Causing Death by Dangerous Driving
The Presiding Officer wishes to remind members about the annual general meeting of the Scottish Parliament business exchange scheme and its reception this evening. He encourages as many members as possible to attend that event.
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3210, in the name of Cathie Craigie, on causing death by dangerous driving. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the publication of the report by the Transport Research Laboratory, Road Safety Research Report No 26, Dangerous Driving and the Law, which examines the use and application of the law on careless and dangerous driving throughout the UK; supports the report where it states that in Scotland a "clearer message regarding the seriousness of these offences would be sent to both defendant and society if all causing death by dangerous driving cases were tried in the High Court" rather than sheriff courts, and considers that the Scottish Executive should (a) commission specific Scottish research in this area to take on board the report's conclusions and recommendations and (b) take the necessary steps to ensure that dangerous driving offences are heard in the appropriate court and not downgraded.
First, I thank all the members who signed my motion. I am especially grateful to the members who continue to support the sentiments and concerns that are expressed not only in today's motion, but in previous motions. I acknowledge also the commitment and persistence that has been shown by members of the Scotland's Campaign Against Irresponsible Drivers. In particular, I acknowledge the work and dedication of my constituents Alex and Margaret Dekker, who work and campaign tirelessly to highlight public concerns around the issue.
Last year, 347 people died on Scotland's roads. According to available statistics, 10 people are involved in serious road accidents every day. The death of a family member or a loved one, notwithstanding the circumstances that bring about that death, is an extremely emotive subject. When someone dies as a result of a road accident, their family and friends endure a painful aftermath. At that time they, like all other victims of crime, need the justice system to be on their side. They should have the support of the system; they should not have to fight it.
The law makes clear distinctions between driving offences, as it should. There are clear differences—often large—between careless driving or a moment's inattention, dangerous driving and causing death by dangerous driving.
The motion was motivated by concern that the courts need to take appropriate action in cases in which drivers have driven dangerously and without adequate concern for the safety and lives of others. The repercussions of such actions require to be taken into account properly. The reason I lodged the motion and previous motions on the subject, and the reason they have received such widespread cross-party support, is that in Scotland there is a clear perception—which is widely held, and not only by families and friends of the victims of road accidents—that careless driving and dangerous driving offences are being downgraded.
First, the perception exists that charges of careless driving are brought when the more appropriate charge would be one of dangerous driving. Secondly, the perception exists that charges of causing death by dangerous driving are not given the attention that they merit from the justice system, because cases are heard in the sheriff court rather than the High Court. In addition, the sentences that are legally available are not passed.
It is clear that those are not just perceptions; those views are borne out by the available statistics. Where charges of dangerous driving are brought, the vast majority of cases are heard in the sheriff courts, where the maximum sentence that can be passed is three years. In Scotland, cases are rarely passed up to the High Court, where a sentence of up to 10 years can be passed. Sheriffs have the power to remit cases to the High Court, but that power is used extremely infrequently. In fact, during the two and a half years of the Transport Research Laboratory study—the report of which I am sure all members have received a copy—only one case in Scotland was remitted from the sheriff court to the High Court.
In England, all cases of causing death by dangerous driving are heard in the Crown court, which can pass a maximum sentence of 10 years. The TRL study states:
"As the maximum penalty for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving is 10 years, it seems strange that the cases"
in Scotland
"are normally tried in a court which could not impose the maximum penalty."
The TRL report was commissioned by the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to evaluate the Road Traffic Act 1991 and its effects on the prosecution of dangerous drivers. Although the scope of the study included the operation of the law in Scotland, its remit in Scotland remains unfulfilled because of the lack of participation by Scottish agencies. For example, the views of Scottish prosecutors on incorrect charging were sought but not given. Nearly 6,000 fatal accident files from England and Wales were analysed, but no such files from Scotland were examined.
There is a clear need for Scotland-based research, and not only because of the lack of Scottish agencies' participation in the study. Another reason is that the 1991 act is applied and administered in two different criminal justice systems. Although the TRL report shows us that people's perceptions of the system are not just perceptions, we are no nearer to an accurate evaluation of the workings of the 1991 act in Scotland. We need specific Scottish research into decisions and considerations in the prosecution of cases of road traffic deaths; into the procedures that identify, convict and sentence those who are guilty of bad driving offences; into prosecutors' selection of offences and into the courts' choice of penalties.
That research is needed, not only to comfort the friends and relatives of victims, but to inform the policy of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The Crown Office's quality and practice review unit carried out a review of the handling of road traffic deaths, the report of which was published in April last year. The report
"found no fundamental flaws in the system as presently operated."
I accept that the internal review was carried out by a nominal Crown Office unit that is independent of the service, but it has not gone far enough in examining and addressing the situation in Scotland.
If one examines the statistics on road traffic offences and how they are tried and compares the available statistics in Scotland with those in England, it is clear that we are not as informed as we should be. The system must be seen to be fair to those who are charged and to the victims' families, but in cases of causing death by dangerous driving, the system is not seen to be fair. The 1991 act allows the justice system to provide an adequate and appropriate response in cases in which a driver causes death by dangerous driving. In my view, and in the opinion of countless families, the law is not being administered as it was intended. I agree with the conclusion of the TRL report that if all cases in which people caused death by dangerous driving were tried in court, a clearer message would be sent to defendants and society.
