Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

T10. The Secretary of State has spoken about achieving swift and certain justice for the families of the victims of dangerous driving. Along with the families of Ross and Clare Simons, who were tragically killed in an incident in my constituency in January 2013, I have been campaigning for the maximum sentence to be raised from 14 years to life imprisonment. Will the Secretary of State meet my constituents and a delegation of interested MPs to discuss this issue?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend has been a particularly assiduous campaigner in respect of this heartbreaking case, and of course I would be delighted to meet him and other colleagues who want to make sure that the law can be changed appropriately.

Dangerous Driving Penalties

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) for going to the Backbench Business Committee and the Committee itself for giving us this time today. The fact that we have Members from all parties here shows the strength of feeling involved, which goes beyond party politics. Members can be from Labour, the SNP, the Conservatives, or the Liberal Democrats and still passionately know that a grave sense of injustice remains in the judicial process and the sentencing process that currently applies to dangerous driving.

As local Members of Parliament, we all know that nothing is more tragic or terrible than when constituents come to us with such awful cases. We know that we must act, because our constituents do not have that voice to be able to raise these issues in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West has, superbly, voiced this issue continually over the past year, and we have gone to meetings with the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary in order to keep ensuring that this issue is raised at the highest level. We are having this debate today to make sure that we carry on raising it, and we will continue to do so if no action is taken.

As the Member of Parliament for Kingswood, I very clearly remember Sunday 27 January 2013. I looked on the internet and saw, on BBC News, that there had been an incident involving Ross and Clare Simons, two of my constituents, who were riding a tandem bike down Lower Hanham Road when they were hit by a dangerous driver, who was actually disqualified at the time. I am not afraid to name him—Nicholas Lovell. He had 70 previous convictions, many for dangerous driving, and had been disqualified four times previously, yet he was able to get in a car, despite being disqualified, and drive at 70 miles an hour in a 30-mile-an-hour zone and knock Ross and Clare off that tandem bike. The pictures that were recently published in the Daily Mail were absolutely horrific. Edwin, Ross’s father, had the courage to release those photos, showing the impact that the tandem bike had on Lovell’s car. It was wedged straight through the grille and into the engine, such was the velocity of that impact.

Lovell fled the scene. He was eventually arrested and we went through the trial process. I pledged, as the Member of Parliament, that I would do all I could to bring justice to the case of Ross and Clare, because they did not get justice in that court case. The maximum sentence of 14 years—it had gone up to 14 years—was applied for the first time in the case of Nicholas Lovell. Because he pleaded guilty in the last week of the trial, that went down to 10 years and six months and, because the sentences were served concurrently instead of consecutively, Lovell was serving the two sentences back to back and, due to good behaviour, may be out within five to six years. The family of Ross and Clare Simons, including Edwin, Dawn, Colin, Kelly Woodruff, Ross’s sister, and his nephew, Callum Woodruff, feel that it is in effect two lives for the price of one.

I understand that there are reasons for the concurrency law taking effect, but two lives were lost. In a tragically similar case a year later, nothing changed. In the case of John and Kris, two lives were lost, yet the same penalty was applied, and the judge in the court case said that if he had been given the chance by the judicial system to impose a tougher penalty, he would have done so, but he had to give the maximum sentence that he could at the time—14 years.

In the previous Parliament, as the local Member of Parliament, I campaigned on the issue of disqualified driving. Because Lovell was disqualified, he should never have been in the car in the first place. That was automatically an act of dangerous driving, because of his being disqualified. Previously, it was only a two-year sentence if someone was disqualified and killed someone; it has now gone up to 10 years. We had a petition, which was signed by 18,000 residents in my local area, and we took that to Downing Street. That shows that the law can be changed. This is not an isolated example. We can go further.

