPs get exposed to aspects of our country that normal citizens perhaps do not, and one of them is the prevalence and tragedy of road deaths. MPs are often notified if there has been an accident or if a criminal offence committed on our roads has led to a serious injury or death, and that happens far too regularly in our country. When you meet the families, as I have done in my Rother Valley constituency, it stays with you. I am determined to play my role to try to bring about safer roads.

I turn to the sentencing framework, because there has been some conflation of death by careless driving and death by dangerous driving. I am certainly not trying to educate Members, but it is my responsibility to set out the regime as it is today. Hon. Members know that sentencing within the framework that is set out in legislation is rightly a matter for the independent courts. Judges consider the facts of each case, weigh up any aggravating and mitigating factors, and follow relevant Sentencing Council guidelines before arriving at a sentence that is just and proportionate.

Some of the issues that have emerged in this debate are perhaps less about sentencing—although some certainly are about sentencing—than about the charging decision. I discussed this with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford and the Watermans. The CPS charging decision—the decision about what offence a defendant is charged with—is, and obviously should be, made independently of the Government, but the victims need to be involved in that decision. I am not saying that the CPS should do what they say, but it should involve them and communicate and engage with them. Too often, I meet victims of road traffic offences and other offences who simply have not been engaged with at all. I am talking to the Victims Minister to ensure that the CPS, where it can and where it is appropriate, is communicating with victims to make sure that the charging decision is the right one.

The law must reflect both the harm caused and how responsible the offender was for causing it, because while two drivers can cause the same terrible outcome, they may have done so through very different actions. That does not, of course, make one family’s loss any less than another’s, but the law has to distinguish between those different levels of blame.

Let me turn to the offences themselves. The most serious driving offence is causing death by dangerous driving. That is where someone’s driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and where the danger should have been obvious. We are talking here about things such as excessive speed, racing and dangerous overtaking. For offences committed since June 2022, as mentioned by the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is now life imprisonment. There is also a minimum five-year driving disqualification and a compulsory extended driving test before an offender can return to the road. Those are tough penalties, and rightly so. They give judges the power to impose the most serious punishment in the very worst cases. There is also the offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. That covers driving that falls below the expected standard but does not reach the higher threshold for dangerous driving. The maximum sentence is a five-year imprisonment, alongside a minimum 12-month driving ban.

I raise the issue of the CPS because, of course, what the defendant is charged with is what the judge and the court can deal with. The charging decision is often just as important to get right for victims, families and wider society as the final sentencing, which then may not seem fair or sufficient to victims. The distinction between dangerous and careless driving is really important in our law, although of course I recognise that it is difficult for grieving families to accept that when, clearly, the loss they have suffered is exactly the same.

I want to deal with some of the specifics that have been raised in the debate, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, about driving disqualification and whether there should be automatic disqualification—I think the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) also raised that. That is part of live discussions that I have had with the Department for Transport. It strikes me—I am very happy to put this on the record—that I have come across too many cases where driving disqualification is not taken seriously as part of the punishment. Often, a ban runs concurrently with a prison sentence, so there is the absurd situation that someone obviously cannot drive while they are in prison, and then they get out and they have never had any disqualification from driving at all.

I raised this issue in a meeting with the chair of the Sentencing Council; perhaps it was after the meeting with the Watermans that I raised it personally with the chair. I am not breaching any state secrets when I say that she was not persuaded, but I have asked the Sentencing Council to look again. The DFT is looking at the evidence to ensure that we have evidence-based policy, and I will continue pushing to see how we can ensure the judiciary use driving disqualification in a more muscular fashion.

The judiciary has the power to act. In this case, there is an issue about automating, but the judiciary has the power to implement lifelong driving bans, yet too often they seem not to be considered. I am not criticising our independent judges—I would never do that—but we must consider what we need to do as a Government and as a Parliament, while also considering the Sentencing Council’s role, in pushing this issue forward.

[Dr Mullan]

Just so the public can understand, there is a sentencing framework and judges have a role in applying that framework, but it would be totally within Parliament’s remit to make a ban mandatory—to make it automatic. We could do that. Indeed, a number of MPs voted for that last year, but it was blocked by the Government.

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that Parliament could pass a law to introduce an automatic driving ban, but I think he was referring to a ban after conviction for dangerous driving. Automating such a ban before conviction would be more complex.

There is a general principle. As a Government, like Governments before us, we try to allow judicial discretion. Every case is different. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point; I am not trying to hide from the argument. The judges have the power. We need to get and understand the evidence on how often they use it and why they are not using it. Legislating to force judges’ hands can lead to further absurdities and injustices in very different ways. We allow judicial discretion because every case is different, but as I say, I accept the point.

[Tessa Munt]

I regard this as a really serious matter. I hope the Minister will address potential suspension immediately after an accident, so that people are not driving around for a year, two years, three years, or four years while they await a court case. In the same way as a perpetrator of sexual abuse, domestic abuse or whatever has to say where they live, so that the local police know where they live, one could ensure that the local police are aware that person X is not permitted to drive for a period of five years, 10 years or even forever. The local police will be the people who pick that up.

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the duration of the period before trial or conviction; too often, it is far too long, but solving this problem is not as straightforward as potentially suspending someone immediately after the event. As she is no doubt aware, often very complex investigations have to take place. Of course, suspension can be a bail condition, and I am trying to assess why in too many cases it is not used.

I remember a case raised with me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), in which someone had been bailed for causing death by dangerous driving—I think that is correct. They immediately got in a car and were convicted of drunk driving just a few hours later. That is absurd. More generally, we have to start taking driving offences, whether they are low level or high level, more seriously. The road safety strategy seeks to do that, and we want to get on with it. I am pushing the Roads Minister to work with me to make sure that seriousness of these offences is reflected in sentencing guidelines as much as possible.

