Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We get a lot of nonsense from Opposition Members. I want a joined-up process, in which we work with people in prison, help them to prepare for release, and work with them when they have left prison. No organisation that works for the public sector in this arena chooses who it gets in its prisons or rehabilitation arena. It is right and proper that that responsibility lies with the public sector. I think a joined-up approach is the right way forward.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that work in prison should lead to prisoners gaining skills that improve their employability, leading to reduced reoffending rates on release? Will he indicate to the House the number of prisoners partaking in work activity this year compared with 2010-11?

[Chris Grayling]

The number of hours worked in prisons has increased dramatically in the past four years—the latest figures show 14 million hours—and we are seeking to increase that number all the time. Last week, I was at HMP Coldingley for the launch of a new partnership between the Ministry of Defence and the Prison Service, whereby prisoners will produce items such as sandbags for use by our armed forces. I hope that that work will continue, grow and develop. The more we can get prisoners in our prisons working, the more likely they are to get a job when they leave.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

May I start by extending my commiserations to the hon. Gentleman? It was widely expected on the Government Benches that he would become the shadow Attorney-General. He did not manage that, and we all express our disappointment about that and extend our commiserations to him. By retaining him on the shadow Front Bench, we will continue to enjoy in these sessions on a monthly basis the usual load of nonsense that he so often comes up with.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Recent figures show that the number of judicial review applications lodged between 2000 and 2013 increased threefold, and many of them related to immigration and asylum cases. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the judicial review process is used appropriately?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely do. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) talks about the views of the judiciary, but it was one of the immigration judges who said, 18 months ago, that judicial review was being abused for those cases. Opposition Members must understand that they themselves in Government said that the system needed to change. We are changing it in a measured and sensible way that will make a difference without compromising its principles. That is the right way to approach this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

A lot of work is being done in this area. It will be very joined up and we will make an announcement shortly. I think the police and crime commissioners really get this now. It is really important that chief constables and PCCs do get it and that is something we are working on very closely. I am happy to work closely with the hon. Lady if she would like to do so.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T6. Will the Justice Secretary confirm that by our joining the European arrest warrant, from 1 December the European Court of Justice will have overarching powers over the extradition process in the UK?

[Chris Grayling]

I can indeed confirm that the measures debated by the House yesterday do involve, when we opt back into them, giving ultimate jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice.

Dangerous Driving Offences (Sentencing)

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I was about to say that even had the offender in the case I mentioned got 14 years, that would not have been enough. The reality is that that man, Walter, will probably be out of prison in a lot fewer than 10 years.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on raising again this most emotive issue. I draw the attention of the House to my constituent, 18-year-old Olivia Flanagan, who was killed last December by Luke Sykes. Mr Sykes was over the drink-drive limit and had hit a number of cars before ploughing into Olivia’s car. He was driving at a blind summit on the wrong side of the road, and Olivia happened to be coming the other way. The man had 15 previous driving convictions and had only recently got his driving licence back. He had also ticked a box on the licence stating that he did not suffer from mental illness, although he had a history of such illness.

[Martin Caton (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that is far too long for an intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing this debate, which I welcome. My thoughts and prayers are with his constituents’ families, and all those who have been mentioned today. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), a former Road Safety Minister, is in his place to listen to the debate. I pay tribute to him, and will refer back to the work done on this issue over the years, not least the work that he and I both did in our former occupation.

Far be it from me to nudge my colleagues into going before any Committee, but given the absolutely understandable strength of feeling here today, the petition may well get 100,000 signatures, and no doubt should. It should go before the Backbench Business Committee, as we need a much longer debate on the matter. I do not mind whether I respond to that debate or the Road Safety Minister does, but the House should hear more about the effects on Members’ constituents, including my own—Ministers should never forget that we are still MPs, and I know my constituents will support many of the comments made today.

Nothing I say today will bring back Kris and John. As an ex-fireman, ex-paramedic and ex-Road Minister—I have lots of ex-careers—one of the most poignant jobs I have ever had was going to what used to be called, inappropriately, road traffic accidents and are now quite rightly called road traffic collisions. I pay tribute to all our blue-light responders: our police, ambulance and fire crews, and representatives of local authorities, who are now often there. They do a fantastic job for us every day. Going to an incident is enormously difficult, as responders can see what has been done to an individual or individuals by someone who should never have been driving the car in the first place because they were disqualified—as in this case—who should not have been behind the wheel because they were drunk and who had no regard for another person’s life.