I am determined to work with all hon. Members, but particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West, in pushing for a change in the maximum sentence. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) made the point very clearly. A person could take any other weapon and kill someone and they would get life. If they get in a car, they will get 14 years. Where is the justice in that? That, for me, is the tenet of this debate: we need to look at the maximum sentence. I understand from having had several meetings with the previous Justice Secretary that the Justice Secretary has the executive power to raise the maximum sentence. That is isolated from whatever happens with the Sentencing Council. I realise that there has been a significant and unhelpful delay in the Sentencing Council reporting back, but the Justice Secretary can take action now, and that action now is what we are demanding as local MPs.

So many families across the whole country are suffering now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West said, they are serving their own life sentences. We see the justice system throw back at them this insult that someone can kill their relative, get just a couple of years in prison and end up back on the streets and, potentially, back in a car. That is just too horrendous to imagine.

I speak today as the Member for Kingswood, on behalf of my constituents. I cannot imagine what it must be like for families to deal with this day in, day out. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take this matter back to the Ministry of Justice. We have the Prime Minister on our side; we met him in March. The previous Justice Secretary came down to the site and stood in front of where we had marked what had happened and paid tribute to Ross and Clare Simons, who were killed. He did an excellent job. We now need to see that that work is followed through in the Department, that it is taken seriously and that our demands are met.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

We are committed to reviewing the reforms to legal aid, but I have to stress that it was the Labour party’s former justice spokesman, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who made it clear during the last Parliament that levels of spending on legal aid were unsustainable under the last Government and we needed to reform. After all, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) told us, there was no money left.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

In March I brought the families of Ross and Claire Simons, who were horrifically killed in my constituency by a dangerous driver, to meet the Prime Minister to discuss the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving, which is currently 14 years. In this particular case, the dangerous driver was given 11 years, which could be brought down to five years as a result of good behaviour. The Prime Minister made a commitment to the families to contact the then Justice Secretary to ensure that the Government looked seriously at extending the maximum sentence. Will the Secretary of State please look at this case once more?

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. We have increased the maximum penalties for a number of driving offences, and we are looking carefully at the recommendations of the review announced by the previous Justice Secretary and considering how best to take them forward in a proportionate and consistent manner. We will report back to the House shortly.

Dangerous Driving Offences (Sentencing)

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I was aware of the meeting and will of course attend, as I am sure everyone present will. Despite the grief that Tracey and Hayley have to live with every day, they want justice for John and Kris. They want to ensure that the lives of their loved ones were not lost in vain. They are asking for a change in the law. Despite all the problems that they face as a result of the loss of their fiancés, they have had the courage to put forward an e-petition, which was prepared with the help of a fantastic local campaigner in my constituency, Teresa Colliass, and is now on the Government website. The petition calls for drivers to receive a maximum sentence of 14 years per person who has been killed.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Tragically, there was a similar case in my constituency last year, when Ross and Clare Simons, riding a tandem bike, were mown down by a dangerous driver who was disqualified and had many previous convictions. Ross and Clare’s families, and the campaign, “Justice for Ross and Clare”, today back Tracey, Hayley and their families in a common cause: 14 years should be 14 years per person killed. We should not have concurrency—sentences being served together. My offer is that we and those families work together to get the law changed urgently.

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: families want to make sure that we have not concurrent but consecutive sentences. If Walter had been given 14 years for each death, he would now be facing 28 years behind bars rather than being out in what will probably be a lot less than 10 years.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Robin Walker. Sorry, I mean Chris Skidmore. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

You would not be the first person to make that genuine mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker. I entirely forgive you for it, and thank you ever so much for calling me.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 14, and I thank the Minister and the Department for including it in the Bill. It seems like only yesterday when, on 27 January 2013, I received a telephone call and discovered that two of my constituents, Ross and Clare Simons, had been killed that evening while riding a tandem bike down Lower Hanham road in Kingswood. They had been struck by a driver who had been driving, in a police chase, at 70 mph in a 30 mph zone. Obviously, this was devastating for all the families, and when I went to the vigil a week later, I said to Ross’s father, Edwin Simons, that I would do everything in my power as the local Member of Parliament to stand up for the families and for victims. That is what this clause is about: making sure we send out a message that it is unacceptable to cause death by driving while disqualified. For people watching this debate it is simply common sense to say that people who kill through driving while disqualified should never have been in the car in the first place. People wondering why the law has never been toughened up will see that it makes perfect sense to introduce this new clause.