The motion has wide support from the public and in the Parliament. I urge the Solicitor General for Scotland to commission specific Scottish research on the matter, to take on board the TRL report's conclusions and recommendations and to take the necessary steps that will ensure that dangerous driving offences are not downgraded and are heard in the appropriate court.
The First Minister was questioned today about the law on carrying knives. He said that it is important that the law is properly implemented. I say to the Solicitor General that it is a widely held belief that the law under the 1991 act on causing death by dangerous driving is not being properly implemented.
As the list of members who wish to take part in the debate is very long, I invite members to speak for a maximum of three minutes. I will accommodate as many members as possible and I will inquire of the minister whether we might extend the debate.
It is strange that I speak in this members' business debate as convener of the Justice 1 Committee, which is currently dealing with petitions on dangerous driving and the law. I applaud the petitioners, Mr and Mrs Dekker and Mrs Donegan, for pursuing the matter in tragic circumstances. The Justice 1 Committee is concerned about the time that the matter is taking.
The then Justice and Home Affairs Committee first considered petitions PE29 and PE55 in May 2000. We knew that the report that has been referred to—"Dangerous Driving and the Law", which was produced by the then Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions—was in the offing, so we waited until it came out. I note that the report was published in January 2002. We are way down the road and we still have no decisions from the minister.
In the meantime, the Justice 1 Committee has been pursuing the issues that were raised. We wrote to the Minister for Justice and to the Lord Advocate about those issues. I will refer to the Justice 1 Committee's letter of 15 May 2002 to Colin Boyd. We said:
"The Committee supports the suggestion that all causing death by dangerous driving cases should be tried in the High Court."
Colin Boyd's response is that the prosecution service can exercise discretion. We understand that, but the committee's position is that there is no appropriate signal to put out in such cases. There is a hint that sometimes cases that are brought to the sheriff court stay at the sheriff court when they should not have been there in the first place.
The committee was also greatly concerned about the lack of statistical information that is kept on the outcome of cases involving fatalities and serious injuries, where those fatalities and serious injuries do not form part of the charge. In such cases, that information would not normally be entered in the records. The issue was raised again in the Justice 1 Committee's meeting of 3 September. In his response to our concerns, the Minister for Justice noted that the committee
"supports the recommendation to undertake a consultation exercise to assess … the introduction of an intermediate offence, to sit between the current offences of dangerous driving and careless driving"
and that it supports research into the extension of the current offence of causing death by dangerous driving to include serious and severe injuries. Sometimes it is only the abilities of paramedics that make the difference between kinds of offence. The minister also noted that the committee was
"persuaded by the recommendation that there should be a requirement for convictions for bad driving offences to be kept by the DVLA to assist in monitoring re-offending."
Reoffending happens, particularly where speed is involved.
At our meeting on 3 September, the committee decided—I will paraphrase to save time—to write to the minister to ensure that we obtain a proper timetable for the steering group and that we will see, in the form of answers, an end to the research. The letter will be in the post. We have been considering the issue for two years. Firm answers and responses are required very soon.
On Sunday, a motorcyclist died. He was the third motorcyclist to be killed on the roads in my area in the short space of one week. A couple of weeks earlier, a head-on collision left a young woman with head and chest injuries and it left a young man with less serious injuries. His girlfriend, who was only 18 and who would have been starting a law degree at the University of Aberdeen after the summer, died from her injuries at the scene of the crash. The young man's father said:
"His broken bones will heal but his mental condition will take longer. He is devastated."
I am glad to have the opportunity to highlight the worrying incidence of serious road accidents in the north-east, which I am sure is replicated throughout the country.
Grampian police mounted a summer safety campaign and its report makes depressing reading. It found, for example, a 125 per cent increase in drink driving, as well as reported rises in the numbers of speeding offences and of people not wearing seatbelts.
Measures are being taken to reduce the dreadful incidents that shatter lives. The police, in conjunction with a local car retailer, ran a young drivers training day in Inverurie during the summer. The North East Safety Camera Partnership, which will come on stream in October, will seek to change driver behaviour through a combination of a high-profile driving education and awareness campaign and an increase in the number of mobile safety cameras in Grampian.
Speeding contributes to a third of all road collisions. Therefore, in one year, it contributes to 1,100 deaths and 12,700 serious injuries. Drivers who speed are more likely to commit other driving violations. A speeding driver is more likely to kill someone. If one is hit by a car that is travelling at 20 mph, one has a 90 per cent chance of survival. A car that is travelling at 30 mph will kill you as often as not—the chances of survival drop to 50 per cent.
Therefore, it is deeply concerning that an attitude survey that was carried out by the Automobile Association Foundation for Road Safety Research concluded that speeding is not seen as a crime.
Many motorists simply fail to make the connection between their actions on the roads and their impact on other road users. The term "causing death by dangerous driving" does not reflect the gravity of the offence. If we stopped talking about road traffic accidents and started talking about manslaughter or murder by car, the status of careless and dangerous driving might shift to become socially unacceptable. It might then be treated with the revulsion that it deserves. We need to underline the link between careless driving and loss of life. We also need to make dangerous drivers face the true consequences of their actions, which should be reflected in the severity of the penalties that they may face.
