---

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. When there is an accident, it is often difficult for people to accept that no one was to blame. If a relative is killed, they might never be satisfied with what happens afterwards and might always feel that no price is high enough to pay for the death of their relative. People must be supported through that process, by agencies such as Victim Support. That is a different matter from the proper range of penalties that should be available to the courts, that fill the credibility gap and that meet the public’s sense of justice. The courts must receive proper guidance about the powers that they are to be given. I would not dare to interpret the case cited by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell about a driver avoiding an animal and hitting a cyclist instead. There must be proper guidance about what constitutes culpable carelessness. Everybody who has driven has had momentary lapses. The question is when that is culpable and when it is a case of driving without the due regard and attention expected of a careful, competent and considerate driver. All that can be dealt with in guidance. Earlier, I raised the issue of driving under the influence of drugs. It is acknowledged that there are problems in testing for that. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department, in their work with the Home Office, to ensure that progress is made in developing a scientific test that can be conducted at the roadside. I understand from the Library notes that the roadside tests include walking along a straight line, touching the tip of one’s nose and standing on one leg. To people who have seen the consequences of an accident resulting from someone driving under the influence of drugs, citing such evidence in court seems a less than convincing argument or test.