After that fateful day on 27 January 2013, I set up, with the families, the petition “Justice for Ross and Clare”, which called for far tougher penalties for disqualified drivers, especially those who kill by dangerous driving. The perpetrator, Nicholas Lovell, who went to jail, had 69 previous convictions, 11 of which were for driving offences, and he had been disqualified four times. We can only imagine the families’ grief when they found out in court that this person had not only taken away these innocent young lives but done so while he was disqualified. For more than a decade and a half, he had shown a complete disregard for the law.

Our petition gathered 15,000 signatures, and we took it to No.10 Downing street. As part of the campaign, I led the Backbench Business debate on 27 January 2014, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) mentioned, and 30 Members took part. It was clear then, and a testament to the power of Backbench Business debates, that we had cross-party consensus for changing the law. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for introducing a ten-minute rule Bill on the matter. I am glad that this discussion is taking place today.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he has done in relation to this matter. Does he agree that what we should be doing is punishing people who drive while disqualified per se? The higher-end penalty should be for driving while disqualified. The maximum two years, as I think it is now, should be increased, so that we might avoid at a later stage the terrible incident of death while driving disqualified.

[Chris Skidmore]

The important thing to recognise in new clause 14 is that it sends out a message and hope for future legislation. When I first began the campaign, many families were fairly sceptical that there would be any change, particularly this side of the general election. There was a concern that politicians would sit on their hands and not do anything. By passing this new clause we would be opening up future debate. I have great sympathy with new clause 22, but I have not had the time to study the implications of it in detail. If that could be part of the overall review that is taking place, I would absolutely welcome that.

When considering this review, I want to make a pitch for the families of Ross and Clare Simons that we look again at causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified. At the moment, the crime is just death by driving. Nicholas Lovell, who killed Ross and Clare Simons, was given the maximum sentence of 14 years—it is one of the only times that such a sentence has been delivered by the judge. As Lovell pleaded guilty, he was given 10 years and six months. The judge at the time said that had he the legal power, he would have given out a far tougher sentence. He gave the maximum, but he recognised that, because Lovell had been disqualified, there should have been an additional aggravating factor, or that an additional maximum tariff should have been added to the sentence. I would therefore welcome the review looking at death by dangerous driving while disqualified and upping that sentence.

[Karl Turner]

What the hon. Gentleman is saying, in my respectful submission, is that the judiciary and the courts should have more discretion over sentencing. New clause 22 does just that, does it not?

[Chris Skidmore]

We need to look again at the maximum tariff for causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified. The judge at the time wished for that power. I do not know the precise implications, which is why we need a review in the round. We need uniformity across the piece. One thing I realised from the Backbench Business debate was that I was not alone; the families were not alone. We heard about some of the awfully brief sentences that had been handed out, and the unequal nature of those sentences. It is very hard for a grieving family to find out that, in what seems to be an almost identical case, the sentence handed out in one area is entirely different from that handed out in another area. I would like to ensure that we put in place a rigid framework. Obviously, judges should have discretion as well, but victims need to understand—I am not a lawyer and I struggle at times to follow the complicated processes of the law—that if someone is disqualified, they should not be in a car in the first place; that is common sense. Nicholas Lovell should never have been in that car when he ploughed into Ross and Clare Simons’s tandem. It is for those families that new clause 14 has been introduced. For me and for the local families, it is Ross and Clare’s law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Most services will be commissioned by PCCs, but I am absolutely determined that the families of pre-2010 homicide victims should not be disadvantaged in any way, which is why I have made the decision that, if necessary, there will be back-up from a national fund so that no victims will lose out.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Victims of crime, the families of Ross and Clare Simons who were tragically killed by a disqualified dangerous driver with a raft of previous convictions, would like to thank the Secretary of State for his support for their campaign, Justice for Ross and Clare—as well as Members of this House who took part in a Backbench Business debate on dangerous driving in January—as shown by his significantly increasing sentences for those who kill or maim while driving dangerously while disqualified. What will be the legislative timetable for putting those sentences into law?