I commend Cathie Craigie's motion. I hope that the Executive will act on it.
I congratulate Cathie Craigie on winning tonight's important debate. I also congratulate Christine Grahame on the way in which the Justice 1 Committee has shown such persistence in pursuing the petition that was sent to it by the Public Petitions Committee some time ago. I know that, as a former member of our committee, she will always treat petitions with great seriousness.
I particularly want to congratulate all the families who have worked through Scotland's Campaign Against Irresponsible Drivers. The endless work that they have put in has ensured that Parliament has begun to listen to what they have to say. I can remember standing with members of the campaign in the Murraygate in Dundee. They had horrific pictures on display behind them as they tried to persuade members of the public to support the campaign. Their campaign was easy because the public rallied round in the way that I believe members of the Parliament should now.
Although it might seem to the members of the campaign that their progress has been painfully slow, I believe that, step by step, they are beginning to break through the far-too-great complacency that haunts this country's legal establishment concerning the implementation of the law on dangerous driving. The campaign is beginning to make the Parliaments north and south of the border listen at last to what it has to say.
Mention has been made about the wait for the research that was produced by the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. We had to wait to see what the research had to say, but that research says nothing that contradicts the main line on which SCID has campaigned for so long. Its campaign has been that the will of Parliament should be upheld by the legal establishment and by the courts. There is no doubt about what the will of the Parliament in Westminster is. Parliament has made it clear that it believes that the law should treat much more severely those whose dangerous driving causes death and produces heartache for the families who are left behind.
The will of Parliament is hardening. In 1995, the maximum sentence went up from five to 10 years. Recently, ministers in Westminster have made it clear that they intend to increase the maximum sentence to 14 years. In those circumstances, it is inexplicable that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service should routinely initiate solemn cases in sheriff courts, where the sentence limit is three years, rather than in the High Court, where the limit is 10 years and will likely increase to 14 years in the near future. The Crown Office is not in a position to decide how laws should be enacted. Decisions on what the penalties should be are for Parliament. If Parliament says that the penalty should be 10 years, the Crown Office should listen to that. It should ensure that the cases are referred to the High Court in the first place.
It might seem strange, but I missed today's statement on the spending review. However, I understand that we have authorised five new major trunk roads to be started in Scotland and 15 different road improvement schemes. That will mean more cars and more drivers on the roads and more opportunities for dangerous driving.
I hope that the Solicitor General listens carefully to the good case made by Cathie Craigie and other members in the debate. I hope that she will act in accordance with the will of this Parliament and of the Parliament in Westminster.
I warmly congratulate Cathie Craigie on her success in raising such an important subject. Although the matter is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, police and enforcement matters come under the remit of the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore right and proper that we should have a strong input.
I can well understand the concern of victims' families that dangerous driving offences are being downgraded and are not necessarily heard in the most appropriate courts. Many years ago, I had to prosecute a man for driving without due care and attention, which had led to the death of a passenger in his car. After his conviction, he was fined £25. Since that time, of course, a great many more cars have come on to the roads.
The number of deaths and injuries on the roads is substantial. I therefore support the two proposals that were made by the Justice 1 Committee, on which I serve. First, all cases of causing death by dangerous driving should be tried in the High Court. I realise that the law officers consider that the current prosecution policy allows for a flexible approach, but the incidence of death through dangerous driving has become such a menace that there is at the very least a case for a presumption that such cases should be heard in the High Court rather than the sheriff courts.
Secondly, the Justice 1 Committee expressed the view that statistical information should be kept on the outcome of cases that involve fatalities and serious injuries where they do not form part of the charge. The Lord Advocate is apparently of the view that there is no straightforward technical solution to keeping track of careless driving prosecutions in which there has been a serious injury. I submit that that is an area in which priority should be given to the collection of statistics in view of the seriousness and scope of the problem.
Thirdly, the committee has recommended that the current offence of causing death by dangerous driving should be extended to include severe injuries and that convictions for bad driving offences should be kept by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. My query is: why not?
The Deputy First Minister has written:
"while I know that the Scottish Campaign against Irresponsible Driving (SCID) has some concerns about the level of Scottish participation in the TRL research project I am not convinced that separate research in Scotland is necessary or appropriate at this stage".
With the greatest respect, I submit that research or full statistical information is necessary to equip the steering group with the correct facts before recommendations and decisions are made.
I will be grateful if the minister and the Solicitor General consider with sympathy the important representations that have been made before they make representations to the ministers in the United Kingdom Government.
I understand that we can extend the debate by 15 minutes. I am prepared to accept a motion to that effect if anyone would be happy to move it.
Motion moved,
That under Rule 8.14.3 the debate be extended until
6.15 pm—[Michael Matheson].
Motion agreed to.
As others have done, I congratulate Cathie Craigie on raising the topic in the Parliament. As she is aware, I know a member of the Dekker family from my East Dunbartonshire days. I have also been working closely with Wendy Moss of SCID in my constituency. She, too, is a tireless campaigner, despite having had health problems.