Far be it from any parliamentarian, including me, to tell a judge what they should do in their court—we do not have that system in this country, thank goodness—but it is absolutely right and proper that Parliament decides the punishment for a crime. It is then for the judges to interpret that. In this particular case the judge interpreted the law and decided that the sentence would be 10 years and three months. The offender and his legal team appealed against that sentence, but thank goodness we saw common sense.

For this offence it falls within the capabilities of the prosecuting team to appeal to the Attorney-General against an unduly lenient sentence. I do not know what the Attorney-General might have decided, but that option was certainly within the capability of the prosecution. As a Back-Bench MP, I appealed against lenient sentences on many occasions, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) touched on the issue of what the CPS looks at. I am not a lawyer—there are many in the House—but the problem with the law as it stands is the issue of intent. It is a question of whether the driver intended to go and do what they did. That is why the CPS tends to hold back from prosecuting for murder or manslaughter. It is entitled to do that, however; that is within the regulations.

I turn now to what we are going to do—and not only because of the debate, the petition and the ongoing review. There are a couple of matters I will touch upon.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I will not. I know that sounds very rude, but I spoke to the Chair before the debate, and because so many people have intervened—that is why I would like a longer debate on the issue at some later point—I will not get through all the points I want to raise if I do. If I get through all the points that I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West I would raise in my response, I will then give way.

The review is massively important, in that it will look not so much at the offences—those are within a different brief—but at what the penalties should be. I will not pre-empt the review but I agree that we need to look carefully at whether the punishment fits the crime. We should look at the difference between driving a car and killing somebody—when drunk, or without insurance, or a licence, or any of those things we know people should have—with the intent to do that and killing a person with intent in any other way. That will be part of the review.

We will consult extensively. I know that families are listening to me—not only those who are here today because of the debate but families across the country—and I want everybody involved in that consultation. It is vital that not just judges, prosecutors and politicians, but the families of the victims themselves—I would say that as the Victims Minister—are involved.

We can make some changes while the review is going on. For instance, I find it completely perverse that the driving ban that that gentleman—I use that word in inverted commas—was given in court is running while he is serving his sentence in prison. I have never understood the legislation on that. That situation will change, outside of the review. The ban will start when they come out.

[Mike Penning]

If I give way to the right hon. Gentleman I will have to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). I will do that if I can, but in a moment. I know the exact time that I have, and if there is time left I will give way.

It is also important that when someone gets this type of sentence there is openness and honesty about why it was given. I have been talking extensively to judges about that recently. Although the courts, quite rightly, must be independent, guidance from Parliament tells them what the will of Parliament is—that is what judges are supposed to look at—when such abhorrent offences take place. One area where we can give the courts and certainly the police more help is in matters such as the terrible incident that occurred in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), which was drug-related. At the moment, it is difficult to prosecute someone for drug-driving for myriad reasons, not least that some drugs leave the system quickly. That is why we intend to introduce roadside drugalyser testing—I started the process when I was the Minister responsible for roads—and in-station drugalyser testing.

I have often attended RTCs, and I know from experience, as does the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who is another former Transport Minister, that someone who has been involved in an accident, often when someone has died, may have been under the influence of drugs. However, if they are breathalysed that may not show up enough to prosecute them, even though we all know that that person is under the influence of something. We must, morally, do something about that, and I have been working on it with other countries.

As I have made good progress, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and then to the right hon. Member for Exeter.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the Minister agree that we must tighten up when reissuing licences to people who have been disqualified? We need a multi-agency approach to ensure that repeat driving offenders get their licence back only if it is agreed they should.

[Mike Penning]

Yes, and that is important. We are tight on people who have been banned for drink-driving, and they are often required to get a medical report saying that they do not have a drink problem. Anyone who ticks the box to say that they do not have a mental illness or mental health issues when they have such problems breaks the law.