[Damian Green]

I am grateful for the support offered by my hon. Friend for the announcement made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The short answer to his question is the start of next year.

Dangerous Driving

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the law on dangerous driving.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allotting the time for this debate. Members in all parts of the House feel strongly on this issue and I recognise that I am not the only Member to have raised concerns regarding the law on dangerous driving. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) launched a “Stop Dangerous Drivers” campaign and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) gathered a significant petition relating to a case in his constituency. Many other Members are on the record as being committed to changing the law on dangerous driving. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) recently introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, supported by 12 Members from all political parties, calling for the Government to consider the sentencing guidelines as they relate to penalties for dangerous driving offences that lead to death or serious injury.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I applaud my hon. Friend for his work on this matter. He talks about sentencing for dangerous driving. Does he agree that we also need to consider offences linked to dangerous driving? For example, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years, but for causing death while disqualified it is two years. Does he agree that the latter sentence should be 14 years, in line with that for dangerous driving?

[Chris Skidmore]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I will address that issue later in my speech. I wanted to ensure that we had a general debate on the law on dangerous driving so that Members of all political parties could have their say on individual cases in their constituencies, giving them an opportunity to raise matters important to them and to the House.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Will he find time in his opening remarks to talk not just about sentencing, but about when the Crown Prosecution Service chooses to prosecute? In my constituency, there was a case where somebody was convicted of another offence and the police decided not to pursue a conviction for dangerous driving because they were already in prison.

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. I will focus on the law on death by dangerous driving, but other Members have raised the issue of whether the Crown Prosecution Service’s definition of careless driving should be classified as dangerous driving. I understand from alarming statistics that too many drivers have been prosecuted for careless driving when dangerous driving was at play. As a result, their sentences were far more lenient than they would have been if they had been prosecuted for dangerous driving.

[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.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend paints a shocking picture of a horrific offence by an individual who had 11 convictions for driving while disqualified. The maximum sentence for that is six months, whether it is someone’s first, 15th or 11th offence. Do we not need to ensure a stiffer sentence for repeat offenders, as I proposed in a private Member’s Bill?

[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.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the poignant, powerful speech that he is making. Does he agree that the charging guidelines may need to be reconsidered? I do not understand why, in many cases, the charge is not one of manslaughter rather than causing death by dangerous driving, given that the imposition of a life sentence is an option for any court that convicts an offender of manslaughter.

[Chris Skidmore]

I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend has placed that on the record. A manslaughter charge could and should be considered as a way of toughening the law on dangerous driving and increasing sentences. I intend to look into the issue of disqualification. I am not a lawyer, but I think that when judges or barristers have to decide whether intent or lack of intent can be proved, manslaughter or murder should be considered. When it comes to cases in which there was a lack of intent but it is known that someone was driving dangerously in the first place, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) made an excellent point. The advantage of a manslaughter charge is that it is not necessary to prove a specific intent; what happened may have been the result of a reckless act. As my hon. Friend rightly said, sentencing powers are at large. Is not the issue the way in which we charge offenders? Are we not in danger of limiting the options of the courts by opting for charges such as causing death, which, although convenient and appropriate, may not fully reflect the gravity of the acts committed?

[Chris Skidmore]

I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge, given that he is a lawyer who, I am sure, has encountered plenty of cases of dangerous driving, and death by dangerous driving, in his time. All I know is that we and the Sentencing Council need to give the courts more tools to deal with these cases. The judge who presided over Lovell’s trial said that he wished that he could have imposed a tougher sentence. As it was, he could impose a sentence of no more than 10 years and six months, but if the necessary power had been vested in him by Parliament, he would have imposed that tougher sentence. It is our responsibility as legislators to make our voice heard to the Minister and the Sentencing Council in order to bring about a change in the law.