I raised the issue in the Westminster Parliament on various occasions. I am sure that John McAllion and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton will remember that. Lord James especially will remember it, because I suspect that he had to reply to some of my questions and letters on the subject when he was a minister.
The people about whom we are talking—the members of SCID and many others who have not joined that useful organisation—are typical of far too many families in Scotland in experiencing sudden and tragic loss. That loss is compounded by two factors, which I want to develop slightly. The first is that most accidents are avoidable. The second concerns the aspects of the legal system that deal with applications for fatal accident inquiries and the procedures that follow from any road accident.
Nora Radcliffe spoke about the overall picture in Grampian and events in her area. Inspector Gibby Phillips, who is the most senior policeman in the Moray and Aberdeen area, said earlier this month:
"The number of fatalities on Moray's roads is already a third higher since April this year"—
the statistics are published on that basis—
"than for the whole of the preceding 12 months.
The circumstances of each crash were different but each one of the accidents could have been avoided.
It would be naïve to think that we could go a whole year with no fatalities but that would be possible if every driver drove within their capabilities and concentrated on avoiding trouble."
Those are sentiments that we would all endorse, but to carry them through we need more than all the campaigns that are run on issues such as drunk driving or using mobile phones while driving. Those campaigns must be backed up by a firm legal system.
I believe that a car is the most lethal weapon that the vast majority of the population will handle in their adult lives. We should treat our cars with great respect. If we fail to do that, we should be punished accordingly.
Some of the issues relating to the legal process have already been dealt with, so I will not say much about them. In my years as an elected representative, countless families have come to my surgeries or written to me to ask why their request for a fatal accident inquiry has been refused. I have spent a great deal of time pursuing such cases. For someone like me who does not have a legal background, the procedure is complex. It can be frustrating, and the outcome is not always successful.
I agree with the recommendations that have been made. I hope that the Solicitor General will take seriously the views of Scotland's legislators.
I, too, compliment Cathie Craigie and other colleagues for their tenacity in pursuing this matter.
When the Parliament was established, the hope was that problems that for too long had not been tackled would be brought to light and fully explored and that the necessary action would be taken. From my knowledge of cases in Dunfermline East and from talking to other members, I am certain that the state of the law with regard to careless and dangerous driving is one such issue. The response of SCID to the Transport Research Laboratory's study makes for sobering reading. The report highlights many issues, but one key message that emerges from all the evidence is that there is a perception that driving offences, including causing death by dangerous driving, are not always treated with the seriousness that they deserve.
One key recommendation in SCID's response, to which Cathie Craigie's motion refers, is that all cases involving the charge of causing death by dangerous driving should be heard in the High Court rather than in the sheriff court. That would allow a maximum sentence of 10 years to be given to offenders and would signal to the small percentage of drivers in Scotland who willingly and knowingly drive dangerously that such behaviour will not be tolerated. Every driver is subject to risks of accident and to momentary lapses of concentration. We should turn our attention to the hard core of offenders.
It could be argued that we should be considering alternatives to prison, not increasing the length of sentences. However, whatever the sentencing policy, driving offences should be treated with the seriousness that they deserve and considered on a par with other serious crimes.
Several issues are raised by the proposal to prosecute in the High Court the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. First, there must be guidance on what constitutes causing death by dangerous driving. That ties in with a separate recommendation by SCID that guidance should be issued on what constitutes careless driving and what constitutes dangerous driving. Such guidance would clarify the often blurry line between the two offences and ensure that more serious crimes were not downgraded.
Secondly, the proposal must be seen in the context of proposals to reform the court system. Taking all cases that involve charges of causing death by dangerous driving in the High Court would dovetail with existing proposals to allow procurators fiscal to prosecute directly in the High Court. The procurator fiscal who had dealt with a case originally would be able to see it through to completion.
For that strategy to be fully successful, another of the recommendations of the SCID report would need to be implemented. It is recommended that PFs should be given specific training on driving offences and that specialist fiscals should be used in cases involving such offences.
Lastly, the High Court must be provided with the resources that are necessary for it to cope with the increased case load. I am pleased that the Lord Advocate has made a commitment to ensure that the High Court is adequately resourced to cope with any changes that are implemented.
The proposed changes in the operation of the law as it relates to driving offences would take us a long way towards establishing a culture of safer driving and would help greatly to reduce the appallingly high level of accidents, serious injury and death on Scotland's roads. I support Cathie Craigie's motion.
I congratulate Cathie Craigie on securing time for this debate. The importance of the debate is clear from the number of members who have stayed on for it.
One of the first campaigns that contacted me after I became a MSP was SCID. I commend SCID for the way in which it has continued to pursue this matter. I am inclined to agree with John McAllion that there is beginning to be movement on the issue, although the wheels of power seem to move very slowly—at times, too slowly.
Until SCID contacted me, I had little knowledge of the issues surrounding dangerous driving or the people who were killed by it. Two years after meeting SCID members, I found myself working with SCID and a family in Bonnybridge, whose 15-year-old daughter had been killed in a road traffic accident. Kathleen Fitzpatrick was killed in January 2001 when she left her school bus, went to cross the road and was hit and killed instantly by a heavy goods truck that was passing the bus. When her family approached me in April 2001, they had just been advised that no charges were to be brought against the driver of the truck.