The key is to work with the insurance companies. That may be a strange way of looking at the issue, but they are interested in what offences have taken place because they insure the risk. That was why, when I was at the Department for Transport, I gave insurers access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency data so that insurers knew whether someone had been banned and whether they had points on their licence when applying for insurance. Such people often lie about that, as the person that my hon. Friend mentioned did. That person was subsequently involved in an incident and was not insured.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why we have brought forward a number of the measures in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is now in the other place. I hope that it will reach the statute book by the end of the year, and that it will deliver much-needed change.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that sustained and meaningful employment is very important in reducing high reoffending rates?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree, which is why I think that a combination of the efforts that this Government are putting into that—the work being done to increase the number of employment opportunities within prisons; the work being done by the Work programme to help the long-term unemployed, particularly those who have been offenders; and, indeed, this Government’s great success in creating a fast-improving labour market—are all contributing to tackling the problem to which my hon. Friend rightly refers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all those who have been involved in the recovery of the remains of Richard III? As the House will know, he was discovered under a car park in the city of Leicester. I am very pleased that, following the judicial review, he will remain, long stay, in that city.

[Simon Hughes]

My hon. Friend is quite right that it was a car park with an unusual interest. There was a belief that Richard III was buried in the grounds of the Greyfriars church. His body was found. The tradition is that bodies are buried in the nearest Christian church that is appropriate. As the MP for the area where the Rose theatre was discovered, I know that one can never underestimate the exciting things that can be discovered by good archaeologists.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

No, because the hon. Gentleman is not correctly representing what we said. We said that Operation Safeguard was not in action, and that was true. He should understand that the use of police cells is routine—it was done under the previous Government—and occurs for a variety of reasons, some of which, for example, are down to courts finishing late and not being able to be get prisoners back to their home prison in time. Those things have happened under the previous Government and under this one. He might be interested to know that the use of prison cells last year was a little under 1,000; under his Government, it reached a peak of 50,000.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Given the level of support across this House for the decriminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence fee, does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued criminalisation of people whose only crime is being poor is completely untenable? What discussions has he had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on this issue?

[Chris Grayling]

I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. We are giving this issue careful consideration. I have had discussions both with my counterpart at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and with the Cabinet Office. The three Departments will continue to have discussions both with him and other Back Benchers with an interest in this issue, and with the BBC.

Police

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ruffley]

The right hon. Lady misunderstands me. I am obviously in agreement that the bedrock of British policing, whether it is level 1, 2 or 3 policing, is neighbourhood policing and safer neighbourhood teams. That is a given. I am suggesting that with better productivity among existing uniformed officers we can deliver the falls in crime further into the future that we have seen in the last three years. How might we do that? The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims has talked about the new generation of productivity tools: electronic tablets, computerised forms and body-worn video cameras that will reduce the amount of form-filling back at the station. My right hon. Friend came to Ipswich a few months ago to see a pilot that Suffolk constabulary is running on body-worn video cameras so that police officers can spend less time behind a desk back at the station computing and filling in forms and can instead get on with visible policing on the front line.

In addition, Ministers have created something that was long overdue and which the Labour party had 13 years to create; a police ICT company that has offered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy police technology in a joined-up way, so that we do not have 42 forces doing their own thing and wasting money, with interoperability being limited and the power of bulk purchasing completely ignored.

My right hon. Friend touched on the fact that we need to look not just at higher productivity, but at standards in policing. In that, the Home Secretary has been no slouch either. She has instituted the new College of Policing, which has taken a fresh look at how we professionalise the police service at all levels, with better training and an insistence on higher ethical standards. She is talking about direct entry so that very able men and women from other disciplines—whether the armed forces or business—do not have to do the compulsory two years’ probationary constable time before they can ever run a police force.

The Normington proposals, announced a few days ago, will radically reform the Police Federation and will also engender a higher sense of ethical responsibility among the 125,000 police officers that the federation currently represents. We also have the Winsor review, parts one and two of which are controversial as they make changes to overtime, salary levels and entitlements. But Winsor modernises the work force of the police service so that it conforms to the norms of every other part of the British economy, all other public services and the private sector. Winsor says simply that we should not just pay police officers according to time served, pretty much regardless of their performance. Instead, we should reward specialisms and capabilities so that younger officers who are going out and improving their skills, getting better training and producing higher performance, have that reflected in their remuneration. We are doing that in the teaching profession; it would be inexcusable to make the police an exception. Police exceptionalism in this regard is not sustainable in the public services today.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I would be interested in my hon. Friend’s views on the future of police community support officers who, in my county of Leicestershire, offer a good presence on the ground and are very good at gaining intelligence that they can pass on to police officers.

