Road Safety Bill [HL]

I think that my name is also on this group of amendments. I should like first to agree with the noble Earl, Lord   Attlee, on the necessity for an effective roadside test for drugs. That has been a long time coming. The Minister may well say that we do not yet have an effective roadside test for drugs, but I suggest that it is time that we did. The drugs concerned have been around a long time. One of the resources wanted by police who stop those who drive erratically is some sort of evidential test that they have indeed been using drugs. A breathalyser does not give that information. They are obliged to rely on tests which I think were used 30 years ago by the police, such as asking, ““Can you walk a straight line, and can you touch the end of your nose with your finger?””. That is not very scientific. If the person cannot touch the end of his nose with his finger, he has to be taken to a police station. Then, he has to give a blood sample, which requires the attendance of a police surgeon. As the Minister knows, police surgeons are not in plentiful supply; in fact, it has been a great problem finding people to be police surgeons. If police surgeons are being dragged out of bed at 3 am on a Sunday to deal with violent people or people suspected of taking drugs, one can understand why the problem exists. So I would first press on the Minister the need for a simple evidential test that the person is likely to have been taking drugs. It is an issue that we want out of the way. The next issue I should like to raise is intelligence-led policing—an issue that we talk about a lot. Every police force has big notices around their headquarters extolling the virtues of intelligence-led policing. I think that intelligence-led policing would, as a first step, suggest that, if you are going to administer a test for alcohol, you would do it close to premises where you knew that alcohol was being dispensed in large quantities. We all know of the places, mainly in cities, where alcohol is dispensed without any limit at all and people are plied with as much alcohol as they can drink for £10 or £15. Surely, any form of intelligence-led policing must point to the police having powers to test people around places where alcohol is dispensed freely. Obviously the people coming out of there are the most likely people to be consuming alcohol. The third issue to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention is another serious matter, one which I have raised with the noble Baroness, Lady   Scotland of Asthal. It concerns the number of   disqualified drivers—disqualified due to drink-driving—who are driving. I raised with the noble Baroness the case of an individual who had been before the magistrates in a court in the Thames Valley on three occasions. He had been disqualified on each occasion. He required an interpreter. That is a familiar ploy on the part of foreign nationals, particularly those from eastern Europe who say that they speak only some peculiar version of Serbo-Croat or Hungarian, knowing very well that it is difficult to get an interpreter. Then, the probation service has to provide a report on the individual’s behaviour. If on the third occasion the probation service has not provided that evidence, the person is set free. I did not receive a satisfactory answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, although I received a very long answer from her. Countless disqualified drivers are driving today who have been disqualified mostly for drink-driving, sometimes for driving while being on drugs and sometimes for other reasons such as for driving stolen cars. Although I have much sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord   Dundee, said, about reducing the alcohol limit, I believe that there are far more pressing problems that we ought to address. We ought to give the police more shots in their locker, as it were, to deal with a problem that, I am sure, we all know exists.