Ben Obese-Jecty

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. I will talk later about whether it is too draconian. The issue here is one of finality. I am sure we have all had close shaves while driving a car, but the fact of the matter is that if a driver has killed somebody—no matter how unlucky that may have been—that is final. The grief of the families I have spoken to and the stories I have heard from other hon. Members show that we cannot overstate how much of an impact that has on not just the lives of the family but on friends and colleagues. There are opportunities that those people will never, ever have. Beyond that unimaginable pain, think how a family might be left feeling if they find that, far from the accident having been unavoidable, the death was caused by the reckless action of somebody who was playing with their phone, speeding, driving like a boy-racer or drunk. Think of the feeling of injustice when the driver is sentenced and receives little more than a slap on the wrist. The driver who killed Mike was given a two-year driving ban. Hazel will never get to see Mike again. They will never have the opportunity to live out the rest of their lives together. Kim said: “The long-term impact on our family is huge. Although my mum has returned to her job at the hospital she is unable to fulfil her role on a rota and shift system and is unable to reduce her working hours. She has therefore been forced into taking early retirement from a job she has been at for nearly 42 years. We never want my dad to be a statistic, and to never be forgotten.” I tabled new clause 6 because of Mike, because of conversations with Hazel and Kim, and because victims like him need justice, which, as things stand, they will not receive. How can we put such an incredibly low tariff on being directly responsible for someone’s death? The option to ban a driver for life is at the court’s disposal, yet it appears not to be the preference of judges. That leniency suggests that life is cheap and that, far from being a tragedy, a death at the hands of someone careless or dangerous elicits little more than a shrug of the shoulders. In the event that somebody with a licensed shotgun killed somebody because they were careless—or, worse still, because they were dangerous—would we allow them to regain their shotgun licence? Why do we so readily return people’s driving licences after they have taken a life? There is an argument that a lifetime ban is too draconian, does not leave room for rehabilitation and will not work as a deterrent. The new clause is not supposed to be a deterrent; it is for the courts to decide whether a conviction should result in a custodial sentence and thus what degree of rehabilitation, and therefore recidivism, should occur thereafter. The new clause is not too draconian; it is robust. It would take drivers who have killed permanently off our roads and mean that those who have already proved themselves to be fatally unsafe behind the wheel would never again be in a position to take another life or destroy any further lives.