[Mr Ruffley]

In response to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), I said that there is general consensus across the House that neighbourhood policing teams and beat officers are the bedrock of British policing, not just in providing reassurance to the local populace but in being a vital source of intelligence, whether on organised gangs, drug dealing or whatever.

I hope that my hon. Friend will have seen a fall in crime in his constituency. The dramatic 10% fall in the last three years suggests that the claims made by Jeremiahs from the Labour party, and some sections of the police service, that the Conservative spending plans would lead inevitably to a spike up in crime have proved absolutely groundless.

I wish to refer to the numbers and to provide some perspective for the benefit of Members, who might be surprised to learn that in the last year of the previous Conservative government, 1996-97, the gross revenue expenditure on policing services was £6.907 billion. Last year it was £12.887 billion. Those are cash figures that do not take account of inflation. But there has been a doubling in the gross revenue expenditure on police services since 1997. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) in his place; he is an immensely distinguished and wise Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, which has drawn attention to the statistic that I have just produced.

The very idea that a very tight, and necessarily tight, spending settlement will result in the ceiling falling in, in neighbourhood policing collapsing and in crime going up is fatuous. We have seen in cash terms a doubling in fewer than 20 years. Although policing has got more sophisticated and there are no doubt many greater demands on some parts of our police constabulary, it is still beyond belief to think that these are “savage Tory cuts”. That is the stuff of caricature and we should have no more of it.

If one looks at the Home Office core grant—not the overall spend—one will see that in the last year of the Labour government, 2009-10, the core grant was £4.606 billion. This year it is £4.583 billion. I would not think that that is the kind of reduction in core grant that will lead to a diminution in the efficiency of the police. If anything, it should drive up efficiency and productivity. I repeat; Labour, in this debate and before it, has so far as I am aware—I am sure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington will correct me after the debate—not promised to reverse those necessary reductions.

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend talks about reductions. In my county of Leicestershire, recorded crime is down by 25% since 2010.

[Mr Ruffley]

Those are truly heroic figures and great testimony to the police men and women in the Leicestershire constabulary, to the police and crime panel and to the police and crime commissioner. I have no doubt also that my hon. Friend spends a great deal of time scrutinising and holding the police service in his constituency to account, as do I with my Suffolk colleagues.

In the last year of the Labour Government, Suffolk constabulary, to be parochial just for one moment, saw a principal formula of £41,498,000—again, these are cash figures. In 2014-15, that is projected to rise in cash terms to—wait for this, Madam Deputy Speaker—£43,627,000. If we add in council tax support funding, specific grants and the business rate contribution, which has latterly taken over from the revenue support grant, the total general and specific grants received by Suffolk constabulary in the last year of the Labour Government amounted to £70,969,000. In 2014-15—the year that is the subject of this debate on the grant settlement—the figure is £77,915,000. Total funding for Suffolk in the last year of the Labour Government was £110,335,000; in 2014-15 that will rise to £116,579,000.

I give those details simply to illustrate that this caricature of cuts really does not wash. Although we had 51,000 recorded crimes 10 years ago, Suffolk constabulary posted 38,000 crimes in 2013—a significant fall in our county. Policemen and women in Suffolk deserve the credit for that, which is proof—if proof were needed—that they are doing more and being more productive, against a very tight financial backdrop.

We have had a great deal of shroud waving today and heard a lot of criticism of what should really be a source of celebration—the most modernising package of police reform in over half a century and a clear-eyed and immensely capable Home Secretary seeing through this difficult agenda with much less hostility, criticism and obstruction than anyone would have predicted before the last election. It is in that spirit of purposeful reform, which is embodied in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that I conclude my remarks.

Dangerous Driving

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. In my time as an MP, one of the most difficult things I have had to do is to meet the parents of young people killed by dangerous driving with regard to the sentences that have been handed down. There was a case in my constituency, three years ago to the day, where two young girls were killed. The driver who caused the accident received a sentence of 36 weeks, despite the fact that he ran away from the scene of the crime and left the young ladies to die. My constituents cannot understand how such sentences can be considered proportionate, when they suffer a lifetime of regret and misery.