I am sure that, if we put ourselves in the shoes of the families involved, each one of us would be not only heartbroken by the loss of a relative, but aggrieved by the nature of the sentences handed down by the courts. The fact that the judge in the Lovell case wanted to impose a heavier sentence but was unable to do so simply rubs salt in the wounds.

A full year has passed since the deaths of Ross and Clare Simons, but the devastation remains. As Kelly Woodruff, Ross’s sister, explained:

“What the perpetrators don’t realise is the devastation they cause—people’s lives, like ours, are scarred forever. We will never live the way we should be living, all because of that man, my future has been stolen.”

During this period of unspeakable grief, however, Kelly has also commented:

“Over this year we’ve realised we are not alone. So many people have contacted us who have gone through the same thing all over the country.

The sentences some people have received for dangerous driving are awful—12 months for killing someone.”

Indeed, recent figures relating to convictions for death by dangerous driving offences speak for themselves. In 2011, 153 of the 408 people convicted of causing death or bodily harm while driving dangerously, or under the influence of drink or drugs, avoided jail altogether. Five were given fines, and 63 were given suspended prison sentences.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Ross and Clare Simons and sending condolences to their family. It appears that the perpetrator of that offence did not care at all that he was causing a risk to others through his actions. If we are to deter such people in future, should it not be possible to impose longer custodial sentences before people reach the point of killing someone? That would be the real deterrent, given that simply caring about other people does not cross their radar.

[Chris Skidmore]

My hon. Friend is right. Lovell showed no remorse at his trial, just as he had showed no remorse following the offences that had led to his previous 69 convictions and his being banned for life from driving.

A deterrent is a limited option. It may be unlikely that people who think in that way will ever be deterred from getting into a car, driving at speed, and then killing someone. What we need is the opportunity to give the police and the courts the power to ensure that such people are off the road in the first place, and cannot commit crimes. The tragedy for Ross and Clare Simons was that Nicholas Lovell should never have been in that car to start with. He was not allowed to be in a car, but that did not prevent him from getting into one. Rather than being on the road, he should have been in jail serving time for the previous crimes that he had committed so relentlessly. We need to deal with that problem if we are to prevent further tragedies.

Of the 255 people who went to prison in 2011, 21 were given less than six months in jail, 104 were jailed for under two years, and just 37—one in seven of all those who were convicted of death by dangerous driving—were given prison sentences of more than five years. It is clear that the severity of the sentencing for those who cause death by dangerous driving is a national issue that needs to be addressed.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

It is not just a question of sentencing; there is also the issue of what happens when someone who has caused serious injury, or death, to another person, continues to drive until his case is heard. If a car is indeed a lethal weapon, as others have suggested, why do courts not exercise their discretion to set bail conditions that make it impossible for people to drive when a test has established that their blood contained alcohol or drugs? That issue has been raised by other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who, like me, has a constituency interest. Jamie Still, the 16-year-old son of one of my constituents, was tragically killed on new year’s eve. The perpetrator drove for months until, finally, there was a conviction. Is that not wrong as well?

[Chris Skidmore]

I cannot imagine how distressing it must be for the families of those who have been killed by dangerous drivers to know—while awaiting what is bound to be a highly stressful and emotional trial—that someone who, although he has not yet been convicted, has committed a crime which—and the consequences of which—has been clearly witnessed, is behind a wheel yet again. Those families must be distraught. I urge the Minister and the Government to consider the point raised by my right hon. Friend, which may, indeed, be within the remit of the Sentencing Council.

The tragedy of Ross and Clare Simons has been repeated across the country. Sentences are being handed down that do not fit the crime. I believe that the sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving, and, indeed, the law, need to be changed to reflect the added culpability of a driver who has already been disqualified and should never have been in a car in the first place, and who then causes death by dangerous driving. As I said earlier, in Canada the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is a prison sentence of 10 years, and someone who was already disqualified from driving at the time is given a life sentence. At the very least, the fact of killing someone while driving dangerously and while disqualified should constitute an additional aggravating factor, and should result in a longer sentence.