We have heard about families whose cases have been referred only to the sheriff court, not to the High Court, or whose cases have been downgraded. The Fitzpatrick family did not even get their day in court after their 15-year-old daughter was killed on the street just across from their house.
I am sure that many of us cannot imagine the pain that someone goes through when they lose a young child, but the pain that someone feels when they are told that no one will be held to account for the death of their child on a road is unimaginable. The local procurator fiscal office in Falkirk tried its best to keep the Fitzpatrick family involved and to inform them about what was happening. Although there were problems at times, the odd letter from an MP or MSP put the office back on track in ensuring that the family were kept informed.
For the past year, the family have been pushing to get answers to why no charges were brought against the driver and to find out the exact circumstances. Through their persistence, a year after the accident there is to be a fatal accident inquiry, which I hope will provide answers.
Families should not have to go through that process. They should not have to work for years to get answers to their questions. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee considered the Dekker family's petition—PE29—almost two years ago, but nothing has happened about it. I hope that the minister will take on board the point that Christine Grahame made and the points that the Justice 1 Committee made in its letter to Jim Wallace. I hope that the Executive will set a clear timetable for action to ensure that families do not have to go through the suffering that they go through at the moment.
I thank Cathie Craigie for securing the debate. As Michael Matheson, Christine Grahame and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton have pointed out, the justice committees have been involved with this matter for a couple of years.
One of my most vivid memories of the early days of the Parliament is of attending a meeting in the Signet library that SCID organised to highlight its dissatisfaction and despair about the way in which the law dealt with road traffic accidents where a death or serious injury occurred. That was the first time that I was aware that there was a vast problem.
I have always been aware that the victims of road traffic accidents—not necessarily ones that caused death or injury—are sometimes aggrieved because the prosecution service does not inform them of what is happening. The victims are not part of the game; although the drivers are perhaps prosecuted, the victims are kept on the sidelines. There have been cases of that in which people were traumatised and felt that they should have had an input into what was happening.
Every member who was at that meeting felt deeply that justice had not been done in the case that we heard about, because the prosecution had taken no account of the horrific results of the accident. There was not even a right to a fatal accident inquiry. It was felt that the circumstances surrounding the death in that case were never fully examined.
SCID also pointed out that charges are often reduced from dangerous driving to careless driving and that cases involving causing death by dangerous driving are often dealt with in the sheriff court and are rarely referred to the High Court for sentencing. SCID felt that that trivialised the gravity of what was a most serious matter.
Mr and Mrs Dekker's petition came before the Justice and Home Affairs Committee at about that time and we heard related petitions from Tricia Donegan and Isobel Brydie. In my constituency, Mr and Mrs Gillies of Inverness came to see me, because they felt that they had never had their son's death investigated properly. A taxi killed him late one night—I think that it was Christmas eve—on Skye. His parents have never received a proper explanation of what happened to him.
Two principles are in conflict. The first is the principle that only the action should be judged, not its consequences, although there is also an indication that intention is judged. The second is the principle that there should be a full, public investigation of an action that has killed or maimed someone. The former takes no account of the needs of victims or of their families. We are aware that victims' needs are being taken into consideration in other areas of the law, so why can we not look at victims' needs in the case of road traffic accidents? I do not mean simply keeping people informed that charges have been downgraded. At the least, people have a psychological need for a fatal accident inquiry at which the death would be explained, as that might allow them to come to terms with what had happened.
Another aspect of the problem is that different types of driving-related charges seem to shade into one another. There seems to be no clear, objective idea of what constitutes careless, as opposed to dangerous, driving. That leads to the worry that sheriffs' and jurors' personal driving standards influence decisions and sentences. People feel strongly that the sheriff court is not the right place in which to try offences of causing death by dangerous driving. They believe that that sends out the wrong signals about such serious offences.
I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Dekker and the other petitioners for their courage and persistence. I hope that their efforts will be rewarded.
I endorse what other members have said in congratulating Cathie Craigie and SCID. I particularly congratulate Mr and Mrs Dekker, who are models for others. They have turned a family tragedy into a persistent campaign to improve arrangements for the future and to ensure fewer deaths for other families to cope with.
I endorse what members have said about whether such cases should be tried in the High Court or the sheriff court. We must have clarity and consistency in the legal process, because, at the moment, it is neither clear nor consistent, which sends out a bad message. We also need better information about, statistics on and research into the Scottish figures.
Nora Radcliffe raised the issue of speed, which we do not take seriously enough. Quite often, plea-bargaining comes into cases that arise from speeding—in my view, that should not happen. We have fewer traffic police, and members have mentioned the fact that, unlike drunk driving, speedy driving is not regarded as a bad thing. Speedy driving is still socially acceptable, and we must send out a message that attacks that attitude vigorously.