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case from his constituency. I entirely agree that it is shocking and inconceivable that we have so many cases in many constituencies where the penalty does not reflect the severity of the incident—violent death as a result of dangerous driving.

I will not take any more interventions at the moment. I want to carry on with my speech and raise a case in my constituency. Today is the first anniversary of that case.

The Government are committed to reviewing the law surrounding offences of dangerous driving, and I hope the debate is able to influence their position in the next few months. Already, as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving has been established, with a penalty of five years. It came into force on 3 December 2012 and received cross-party support. I hope that the tone of this debate reflects the cross-party support for reviewing and changing the law on dangerous driving.

The debate is topical not just because there are so many Members who want to raise individual constituency cases, but because of the current situation. On 28 August 2013, the Government announced that the Sentencing Council would review sentencing guidelines for the recently introduced offences of causing death by careless driving; causing serious injury by dangerous driving; and causing death by dangerous driving. It was with that review in mind that I wanted to hold the debate, so that the will of the House, and the views of Members from all parts of the House, could be heard and made known to the Sentencing Council. I hope that the Minister will take note of the various issues raised, and that they will inform the Government’s own decisions, once the Sentencing Council has conducted its review, so that they are aware of the strength of feeling about the fact that the laws on dangerous driving need to be changed.

I know that many Members are committed to campaigning for a change in the law as a result of tragic constituency cases of deaths caused by dangerous driving, and they will have met families of victims of dangerous drivers who have had their loved ones cruelly torn from them, often at a young age, only to find that the law is not on their side. The pain and suffering of losing a family member to such a violent death at the irresponsible hands of a dangerous driver are unthinkable, but for the perpetrator of so great a crime then to be given a custodial sentence of a few months or years, or even just a fine and a suspended sentence, is an injustice that few could agree is acceptable. It is in their memory that we hold this debate.

Today is the first anniversary of one of the most tragic cases of death by dangerous driving—a case that made national headlines and led to a campaign involving thousands of people in the Bristol region demanding that the law on dangerous driving be changed. On the afternoon of Sunday 27 January 2013, Ross and Clare Simons were riding their recently purchased tandem bike along Lower Hanham road in my constituency. The couple, 34 and 30, were in the prime of their lives and had been married just 18 months. Only the previous day, they had celebrated the news that they were about to begin IVF treatment to start a family. With everything to live for, they had their entire future together to look forward to.

Elsewhere in Hanham, Nicholas Lovell, 38, was driving his partner’s Citroen Picasso at speed when he was spotted by police, whose sirens quickly indicated to him to pull over. It was not the first time Lovell had been confronted by the law. Having amassed 69 previous convictions, he was well versed at showing blatant disregard for the rules of the road. Taking part in road races throughout his youth and 20s, he had been in and out of the revolving doors of the courts. Repeatedly, he had shown no interest in either his own safety or anyone else’s. In December 1998, high on drugs, he drove at 70 mph on the wrong side of the road as he fled police in Bradley Stoke, speeding all the way to Downend, before crashing head on into another car. During the ensuing court case, he predicted:

“If I don’t deal with this problem now, I am either going to kill myself or kill someone else.”

It was perhaps the only real truth he had ever uttered. Fourteen years later, on the afternoon of 27 January 2013, he did not know that his chilling prophecy was about to become a reality.

What Lovell did know, speeding in his partner’s Citroen Picasso through Hanham, the police now on his tail, sirens blazing, was that he should never have been in that car in the first place—he was serving a driving ban, having been disqualified from driving. It was not ignorance of the law that had driven him to take the wheel of a car that afternoon; he had simply chosen to ignore it. Neither was it the first time he had been banned from driving. He had committed 11 offences of driving while disqualified and been convicted for dangerous driving four times. Not that he seemed to care: two weeks earlier, he had met an acquaintance, John Fleming—nicknamed “Johnny Fireball”—outside the Jolly Sailor pub on Hanham high street, where he challenged him to a race. “He said, ‘Come on, Johnny Fireball. Let’s have a race. I’ve got a fast car put down’”, Fleming later recalled, adding that Lovell also told him, “I don’t care if I do 90 mph and hit someone.”

