Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Peter Dowd

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Humanist Marriage

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Peter Dowd

Thursday 12th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

First of all, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Dame Siobhain. Secondly, it is also a pleasure to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) set out in this debate the reasons for humanist marriages and why they should be recognised.

On the question of humanist marriages being recognised, I ask myself why they are not. What is the problem? My hon. Friend made what I think amounts to an unimpeachable case as to why marriages of this nature should be facilitated, as other types and classifications of marriage are, and I thank Humanists UK for the briefing that it sent. I thought, “Shall I throw in some facts and figures?” No, I think other people are much better at that than I would be. It still comes back to the question of why we are debating this issue so many years on. I am not quite sure why we should have to reiterate this request time after time after time. But we are where we are, so I decided to participate in the debate with my tuppence-worth.

I wondered what my approach should be. As you know, Dame Siobhain, we think very carefully about these matters. As I said—facts, figures, statistics? I decided not to do that. Rhetoric has its place in debate. Who has not used rhetoric in their day? What about a little bit of polemic? Should I throw a little bit of polemic in? I decided not to. What about an historical examination of the nature of marriage going back thousands of years, because marriage predates, for example, any current religious timeline in relation to the concept? I decided not to do that, either.

Perhaps taking a different perspective might add a different angle to the debate—on the nature of marriage, so to speak. Indeed, who is impartial to a quote here or there from literature in one form or another? I began to think laterally, which I have to admit is a big challenge for me in most circumstances. I looked to my constituency for inspiration—it is a fantastic place to do so. A number of streets that date back to the 19th century that are named after characters in Shakespearean plays. On the surface, they are just street names. But lo and behold, they are named after characters who were married and who faced terrible challenges in getting married.

What has that got to do with what we are talking about today? That is a fair question. It elucidates that the debate must, in part, be about the nature of marriage, the commitment of marriage, and marriage in good faith. It must also be about the wishes of the people concerned to marry as they see fit, without duress and with, of course, appropriate safeguarding mechanisms. It is also about giving those who choose to do so the capacity to marry as they see fit, and for the process to be recognised as other marriages and ceremonies are.

Shakespeare uses marriage as one of the most prominent themes, if not the most prominent, in his repertoire. Does he talk about the service? No. Does he talk about the legalistic nature of it? No. He focuses on the personal nature of marriage: the relationships, the tensions, the feelings, as Beatrice and Benedick realise when they acknowledge, reluctantly, that they are to become partners in marriage. So, let us leave the last words to Shakespeare:

“Marriage is a matter of more worth

Than to be dealt in by attorneyship.”

This debate should not be much ado about nothing.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Just to warn the Front Benchers, I am going to reduce your time to nine minutes in order to keep the time limit for Back Benchers at four minutes.