Road Safety Bill [HL]

It goes without saying that I am very pleased to hear that testimony. We will look at the evidence very carefully. The noble Baroness will recognise that we are reluctant to move from our present position until we are convinced in the round of the research on this matter. She has presented her case in her usual able fashion. We will look at it very closely. We monitor statistics not only in Europe—that goes without saying—but in other parts of the developed world to see whether we can improve our statistics against a background where I maintain that we are, in this particular area, one of the best countries in the advanced world. But, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner and others have indicated, there is absolutely no room for complacency. So I shall not accept the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I hope that he will withdraw it. However, we recognise the force of the argument he has put and of the necessity of us addressing ourselves to this issue as far as our general road safety record is concerned. Turning to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Gibson, I see that they also address the question of enforcement. The amendments seek to remove a limitation provided by statute on the powers of the police to conduct tests on motorists. At present the law restricts breath testing, and the equivalent preliminary test for the impairment and drugs, to circumstances where an accident has occurred or where a constable reasonably suspects an offence is being committed. The issue of random tests has been the subject of public debate for a considerable period of time. It is not surprising that we have had both sides of that argument put with considerable force. The amendments would introduce random testing because they would take away the need for reasonable suspicion, allowing the police to make a requirement for the test without any prior cause. Many would regard this as a considerable intrusion that was unjustified in the majority of situations. I am open-minded at this point. We are still prepared to listen to the arguments. But I must say this: the police do not claim that they are hampered in their enforcement against drink-driving by this constraint on their powers. I do not say that enough random testing would not send out other signals. I think that that would be the burden of some of the remarks of those noble Lords advocating these amendments. But I do not have evidence that the police consider that the general drive against drink-driving is hampered by the fact that they do not have powers of random testing. Amendment No. 44 presents a slightly different approach. It is designed to limit the police powers in a different way. I recognise that this is a clever and subtle amendment that presents some interesting points. There is certainly a range of approaches to breath-testing policy. This one gives additional and free-standing powers to the police to establish what might be called campaigns of testing for a limited time and in a limited locality. The safeguard for the general law-abiding motorist is that these campaigns would have to be authorised by a reasonably senior officer and where someone who is required to be tested makes a request, he can obtain a written statement to explain the circumstances. I can see that the intention behind the amendment is to carry public support for blanket testing. So I recognise that the amendment has been well thought through. Nevertheless, it is a step too far, given the current practice of the police in enforcement against drink-driving. I reiterate that the police are content with their existing powers in this area and do not want to widen them, and that we want to test that against the effectiveness of police action and the response of our society to the measures.