Road Safety Bill [HL]

My amendment is grouped with the amendments that we are discussing but is slightly different to some of the others. First, I should like to comment on the other amendments. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, no alcohol in a driver’s blood is the ideal situation. However, given the state of society it is unlikely that that will occur. My amendment suggests that, for new or novice drivers, that position should apply. It relates to a later amendment that I have tabled, which asserts that we should have a means of identifying such drivers. Unless you can identify them, there is no way that you can control them in a different manner from anyone else. The nil alcohol level for new drivers is desirable. Every state in Australia has its own powers on drink-driving, but they do not differ much. I refer to the powers in New South Wales, where I have chapter and verse. I am not sure whether its blood alcohol concentration levels follow the same pattern as ours, but it is interesting to note that New South Wales claims that a BAC level of 0.05 doubles the risk of an accident; a BAC level of 0.08—which is only a little more—increases the risk of an accident by seven times; and a BAC level of 0.15 gives you 25 times the risk of having an accident. Therefore, small increases in blood alcohol concentration result in a rapid increase in the risk of having an accident. The document states:"““In NSW the Police have the power to:""Stop drivers at random to test for alcohol.""Arrest drivers who test over the legal limit””." The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred to a drugs test. However, there is no proper drugs test that is absolutely conclusive, unless you carry out a blood test. The New South Wales police arrest drivers if they suspect that they are on drugs. In that case, the drivers must submit to blood and urine tests. The New South Wales police also make a big thing about publicity to avoid drink-driving and drug-driving. The police advise that drivers should plan ahead; arrange alternative transport; share a taxi with friends; catch public transport; stay overnight at a friend’s place; ride with a driver who has not been drinking or taking drugs; or arrange a lift with a friend or relative. In view of the fact that the New South Wales police issue publicity on how to deal with the problem, they are tough on people who exceed the limit. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that it was logical to have roadside testing near venues where alcohol was provided. In central London, such venues constitute clubs and pubs. However, given the congestion charge and the difficulties caused by traffic in the centre of London, there might not be as many would-be drivers who have been drinking emerging from the clubs in Soho as would be the case if there were parking nearby. I have never understood the British attitude that it was not sporting for the police to be somewhere where people were rolling out drunk; that is rubbish. When you are driving along in Australia, whether on a motorway or near a pub or whatever, there is a great caravan sort of thing pulled up and people say, ““Oh, look out! That is the booze bus””. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, the greatest deterrent is the likelihood of being caught. Everyone is pretty careful the minute they see the booze bus waiting for them. The Minister said that Australia had a bad record of accidents, but it is hard to prove a negative. We do not know that the results would not be 20 times worse if they did not have those restrictions. That is no argument against alcohol restrictions and tough tests. Targeted testing and intelligence-led policing are all very well, but nothing is as effective as random breath tests. I strongly support Amendment No. 43, and I support Amendment No. 45, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on drug testing. He also spoke about random breath testing. In Australia, they are much stricter with young drivers. They have a restricted or ““P”” plate. The driving test goes through two stages: you must get your P1 plate, which you have for a year, before you get your P2 plate, which you have for 24 months. That makes 36 months in all. In that whole period, you must have a zero blood alcohol level. They issue information advising young people to check the products that they are using for alcohol content, because some medicines, mouthwashes and foodstuffs can contain alcohol. They advise you to look on the label to be sure, because when you have to have a zero level you cannot take anything like that. However, there is one interesting exception, which is that if you can prove a small amount of blood alcohol was caused by going to a religious service where you had that alcohol, that is a defence, but it is a very low level and you would have to prove that you were really at the religious service. The penalties for drink driving there are severe, and the convictions involve a criminal record as well as fines and licence loss. The important point, as they say, is:"““Or worse still, you could be responsible for the death of a friend or an innocent person using the road””." I am very much in favour of nil alcohol for novice drivers and random breath tests for everyone else. A lower limit would be a fallback position, but I would much prefer to see greater powers and random breath tests.