Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 42, to which my name is added, before referring briefly to Amendment No. 55, which is also in my name in this group. I remind the House that I am the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I support everything that the noble Earl, Lord   Dundee, said to Amendment No. 42. I have a couple of small points to make. One is that reviews of lowering the alcohol limit in other countries have shown that it can be accompanied by a reduction in drinking and driving at much higher levels of alcohol. A lower limit would send out a general education message and set the tone for no drinking and driving. On Amendment No. 42, RoSPA believes that a lower drink-driving limit should not be introduced in   isolation but as part of a wider package of drink-driving measures, including education and enforcement initiatives. Currently the police can stop any driver for any reason, but they cannot require a breath test unless they suspect that a driver has consumed alcohol, the driver has committed a traffic offence or has been involved in an accident. Allowing the police to administer a breath test without needing any other reason would increase drivers’ perception of the risk of being caught—as has already been mentioned by previous speakers—without necessarily placing additional demands on police resources. It would allow the police to target their resources at areas and times where intelligence indicated they would be most effective; for example, at locations where it is reasonable to assume that drinking may have taken place. This amendment may be opposed on the grounds that it erodes civil liberties, but I would maintain that drink-drivers also erode the civil liberties of everyone else on the roads. Drink-driving is such a serious offence that it justifies giving the police wider powers. I understand that a Home Office survey found that half of respondents felt that they could drive over the limit once a week for a year and not get caught. The perception of the chances of being caught, therefore, needs to be raised to act as a greater deterrent, and that is the aim behind this amendment.