We must also concentrate on developing more road safety measures. When the Parliament discussed the Transport (Scotland) Bill a year or so ago, Nora Radcliffe and I managed to amend it to include home zones, which is an initiative to create safer roads in residential areas. There are similar measures that we should push for strongly. In particular, we must get the public wound up about road accidents, in the same way as people get wound up about rail accidents. People are killed in those tragic accidents, which are disastrous for the families concerned, but the figures involved are trifling when compared with those for road accidents. More people in Britain are killed in road accidents than are killed in many a fully-fledged battle, yet no one seems to worry about them. We must get over that attitude and bring road safety, speedy driving and the prevention of dangerous driving to the forefront of politics.
I also congratulate Cathie Craigie and the Dekker family on drawing the issue of death by dangerous driving to the Parliament's attention. I agree with much of what previous speakers have said.
First, I want to highlight the importance of doing all that we can to increase the penalties for serious driving offences. People who drive cars in a dangerous way put not only themselves but others at risk. MSPs want to increase the number of people who use bicycles or who walk, but if we were to penalise driving offences properly, we would increase the safety of people who use those forms of transport.
Secondly, I agree with what Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said about treating serious injury as a consequence of dangerous driving in the same way as death as a consequence of dangerous driving. As Christine Grahame pointed out, whether the victims of such accidents survive often comes down to the skill of paramedics and doctors rather than to the nature of the driving offence. The victims of crime need to be considered.
As well as the issue that has been raised about the length of sentences and decisions about whether cases should go before the sheriff court or to higher level courts, there are also issues of procedures, particularly in relation to the required notification period. I know of a particularly tragic case of a cyclist who was knocked down and who lost the opportunity to have some restitution or understanding of what happened in his particular case because it became time expired as the result of a procedural foul-up. That was particularly devastating for that man.
In other areas of criminal justice we are moving towards recognising what happens to the victim and giving the victim some system of retribution—a process that leads towards closure. Up to now, that process has not been developed in the context of road traffic accidents. We must pay better attention to victims and their families in the process of handling such cases.
If we are to make a difference, there must be a step change in the way in which people use their cars. Modern technology and engineering means that people feel very safe when they are driving their cars and forget their velocity and the damage that can be caused to the human body as a result of driving accidents. We must change people's perception of that and make them recognise that they are in charge of something that can kill or maim other people, so that they treat driving with greater respect, in their own interests and those of everyone else who uses the roads.
I, too, pay warm tribute to Cathie Craigie for securing today's debate and for her excellent speech. I pay tribute to the telling speeches of Des McNulty and other members who spoke before him.
I hope that the debate will provide a wonderful example of the case for bringing democracy closer to the people. Campaigns such as the assiduous campaign on dangerous driving, which has been running since the Parliament was set up, can bring issues to the floor of the legislature in a way that is not possible when democracy is further from the people. I hope that the Dekker family and others will take some comfort from the fact that their assiduous campaign on the issue is beginning to produce results, not just in the form of debate, but in securing the opportunity for the Solicitor General for Scotland and others to listen to what the elected Parliament has to say. The lobbying has been first class.
As we have heard, death by dangerous driving is a particularly horrifying crime for people to endure, given its futility and needlessness. As Margaret Ewing said, cars are lethal weapons to drivers and those all around them. All of us are guilty from time to time of carelessness behind the wheel. As members have said, we must remain vigilant.
When dangerous drivers cost lives, the legal and justice system owes it not just to the victims and their families but to us all to take a stiff look at sentencing. I hope that we will hear more from the Solicitor General on that in a few moments. The motion is right to identify a route through this and I support its sentiments absolutely.
The Solicitor General might say that there are time pressures that prevent cases being heard at the High Court. If so, perhaps it would be possible for cases to be heard in sheriff courts but for sentence to be passed at the High Court. That would keep the pressure off the top end of the legal system, but would allow the stiffest possible penalties to be applied. That may be one way in which to reduce the bottleneck in the system. Other options have been suggested and there may be the possibility of legislation. I wait to hear what the Solicitor General says in closing the debate.
In conclusion, I congratulate Cathie Craigie on so ably giving voice to her constituents' concerns. I hope that we will prove the worth of the Scottish Parliament and the processes behind it. I hope that we can start to produce results from the excellent campaigning of the good people who have brought the issue to our attention.
I, too, commend Cathie Craigie and the many people involved in SCID for their continued pressure and campaigning ever since the Parliament was established. I commend in particular the action that has been taken by my constituent Mrs Isobel Brydie, who has been involved with SCID for many years.
I agree with every one of the speeches that have been made so far, but I will single out Donald Gorrie's contribution. He identified the fact that, as a society, we seem to generate far more outrage and concern when there are deaths on the railways than we do when there are deaths on our roads. More than 3,000 people die on the roads in the UK each year. Although that is the equivalent of an accident such as that which happened at Clapham occurring every three days, we still do not seem to show the same degree of outrage that we quite rightly show in the case of deaths on our railways.
Trying to improve road safety and reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads is a broad issue. It does not only cover dangerous driving, but involves issues such as the proper engineering of our road systems and the need for vehicles to be as safe as possible.
Dangerous driving and the use of illegal drugs or alcohol while driving a car are issues that society does not deal with as seriously as it should do. Society considers the use of drink and drugs while driving a car to be a more serious issue than speeding. However, as Donald Gorrie rightly said, speeding should be treated every bit as seriously as the use of drink and drugs while driving a car. The risk of injuring or killing someone through the use of the car, including the making of dangerous manoeuvres, is high.
