Road Safety Bill [HL]

This has been a most interesting debate with a large number of contributors and some useful comments. The only thing that I would say to Back-Benchers who have contributed so ably is that, on this occasion, the two Front Benches are united and noble Lords should quail in the face of the great forces that are arraigned against them. I agreed with much of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about the need to tread with some care in this area, given that we have one of the best records in Europe. I take seriously the stricture of my noble friend Lord   Faulkner that we must be mindful of trends and that this past year’s figures have not been welcome, to put it mildly. It is an indication that there may be a degree of complacency about the issue and of less care being taken by drivers who take excessive amounts of alcohol. We need to keep the situation under the closest review. I reassure him and the whole House that we shall watch the situation very carefully indeed. But that does not mean to say that we think that the merits of introducing a limit of 50 mg in 100 ml of blood or even lower have been established. They have been examined and debated over a long period—almost as long as the drink-driving laws have been in place. I noted that the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, my noble friend Lady   Gibson, was fair in indicating that RoSPA would not wish to see changes to the drink-driving laws in isolation—they would need to be a package. Given that we are concerned about the public response to these issues, there is no doubt that effective road safety measures must engage the commitment of the public to their fairness and justice and that it is prepared to abide by them. For every constraint that is the subject of law enforcement, infinitely more powerful is the compliance of our fellow citizens, if they regard the law as being fair and intelligently based. We know that the results of research from other countries, where legal limits have been reduced below 80 mg, are likely to have been affected by the influence of other anti-drink measures, too. In some cases, it seems that underlying trends and current factors such as publicity and enforcement policy were not always measured. So it is difficult to apportion the benefits that might derive from that sole factor of reducing the alcohol limit. Our research does not enable us to be as categorical as the noble Earl, Lord   Dundee, was in his advocacy of the amendment. Quite rightly, he presented the argument with his customary force and eloquence and was supported by his fellow co-signatories. However, we are not convinced of this position. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned, the penalties in this country are enforced with great rigour and are heavier than those on the Continent. I am not sure that I can accept the definition of northern and   southern Europe given by the noble Lord, Lord   Monson, where anything goes south of some European Mason-Dixon line, but I understood what he was contenting; that is, that enforcement is not always done with the same degree of rigour in some countries. But it certainly is in our country, and people know that if they are caught breaking the drink-driving laws, there are serious consequences. There is a mandatory minimum disqualification of 12 months for the offence of driving or attempting to drive with excess alcohol, which can be combined with up to six   months’ imprisonment and a fine of up to £5,000. Most countries with a lower legal limit operate penalties a long way below these. We are of the view that enforcement, and the proper respect of the public for the degree of rigour that our society expects with regard to these laws—which I think was the main burden of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield—are the most secure way of ensuring that we reduce drink-driving to the absolute minimum. The part of the debate that I have the greatest difficulty in coming to terms with was the cry of concern about those who are caught next morning because of excessive indulgence the night before. I am not sure that four or five hours in bed enable one to discount the law the next day on the grounds that yesterday was yesterday and has no implications for the morrow. If people are not below the necessary level, and therefore are a threat to road users, it seems to me that it does not matter what time they consumed alcohol, nor what time of day they drive a car and are a threat to others. I give way to the noble Earl.