Over the past year, the families of Ross and Clare Simons have been determined to call for exactly that. Their campaign, Justice 4 Ross and Clare, has issued a petition calling on the Government

“to review and change sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving so that drivers who have previous convictions for dangerous driving, including driving under the influence of drink and drugs, or have been disqualified from driving, and continue to commit dangerous driving offences, causing death or injury as a result, be given far longer and tougher sentences than currently exist.”

The petition has attracted more than 13,000 signatures so far, and is still going strong.

On 9 October 2013, I raised the campaign, and the need to strengthen the law applying to offences of death by dangerous driving, with the Prime Minister in the House. The Prime Minister replied:

“This is the most appalling crime: someone with 10 previous convictions, as my hon. Friend says, and who was disqualified at the time driving dangerously and killing two people, snuffing out their lives. The sentence was 10 years. As I understand it, the maximum sentence available for a crime like this is 14 years. The Government have introduced a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, so we are looking at this whole area. I can also tell him that the Justice Secretary has asked the Sentencing Council to review the sentencing guidelines for serious driving offences, and we should look at this specific case in the light of that.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 156.]

In the light of the Prime Minister’s comments, I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to ensure that the Sentencing Council is made fully aware of the specifics of the case that I have raised, with a view to considering increasing the sentences for persistent offenders who cause death or injury by dangerous driving. Will the Minister also update the House on when the review will finally produce its report?

Will the Minister also look closely at introducing a change in the law to create a new offence of death or injury being caused by dangerous disqualified drivers, with a far tougher penalty than those that are currently imposed under the dangerous driving laws? Such a change would, I hope, act as a deterrent, even though deterrents are not always enough. I hope that it would also ensure that the likes of Nicholas Lovell could be kept behind bars for as long as possible. I know it is the hope of the family of Ross and Clare that, if anything is to come out of their tragic deaths, it should be a positive step that will ensure that we avoid similar tragedies in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

I would like to sum up this Back-Bench debate by first thanking the Minister and the shadow Minister for their positive, constructive comments. I particularly want to thank the Minister for agreeing to look closely at what has been said today. Eight hon. Members have spoken, and a further eight have made positive interventions, and I hope that the transcript of the debate will be sent to the Sentencing Council.

We have heard some horrendous stories of lives, often young ones, being tragically cut short, often by cowards driving dangerously under the influence of drugs or drink. Some of those drivers were already disqualified, some were speeding, some fled the scene of the accident. We have also heard about the paltry sentences that are handed down to those cowards. I was shocked to discover from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) that a sentence of only 12 months had been handed down in her constituency only today. If only one question emerges from today’s debate, it is this: why should we as parliamentarians tolerate such short sentences for such devastating crimes?

At the same time, however, we have all seen the glimmer of human spirit that has shone through in the form of the bravery of those families who, though they are living with unspeakable pain and tragedy, are determined to campaign for justice for their loved ones. I mentioned that today was the first anniversary of the deaths of Ross and Clare Simons. Their families are at this moment watching our debate on a wide-screen television in the Cherry Tree pub in Oldland Common. They are determined to ensure that they get justice for Ross and Clare. Indeed, that is the title of their campaign. They know that nothing will bring Ross and Clare back, just as nothing will bring back Jamie, William, Eleanor, Paul, Robert, Andrew, Rob, David and Dorothy, all of whom have been mentioned in the debate today. So what will justice involve? What are the families of Ross and Clare, and of all the others who have been killed in tragic incidents, fighting for? Justice must mean that we, at the highest level in the House, must ensure that those people did not die in vain.

This debate has helped to give those families a voice here in Parliament, but justice is not merely about words. I have heard extremely wise, intelligent arguments and policies being put forward today, and the Government have kindly agreed to consider them, but justice is not only words; justice is action, and action is change. We need to change the law to ensure that we have tougher penalties for those who drive dangerously, for those who kill and maim and, above all, for those who will not take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. We as Members of Parliament must take responsibility for ensuring that those consequences are fully addressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the law on dangerous driving.