I agree with members who said that the prosecution of cases involving dangerous driving should be dealt with at the High Court. As John McAllion indicated, as the Parliament has decided the level of punishment that should be available for such crimes, that level of sentencing should be available in such cases.
It is necessary for us to improve the standard of training for prosecutors and police in respect of investigating and prosecuting such crimes. Detailed, technical arguments are often involved concerning the true cause of the accident. There is also a need to improve detection methods in crimes that involve the use of excessive speed and jumping red lights. I ask ministers to take those issues on board.
We need to have a strong and hard-hitting public education campaign to get everyone to see how serious the issue is and to treat it with the level of outrage that we should.
Like other members, I say well done to Cathie Craigie on securing the debate. From previous experience, I know how long she has waited to secure this slot and how patient she has been as she awaited the outcome of certain research. I congratulate her on her tenacity.
Members have mentioned the anxiety and trauma that goes with these types of incidents for the people who are injured and for their families. The anxiety and trauma is immense. People who are unaffected by such incidents may find the subject hard to describe and understand. However, our legal procedures and a lack of clarity are adding to the anxiety and trauma that is involved. That is wrong, as people are entitled to a consistent application of the law. People need the reassurance that when they find themselves in circumstances such as a dangerous driving incident, a consistent and clear application of the law will be made. People also need to be reassured by procedures that allow them to see that a proper investigation has taken place and that proper judgments have been made in all the circumstances that apply in their case.
As has been alluded to, research shows clearly that, as referral to the High Court seldom seems to be an option, the maximum penalty is not considered in all cases. Surely people who, through no fault of their own, have to cope with injury and loss are entitled to much better than that. Surely the debate will mark the start of a process that rights that wrong. I hope that the debate reassures people and bring us to a position where the law in Scotland is consistently applied. I hope that people, whatever their circumstances, anxieties or trauma, are reassured that an incident will be properly investigated and judged on in the appropriate court.
The Solicitor General for Scotland (Mrs Elish Angiolini):
I congratulate Cathie Craigie on securing today's debate and welcome the chance to respond on behalf of the Executive. I am aware of the long-standing concern that has been expressed by Cathie Craigie and other MSPs about fatal road traffic accidents in Scotland. I also wish to acknowledge the work of Isobel Brydie, SCID and Mr and Mrs Dekker, whom I had the privilege of meeting this summer. At an early stage in my appointment, I had determined that we required to discuss these issues with SCID.
The debate has emphasised the terrible and devastating impact that fatal road incidents have on the lives of families and on communities all over Scotland. Although, thankfully, there has been a significant decline in the number of such deaths in Scotland, the statistics still make chilling reading. As Cathie Craigie pointed out, 347 people have been killed in 308 fatal road traffic accidents. That figure is unacceptable. Each death represents a devastating and irreplaceable loss for those affected, and I am pleased that the debate gives the Parliament a chance to consider this important issue.
On the suggestion made by some members that there is complacency in the legal establishment, I should say that that is not the case. Having been a procurator fiscal, I know that any cases that are prosecuted and investigated are uppermost in the fiscal's mind. As a fiscal who has become the Solicitor General, I still remember each and every case that I prosecuted under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, because of its devastating impact on family, friends and community.
Moreover, having been the victim both of a rail disaster and of an offence of careless driving under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in my unfortunate personal history, I have a particular interest in this matter. Indeed, I believe that it is central to our thinking and of great importance to procurators fiscal around the country. As a result, I hope that I will convince the chamber that we are actively examining the matter and that we are certainly not complacent about it.
As Donald Gorrie pointed out, our society generally fails to appreciate the impact of bad driving. Every morning when I come into Edinburgh, I see examples of what could be described as careless and indeed dangerous driving all over the roads. Today, I saw a man who was the height of respectability shaving on his way to work. Others were tailgating and driving without observing the gap. The fact that there is no appreciation of the problem's seriousness is a cultural issue that must be addressed.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are fully aware of that and of the part that the service plays in raising awareness of the unacceptability of such driving in our communities. As part of that, the COPFS meets the next of kin in each of these dreadful cases to explain the processes as sensitively as possible. That very important element of the debate is all too easily neglected and I will touch on it again later.
The TRL's report on dangerous driving provides the context of Cathie Craigie's motion and represents a welcome contribution to the debate about how the law should deal with dangerous driving. Members voiced concerns about the level of Scottish participation in the research project and there have been calls for separate Scottish research. I should point out that the COPFS participated in the research and that researchers interviewed a number of procurators fiscal. However, we will further examine members' concerns about the need for Scottish research on the matter and look forward to reviewing prosecution practice in this area in light of other developments that I will mention later.
As well as building on the good work that underpins the TRL report, we will be fully involved with the Home Office and the steering group in the consideration of the report. I understand that, in light of concerns about the time scale for that consideration, representatives of the Scottish Executive justice department will attend the group's next meeting in October.