As well as sentencing, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West spoke about graduated driving licensing. I hope I have dealt with that issue; it is on the agenda. It is very much a DFT issue, so I do not want to comment too much on it.

On sentencing guidelines, I am in a constitutional dialogue with the Sentencing Council on lots of issues and that is one of them. I will be careful what else I say about it, but I am very much alive to it.

I am also very alive to the ULS scheme. The Law Commission is working on the ULS scheme, as my hon. Friend no doubt knows from his time working with the Law Officers. We need to assess whether death by careless driving should be added to the list of offences that can be considered under the scheme. I can commit today to doing that.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister write to the Law Commission and ask it to ensure that it considers that issue as part of its review?

[Jake Richards]

I am happy to write to the Law Commission to ask whether to consider that specific issue. I am going to consider it anyway. I want the Law Commission to do it—evidence would be helpful—but we will work with the Attorney General’s office to do that none the less. There will no doubt be some effects to that, but let us see what we can do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West talked last about prevention. Again, at its heart the road safety strategy tries to reach its 65% reduction target by through prevention. There is a serious amount of investment. This is the first road safety strategy in a decade, and it is backed with, I think, £18 million in prevention work, which is not an insignificant sum. We would like to do more, but I know that my hon. Friend the Roads Minister will work hard.

In terms of other questions from Members about the road safety strategy more generally, it is not my strategy, so it is difficult for me to comment on timings and when that will be. I will ask my hon. Friend the Roads Minister to write to Members who have raised specific questions and make sure that my office gets in touch with him on that.

[Tessa Munt]

I know that everybody has the right not to comment, but it is simply outrageous when that has no weight. It would be different if someone had had some sort of medical episode that meant that they were not able to remember what had happened, but where that is clearly not the case, and someone is advised by their solicitor not to comment throughout proceedings, it is really very tough on the families. Will the Minister consider that point and see if there is a way to put some weighting behind that? Will he also speak to the Victims Minister at the Ministry of Justice, because it happens repeatedly?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Lady raises a wider point about defendant conduct during a criminal investigation and how that should be taken into account in the sentencing. There are mechanisms by which that is done already. The judge considers a large number of factors, including whether the defendant has taken responsibility for their actions. If they have undertaken a “no comment” interview consistently, and simply not engaged with the criminal investigation process, that should be taken into account in sentencing.

[Tessa Munt]

I do not want to whang on, but I know that the Minister’s Department has looked just recently at what happens to people who refuse to come to court to hear their sentence, so clearly there is the ability to intervene in the process. I entreat the Minister to do something more.

[Jake Richards]

I think the Lord Chancellor announced last week further action on getting defendants to face up to their actions as much as is possible. Frankly, that is what we are talking about. We cannot force a defendant to give answers if they do not want to, but that can certainly be reflected in the sentencing regime, and it is reflected in the sentencing regime. If there are any other suggestions about how we can go further, I would be more than happy to hear from the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, as a member of the Justice Committee. She always gives me the signal that she will write to me, and I look forward to responding to her in due course.

[Dr Mullan]

On my central question, as does he, as a Justice Minister, think that the justice system is consistently delivering justice for victims of these and other serious offences?

[Jake Richards]

No. Too often, families feel let down by the justice system in lots of different ways, whether by the final sentence, by the way they were treated, or, in the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West raises, by misinformation being given about options at the end. That can cause huge damage. I am not criticising the individuals in that case; they are hard-working individuals and it is a complex area of law. We just need to get some of the basics right to make the system as amenable as humanly possible for victims when they are navigating the most traumatic time in their lives. Too often it is not. I accept that point in relation to sentences as well. We are in a complex constitutional relationship. I am not going to criticise independent judges or the sentences given in any individual case—it would be wrong of me to do so—but I accept that too often victims feel that justice has not been done.

When I knock on doors in my constituency, road safety is top of my constituents’ priority list, and that is the case in so many places, especially in rural villages, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West said. There is a real disconnect between the prioritisation of road safety and how often we talk about it in this place. If we can all do our bit to raise these issues—with me, but also across Government—we will be doing a service to the country and even more so to victims. I thank everyone here today, particularly those in the Public Gallery. I look forward to continuing this discussion and to taking action in the coming weeks and months.

15:54

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Thank you, Ms Lewell, for your excellent chairing of this debate.

I thank everybody who has contributed. It has been incredibly humbling to hear the stories of loss and tragedy, and, as the Minister said, of such cases’ prevalence. I am particularly touched to have Sian and her family and Sue and Del Waterman in the Gallery, and to hear inspiring examples of individuals channelling grief and tragedy into learning lessons to ensure that people do not have to go through such tragedies again. That includes the example of Lillie’s law, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh).

We have been talking about this issue for too long and too often in this place, so I am grateful for what the Minister said about the action that I and others have called for. I shall appreciate anything he can do to impress the urgency of the situation on the new Roads Minister. Will he encourage him to meet me and no doubt Sian again, and to listen to the calls of action from me and others who have spoken, as well as the Watermans and the proposers of Lillie’s law? Anything he can do to drive change across Government will be central to ensuring that this pernicious issue is dealt with. It has gone on for too long.

In his discussions within the constitutional pool, will the Minister speak to the chief prosecutor of Wales about some of the challenges that have been found? Will he ask why, in the case of my constituent, sentencing was pegged and they had to go with the lesser offence? He could learn some invaluable lessons for part of the wider framework that he is putting together.

I will finish by thanking everyone for contributing. First and foremost, I send my condolences to all the constituents whose cases we have referred to. I particularly thank Sian and her family for inspiring me and allowing me to work with them to drive change.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of sentencing for causing death by dangerous or careless driving.

15:57

Sitting suspended.