---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and to my noble friend on the Front Bench for not being here in time to hear the opening remarks. I am recovering from a nasty asthma attack. The Road Safety Bill passed through the other place before the election was called, and it is therefore slightly more familiar to some noble Lords than other Bills that will be introduced in this Session. I have two queries about the Road Safety Bill. First, when do Her Majesty's Government intend to lower the drink-drive limit to bring us into line with the vast majority of other European Union countries? I recall a Canadian experiment in the 1960s involving rally drivers negotiating a demanding course before taking some alcohol and then taking successive, measured amounts of alcohol. It was interesting to note that the ability of those professional drivers was impaired by even very small amounts of alcohol. It has been acknowledged that this poison—one must remember that alcoholic poisoning can and does kill—can have an adverse effect on driving even when taken in very small quantities. That in turn can have a contributory and adverse effect on collisions. Scientific research supports that. I would commend a recent paper written by Richard Allsop, where it was calculated that lowering the drink-drive limit could save 65 deaths a year. That interesting paper was presented to the Brake conference on drink and drug driving earlier this month. I repeat my question: when will the drink-driving limit be lowered? My second query on this Bill is to seek confirmation that the lower threshold of two points will not apply in areas where the speed limit is 30mph or lower. The chances of killing or seriously injuring someone are greatly increased when driving over 30 in a 30mph-limited area. The reason for lower speed limits is to reduce the chances of having collisions and of killing or injuring people. A higher speed limit reflects a reduced danger. However, there are those who say that because car technology has greatly improved, the national speed limit should be increased; but driver reactions have not improved, nor have their anatomy and physiology and I would venture to suggest that there is little evidence to support any major changes in their psychology. Figures released last week show that compliance with the 30mph limit is finally increasing; and we do not want to endanger that progress by relaxing the penalties. After all, a child hit at 35mph is twice as likely to die as one hit at 30mph. I offer one word of caution against reducing penalties for exceeding speed limits. I would not be surprised if the courts were full of people trying to prove that their observed speed was within the lower points limit rather than the higher limit at which they were caught. In a slight aside, when will Her Majesty's Government acknowledge, in public and in the press, that safety cameras are not—I repeat, not—money-making machines? All the cameras are doing is recording offending drivers exceeding the speed limit. Those cameras are there for a reason, and to pander to motorists who complain that they were caught exceeding the posted speed limit is patently wrong. If drivers do not want to pay the fines for speeding or get points on their licences, the solution is theirs, and it is easy; just do not exceed the speed limit. To say that it takes time to look at a speedometer leads me to think that those who make that comment do not make use of their rear vision mirrors. Additionally, as all cameras should be highly visible, the fact that a motorist has been caught lends itself to suggest that they were driving without due care and attention. While some drivers continue to develop their skills the ageing process marches on. And because of this, the comparatively new photo driving licences must be renewed every 10 years. I wonder whether any thought has been given to having an assessment of the person's driving by a qualified and approved driving instructor. Could that assessment not include determining whether eyesight and health are appropriate for the continued right to drive? When police officers were introduced in the 1800s they looked after their own neighbourhoods. If somebody was observed doing something wrong, the officer would use his whistle and chase the suspect. Other officers, hearing the whistle, would join in the chase. The suspect might or might not get caught. Not much has changed in the intervening period except that motor vehicles are now used and the siren has replaced the whistle. But the neighbourhood has been extended to include the strategic roads and, in particular, motorways which burglars and other criminals use regularly, almost with impunity. Some noble Lords present might recall my hands-on involvement with traffic police. Because of their very specialised training it is the traffic officer who will observe something very small—something that might not be observed by other police drivers—that can lead to the arrest of somebody for something which is not traffic related. I make no apologies for reminding noble Lords that not all car users are criminals but all criminals are car users. And yes, I did say traffic officers and I do not mean Highways Agency Traffic Officers, who appear to have stolen the identity of the police road policing officer. No, I mean the men and women who are available at all hours every day of the year, who receive comprehensive training in driving skills, law—both practice and procedure—investigation, searching and family welfare, to name but a few of the things we ask of them. The sooner those in senior positions acknowledge that police traffic officers do not just give out speeding tickets the better. At the moment, a study is taking place into the importance of police traffic officers but I suspect that the researchers will, initially, be asking the wrong questions due to lack of specialised knowledge. It might be expecting too much to beg them to speak to those officers in the traffic departments for the viewpoint from the coalface. My final contribution is intended to provide food for thought. I believe that, at the moment, it is the statutory responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive to police vehicles involved with the carriage of dangerous goods. Traditionally, police forces have agreed to assist the HSE in this area, but find that it is increasingly difficult due to many factors. In addition, the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency—VOSA—is now responsible for many aspects of enforcement in relation to LGVs and PCVs. The police still assist VOSA and share responsibility to gather intelligence and enforce the law, but the same pressures apply to this area of work as with the carriage of dangerous goods policing. The Highways Agency Traffic Officers who currently patrol motorways, in uniform, will eventually total several thousand in number. They will expand their remit to cover all trunk roads. While they will, initially, be concentrating on getting traffic moving following collisions and sweeping up debris, would it not be more cost-effective if they were trained to take over those areas currently covered by HSE and VOSA? This will provide resilience to the current regime and give much better value for money in making a more useful and efficient contribution to the fight against crime and terrorism. In conclusion, I welcome the gracious Speech: better and increased penalties for the more dangerous driving offender, education rather than punishment for the minor offender; and a sensible drink-drive limit in keeping with the majority of out European counterparts should be encouraged.