Christine Grahame mentioned statistics. A very salient point that I mentioned earlier to Mrs Brydie of SCID is that we have adopted a system to ensure that figures are collated by our computer systems in the COPFS. As a result, we are now able to distinguish section 3 cases that cause death from those that do not. However, there is clearly room for development. Indeed, improving research and development in the service forms part of our current modernisation programme.
A number of important issues have been raised today, to which I wish to respond. It has been suggested that the fact that many prosecutions under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are taken in the sheriff court in some way downgrades the seriousness of the offences. As members of Parliament will be aware, careless and dangerous driving encompasses a vast range of conduct. There seems to be no end to the infinite creativity of bad drivers and those who are determined to abuse motor vehicles in their conduct. Many of those cases are different in their facts and circumstances, as are the personal circumstances of the accused, some of whom might have bad records for driving and show a disregard for our road traffic laws. Each case must be considered on the basis of its individual facts and circumstances.
In considering the available evidence, Crown counsel and a central collegiate body that exists to ensure consistency in the application of this law will consider each case and apply professional judgment based on the evidence available and the accused's record, as well as a full precognition by the procurator fiscal. If a sentence in excess of three years—the limit of the sheriff's ordinary powers—seems appropriate, the case will proceed in the High Court. That is not the end of the story, as has been recognised by many members during the course of the debate. If the sheriff takes a view that a sentence in excess of three years is appropriate, he or she can take the view to remit the case to the High Court, as occurred recently in the case of Robert Sharp, where the High Court imposed a sentence of seven years' imprisonment.
The decision to proceed in the sheriff court does not and should not be taken to devalue or downgrade the seriousness of the offence. Sheriffs in Scotland deal with a full range of driving offences every day. They have a huge expertise in road traffic law; they are professional judges at the same level as Crown court judges who consider all those cases in England and Wales.
The Crown court—where all such cases are indicted in England and Wales—shares a common jurisdiction between the sheriff sitting with a sheriff and jury and our High Court. It should not be compared to the High Court alone as that comparison would be an inaccurate one to draw.
Sheriffs, however, see the full range of bad driving and are uniquely placed to consider the serious offences under section 1 they have the power to remit to the High Court for sentence when they consider it appropriate to do so.
Although a High Court judge can pass a sentence of up to 10 years, the statistics available to us demonstrate that our practice of indicting at sheriff and jury level in Scotland does not result in any material difference in the sentencing levels in England and Scotland.
Do we have figures for the number of cases that sheriffs remit from the sheriff court to the High Court for sentencing? It would be interesting to know those figures.
The Solicitor General for Scotland:
There will not be a collection of such statistics but I will inquire whether we can get that information. If so, I will write to the member.
Although the number of such cases that are prosecuted in England and Wales is much greater, there is no significant difference in the pattern of sentences imposed. It is vital to note that our conviction rate for such cases is higher than it is in England and Wales despite the stringent evidential demands of corroboration in Scotland. It is also acknowledged that sentencing is the responsibility of the court, not of the prosecutor or of the Executive. However, researchers also acknowledge that it is difficult to compare the circumstances of any one case in this category with another.
The motion that we are debating today calls for all deaths by dangerous driving to be prosecuted in the High Court. Given the difficult circumstances surrounding any death, I understand the sentiments behind that. However, as I have explained, existing law provides the Crown with the ability properly to consider the circumstances of a fatal road traffic accident and to allow matters to be dealt with effectively. However, that is not to say that we cannot improve the way in which we deal with such cases. Many members have made suggestions that we are acting on at present.
Members will be aware that the Procurator Fiscal Service is proceeding with the most wide-ranging review in its long history. That review will touch on all aspects of our department's work.
In June, I met Mrs Brydie from SCID to discuss some of her concerns and I indicated that I would look at sentencing patterns down south and compare them with our own patterns. Bob Ainsworth's announcement of the UK Government's intention to increase the maximum penalty to 14 years clearly must inform prosecution policy and our approach in future.
Lord Bonomy is conducting a review of the work of the High Court in Scotland. That report is due later this year, and any reappraisal of how we handle fatal road accidents must, quite properly, be taken in light of the recommendations that Lord Bonomy will undoubtedly make. In the meantime, I have instructed that we will monitor closely each section 1 prosecution and review our approach in contemplation of the new maximum penalty.
I shall conclude today by commenting on the aspect of dealing with fatal road accidents that can sometimes be overlooked. Many members have touched on the grief and distress experienced by families. Members will be aware from their constituencies that engaging with the criminal justice system can be difficult and frustrating. We have taken serious steps to ensure that better information, support and communication is available to allow the next of kin to feel less marginalised by the system and to feel that they are being listened to. We must ensure that they follow and are supported through the process, which is in itself extremely traumatic.
I am grateful to members, and particularly to Cathie Craigie for raising the matter. We are training our prosecutors. Detailed and extensive training on homicide, road traffic deaths and specifically on section 1 offences will take place this year. We have implemented detailed guidelines for the police, ensuring that there is a consistent and thorough approach to the investigations of road traffic deaths. Those steps are being taken this year and we are still considering more actions to ensure that we enhance our performance and reflect truly the public interest in this area. I am grateful to members for their attention.
Meeting closed at 18:16.