At 3.50 pm exactly a year ago today, as Lovell sped into Lower Hanham road, with the police in pursuit, he was driving too fast to control his car. Clipping a parked car, his vehicle launched itself across the other side of the road. Call it what you like—the wrong place, the wrong time, that split second moment that can make the difference between life and death—the uninsured car hit a newly purchased tandem bike being ridden by Ross and Clare Simons. They did not stand a chance, and their deaths were almost immediate. Lovell, on the other hand, was still very much alive—alive enough to run away on foot from the scene of the accident, leaving his partner to claim that she had been driving the car at the time, giving the police a false name.

The deaths of Ross and Clare Simons quickly made the national headlines, and their loss shook the entire local community I represent. I never met them, but no one had a bad word to say about this couple, who lived their short lives to the full, touching so many people along the way. A week later, I attended the vigil at the site of their deaths on Lower Hanham road, where easily over 500 people stood silent as we marked the minute when they had been struck. I made a pledge then to Ross’s father, Edwin, that I would do everything in my power, as the local MP, to help them and to ensure that they achieved justice for their tragic loss.

Only when Lovell was finally tracked down and charged did the enormity of his crime become known. As I have already stated, he had 69 previous convictions, including for four offences of dangerous driving, for which he was disqualified from driving completely back in 1999, only to be given a further 11 convictions for driving while disqualified.

[Chris Skidmore]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it is the basis of my speech, and I will talk later about what needs to happen to toughen up the law and make driving while disqualified at least an aggravating factor, if not something more, in cases of death by dangerous driving. In Canada, for instance, while causing death by dangerous driving can incur a penalty of 10 years, causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified can incur a life sentence. We should be going down that route of much tougher penalties for these people, who should not be let out of jail in the first place so as to be able to commit these crimes.

Back in 1999, Lovell was banned from driving essentially for life. The horror of previous crimes included fleeing from the police in 1998 after being spotted at the wheel of a stolen car and, as I have said, driving at speeds of 70mph. In August 2000, he again fled from the police and drove on a public footpath and subway before crashing into a tree, and eight years later, he was spotted by police who wanted to question him about two robberies, but reversed at speed into their vehicle, causing damage, before mounting a pavement to undertake vehicles waiting at traffic lights, forcing two pedestrians to jump out of the way in order to avoid being hit. He was a ticking time bomb. Given the number of his offences, it was inevitable, as he prophesised himself, that he would one day cause death by dangerous driving.

At first, when these details were revealed in court, it seemed inconceivable that someone with so many convictions and disqualifications could have been allowed to kill in this way. How had he managed to flout the law so many times? How had the justice system, for more than a decade and a half, allowed this man persistently to slip through the net and to treat the police, the courts and the laws of this land with contempt? Perhaps there will never be an answer, but that we have even to ask these questions highlights the need for the law to be changed.

Lovell pleaded guilty at the trial, and received the maximum possible sentence for causing death by dangerous driving of 14 years—in fact, he was the first person to be given this sentence since its introduction in 2004—but as a result of his guilty plea, it was reduced by a third to 10 years and six months. Both sentences were then ordered by the judge to run concurrently. The result is that, pending good behaviour, Lovell could be out of prison after six years. Ross’s father, Edwin, summed up the mood at the end of the trial, when he said:

“he’s going to serve three years for each of our children’s lives.”

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a motor vehicle in the wrong hands is a lethal weapon and that the sentencing powers for dangerous driving should reflect that?

[Chris Skidmore]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It seems bizarre. In 2004, the previous Government legislated, absolutely correctly, to increase the penalty for dangerous driving. A car is a lethal weapon, but the consequences, if someone causes death while driving, are not on a level playing field with deaths caused in other circumstances, and that is what we are fighting for in this debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear about the matter that has been raised today. Civil service records show no such warning having been made, and no such warning was included in the reports that were produced at the time.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be a full review, across Government, of all contracts held by G4S and Serco, so that Ministers will be able to manage such contracts better in future?

[Chris Grayling]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are looking carefully at our own contract management approach and at the contracts that we hold. It is worth reminding the House, however, that the issues that are being referred to, and the contracts that we are looking at, date back to the time of the last Government.