Reburial of King Richard III

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Hugh Bayley]

I am advised by various people, whose opinions and good advice I sought before this debate, that each case must be considered on its merits. There are many archaeological investigations in my constituency. The licence issued to the Leicester archaeologists contained broadly the same terms as a licence that would normally be issued to any archaeological society or group with a decent reason to dig. It mentioned “persons unknown”. If a mediaeval tailor had been found, it might have been appropriate to keep his remains in the county archaeological museum in Leicester or to rebury them nearby. In the case of a king’s remains, reburial is absolutely necessary. The remains should not be kept in a museum in Leicester or anywhere else. The state has a decision to make about what is the appropriate way to deal with the remains of a former king.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

rose—

[Hugh Bayley]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will try to make some progress with my argument.

[Chris Skidmore]

I want to declare my interest. I am a member of the Richard III Society and I have written a book on the battle of Bosworth. My standpoint is neutral, being a Member of Parliament for Bristol, neither from Leicestershire nor Yorkshire. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s discussion about an independent solution. Would he consider my compromise, whereby even if Richard is buried in Leicester his body might lie in state at York for a week? However, regardless of where Richard is buried—perhaps the Minister could respond to this point—the Richard III Society has raised £30,000 for a tomb for him to be encased in. I am keen to see whether there is support in the House for an appropriate burial in such a tomb, whether it is in Leicester or York. I am also keen for that to be privately financed so that it is not a great cost to the taxpayer.

[Hugh Bayley]

Once again, I pay tribute to the role the Richard III Society has played in this whole event. It proposed the investigation based on its own research, and the excavations were expertly carried out by the archaeologists from the university of Leicester. It is too early to agree the compromise solution the hon. Gentleman suggests, but it is a constructive idea, and it is entirely consistent with my view that we should look at ways to bring together people from York and Leicester, rather than set them against each other. The idea has been considered by the Church, and the Dean of York mentioned it to me last week. It is the sort of proposition that could be considered under the process I am asking the Government to set in train.

As I say, the licence refers to persons unknown. Now that the identity of the remains has been established, it is right to reconsider the terms of the licence. Indeed, Sebastian Payne, the former chief scientist at English Heritage, described the discovery to me as a game changer. He is a member of the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England. The panel has representatives from the Church of England, English Heritage and the Ministry of Justice. It met last Friday, and I asked Dr Payne to seek its advice on this case. Yesterday, I received a reply from Professor Holger Schutkowski, the chair of the panel. He wrote to me, saying that

“since the exhumation was carried out under Ministry of Justice licence, it is APABE’s understanding that the final decision on re-interment rests with the MoJ and that it is open to the MoJ to vary the terms of the licence. Therefore, APABE advises that your detailed questions should be addressed to them. APABE has no views about where the remains should be re-interred or how the place of burial should be marked. APABE recommends, however, that the views of those that have justifiable close links with the deceased, be they historical, cultural or religions, require balanced consideration as, for instance, set out in recent DCMS Guidance. Consideration should also be given to the rights, Canon Law and responsibilities of the Church of England as the legal successor of the Church into whose keeping the body was given at burial.”

The Government have the power to amend the licence; indeed, they frequently amend licences. Back in the 1980s, when the York Archaeological Trust was excavating at Jewbury, in York, the plans were changed as a result of representations from orthodox Jews, who took the view that the Jewish skeletons that were discovered should be reburied quickly, in line with Jewish practice. Four years ago, the Ministry, under the previous Administration, issued advice that, generally speaking, human remains should be reburied quickly. However, that has been found to be impractical in some cases, because it impedes archaeologists’ scientific examination of the remains. The Ministry has therefore amended quite a few licences in recent years to permit scientific examinations.

I have two proposals for the Minister. First, he should appoint an independent committee of experts to examine the historical record; the scientific analysis arising out of the dig; good archaeological practice; and the ethical and religious issues. The committee should advise him on where, how and when reburial takes place. Secondly, he and his Department should give the university of Leicester notice that it may be necessary, having taken advice from independent experts, for the Government to amend the licence and that preparations for reburial should therefore temporarily cease.

