Road Safety Bill [HL]

The noble Lord knows that whenever chief constables are exercised about their capacity to enforce the law, they have a whole range of measures by which to tell us what should be done. They sometimes do that in public, but an awful lot of consultation does not hit the public prints or airwaves. I merely reflect on the fact that we have not received representations that enhanced powers are needed on that offence, whereas we do in other areas of the law. That is often cited when we discuss what seems to be the myriad of Home Office Bills that descend on us from time to time. I am merely saying that, in this area, it is relatively quiet on the western front, so the noble Lord will just have to accept my point: we are not under pressure to extend police powers in that area. We are under pressure to continue the improvement. With campaigns, powerful publicity and enforcement, backed by our tough penalties, there has been a massive reduction in our drink-drive deaths since the 1970s. That is why I have taken on board the point made by my noble friend Lord   Faulkner that there has recently been a change in the other direction. That is a cause for concern. The figure rose to 560; we will need to consider that carefully. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, again impressed me with his conspicuous courage—never failing to be in evidence in this House—but he will recognise that we do not consider the case for tests that he advanced as proven. His amendment is unnecessary. During the passage through this House of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, the Government accepted that police powers to test for impairment and the presence of drugs at the roadside should be updated. As a result, Section 107 replaced Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 with a new Section 6 and Schedule 7. Those provisions gave the police the power to administer preliminary tests at the roadside for alcohol or drugs where they suspect a moving traffic offence—where someone has been driving—or attempting to drive; or in charge of a motor vehicle; or if there has been an accident. The courage of the noble Earl is in suggesting that drugs should also come within that framework, against a background where our anxiety is clear. We have an established, independent, scientifically verified test for the presence of alcohol in blood. No one contests that. The scientific position with regard to drugs is much hazier. We are still some distance away from being able to be categorical and to propose a test or tests that command public confidence—especially as the drugs may have been taken for recreational use and therefore close to the consumption of alcohol. Drugs are present in a very high percentage of our fellow citizens—I was going to say ““in a very high percentage of noble Lords””, but I would not presume that—as medicine to treat complaints and for prescribed purposes. So, there are difficulties. It may be contended that by law anyone with a proven impairment of capacities should not drive, but we would need to know that the test was absolutely secure in those terms, otherwise rank injustices could be perpetrated against innocent citizens. The noble Lord has had the opportunity to present an interesting point. It does not make sense to discuss only alcohol as impairing driving capacity when other drugs have the same or worse deleterious effects. We do not have a test that is secure enough to put the drugs issue four-square with alcohol. I shield myself behind the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, who presented the arguments rather more cogently than I have done. I hope that I have chilled the souls of Back-Benchers so much that they are all determined not to press their amendments.