---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 30:"After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—"    ““EXTENSION OF OFFENCE IN SECTION 3A OF ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 (1)   Section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs etc.) is amended as follows. (2)   In subsection (1), after paragraph (c) insert ““or (d)   he is required by a constable to give his permission for a laboratory test of a specimen of blood taken from him under section 7A of this Act, but without reasonable excuse fails to do so,””. (3)   In subsection (3), for ““and (c)”” substitute ““, (c) and (d)””. (4)   In section 24(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (alternative verdicts), in the Table, in the entry relating to section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), in the second column, after ““Section 7(6) (failing to provide specimen)”” insert ““Section 7A(6) (failing to give permission for laboratory test)””.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 arises from a response to the consultation paper on bad driving offences that highlighted a loophole in the current law. At present the law allows the police to request a medical practitioner to take a blood sample from a suspect who is not capable of consenting—for example, because he is unconscious—but does not allow it to be tested unless the suspect subsequently consents. Where that consent is then withheld, there is an offence of failure to consent to a blood test under Section 7A(6) of the Road Traffic Act which has a maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment, but there is no provision that would allow the suspect to be prosecuted for causing death while under the influence. This is not the case in relation to a person who is capable of consenting and withholds their consent. Causing death while under the influence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment so it is important that we do not allow those who do not consent, and have no reasonable excuse, in effect to opt for prosecution of a much less serious offence with a significantly lower penalty. This amendment brings the law into line so that whether or not a person is conscious or unconscious following an incident does not determine which offence he could ultimately be charged with. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is an important amendment aimed at ensuring that the law is adequate and fair, and that it closes a loophole. I beg to move.