There are two other issues I would like to mention. First, the scientific tests to establish the identity of the remains are not yet complete, and archaeologists have not yet published their findings from the dig in peer-reviewed journals. In its letter to me yesterday, the advisory committee said:

“APABE understands that there is evidence ascertained through various scientific approaches that the human remains exhumed from the site of the former Leicester Greyfriars may be those of the late King Richard III. Due to the potential significance suggested by recent media presentation of preliminary scientific results, APABE believes it is in the national interest that decisions about the future deposition of these remains should await completion and peer review of the scientific results.”

I am emotionally inclined to believe the remains are those of King Richard, but the Government would clearly be foolish to set in train arrangements for the burial of the remains of a king—a head of state—if it is not certain that that is what has been found.

Richard Buckley is, of course, certain that he is right, but he has a vested interest in being certain: his reputation and legacy as an archaeologist depend on the identification being accepted. If he is right, he will go down in history, like Howard Carter, who found Tutankhamun, although Carter had the advantage that Tutankhamun was found in a casket that had Egyptian hieroglyphics on the side saying, “This is the body of Pharaoh Tutankhamun.” Unfortunately, King Richard—buried in haste after the battle, naked and with his hands tied by his captors—was found in neither a coffin nor even a shroud, and no evidence was found of coffin nails or of the pins that would have pinned a shroud together.

I mentioned that public opinion is split, with thousands of people supporting Leicester, and three times as many supporting burial in York. I have received many letters and e-mails from members of the public supporting burial in York. Most are thoughtful, well argued and based on scientific facts, but some are, frankly, inflammatory. I talked to the Dean of York yesterday, and some of the letters she has received at the minster are so extreme that she has referred the correspondence to the police. I would say to everybody: calm down. Let us all respect the memory of a former king of our country, and let us discuss, in a dignified and sober way, where his remains should finally be put to rest; we do not want to reignite the wars of the roses.

I provoked some laughter in the main Chamber in October when I said that King Richard is still well regarded in York. His reputation was trashed by that pesky playwright from Stratford-upon-Avon. History is always written by the victor, and the Tudor dynasty had a vested interest in undermining King Richard’s reputation. Of course, Shakespeare would not have got a licence from the Government of the day to perform his plays if he had told the truth about good King Richard. Long may the BBC remain free from Government licensing!

I do not have time to make the case for Richard’s burial in York, except to say it was what he requested in his lifetime. Weighed against that is the case for burying him where his remains were found, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). However, the decision should be taken on independent national advice, not delegated to archaeologists from Leicester, who clearly support the Leicester cause, and who would have found it outrageous if the decision had been delegated to a group of people from York. We need this decision to be taken nationally, in the national interests and by people who are independent of the vested interests of York or Leicester. I hope the Minister will agree.

If I may, Mr Leigh, I will now give the Floor to the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy).

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

The Green Paper sets out our intention to make community payback more intensive, more immediate and better enforced. We also intend to provide tougher punishment and better public protection by increasing the duration of electronically monitored curfews. The maximum hours might be increased from 12 to 16 each day and the maximum length of a curfew from six months to a year.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

14. What plans he has to increase the amount of work carried out by prisoners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

We have set out our intention to make prisons places of work and industry in the Green Paper published on 7 December 2010, and our response to the consultation will be published in May this year. Achieving a significant increase in useful work, which is also economically positive for the Prison Service, victims and rehabilitation, is a high priority for this Government.

[Chris Skidmore]

Does the Minister agree that we need to get more prisoners working so that when they are released, they are more likely to get back into employment? How many hours does he suggest prisoners should spend working each week?

[Mr Blunt]

We would like get to a position where prisoners work an ordinary working week of 40 hours. No one should underestimate the difficulty of making that a reality across the entire prison estate, as prisons have different purposes and a different physical geography in each case. I am absolutely determined, however, to use all our endeavours to maximise the amount of productive work done in prisons. That is why I have said that this is a first-order priority, certainly for this Prisons Minister.