Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, when I first saw the Bill I was not sure whether it would generate substantial debate. In fact, the debate that we have had has been very reflective and extremely interesting. Noble Lords’ personal points of view—I was going to say prejudices but perhaps I do not mean that—have come very much to the fore. That is inevitable when you have a Bill that is—I do not mean this disrespectfully—a bit of a hotchpotch of provisions and proposals. The Bill covers a multitude of areas, many of which are already the subject of legislation, so it is either building on or changing that legislation. One clause in particular drew my attention as being one of those small snippets that appear in a Bill such   as this. I draw the attention of noble Lords to Clause 42, on private hire vehicles in London. After giving a whole lot of references, it simply says, ““omit ‘to the public’””. I am fascinated by what this clause is about; there is nothing about it in the Explanatory Notes. It is one of those areas that I will be delving into before we start again to make sure I know what it is about. A number of serious issues have been raised, and one or two have come up over and over again. Noble Lords have done them full justice this afternoon. I start with the speech made by my noble friend Lord Peel on motorcycling. He gave a graphic description of what happens when a lot of motorcyclists get together in the middle of the Yorkshire moors, hell-bent on having fun and riding their motorcycles at a huge rate. That is a specific and extreme example of what happens all the time. He was not only talking about speed but about disregard for the law. It would not be unfair to him to paraphrase his questions, which are, ““what is the law doing about such issues””, and secondly, ““if it is not doing it, why is it not doing it?””. He then led on to the question that has been raised about a number of areas in the Bill, which is, ““what resources are available for seeing that the law is upheld?””. It seems inexplicable that the police watch on roads and on sub-roads has been reduced. Plenty of evidence has been quoted today to show that the number of traffic police is far less than it was. Of course, one understands that in the case of terrorism, or where there are other major concerns, police may be diverted, but they cannot and must not be diverted for ever. Road safety is of enormous importance, and even if they are testing out their vehicles at 150 mph there must be other policemen who are able to chase others who are doing 150 mph along motorways. What is the Minister’s view on resources? Is there anything else that we should put in the Bill to ensure that there are sufficient traffic police to deal not only with the existing legislation but particularly with legislation concerning rural areas? My noble friend Lord Peel talked about rural areas, and other rural issues were touched on today such as speed limits on country roads. Perhaps we all like to think that the country looks after itself, but it does not; and there are matters here that we need to consider, particularly speed limits on country roads. One of the most serious and difficult areas in road safety is drink-driving. That concerns not only people who are slightly over the limit but those who are hopelessly and completely over the limit. You have only to read this morning’s newspaper reporting the deaths of an elderly couple who were forced off the road by a couple of drunken youths who were playing chicken. They were driving at high speed trying to overtake and then pulling back in just before they were hit by oncoming traffic. That is a road safety issue. Again, why is that happening when there is legislation that should be enforced to ensure that people are not killed in that terrible way? Other noble Lords have asked whether hands-free mobile phones should also be the subject of legislation. We all have our own views on that. I am not clear whether, if someone pulls up at the side of the road to make an emergency call, or just a call, that is covered by the clauses in the Bill, which seem specifically to say that using a hand-held phone while the car is moving is an offence. I should have declared earlier that I am a magistrate, and I deal with road traffic cases all the time. In many cases, it is unclear whether legislation refers only to a moving vehicle or to a moving vehicle and a stationary vehicle. The Minister might be able to answer that for me; it may be that we need to look at it. The other difficult area is drugs and drug testing, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords this afternoon. It is undoubtedly one of the most serious ways in which people cause accidents. They do not appear to know when they get into a vehicle that they are incapable, and the police seem to be unable to decide when they find them whether they are capable and whether they have taken drugs. The current technology does not appear to be up to testing for drugs, unlike the breathalyser, which detects alcohol. I hope that there will be some news during the passage of the Bill on what may be available, and we may need to move amendments to that effect about drugs and drug testing. At the moment, people’s hands are tied, and it is as serious an issue now as drink driving. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to road pricing. It is partly a question of road safety, and I am sure that there will be many opportunities to discuss the matter. I return to the perennial problem of congestion charging, which has been introduced in London partly for congestion purposes and also partly for road safety purposes. I suggest that we might return to this issue, on the basis that perhaps congestion charging and road pricing should be seen to have the support of a large majority of the people in whose area they are about to be introduced before they are introduced. We suffer in London from a great amount of consultation having taken place on this subject and not one jot of attention having been paid to it. It would be helpful if we were able to introduce referendums into the legislation for this and for other pricing matters. Maybe that is a bit tenuous to this legislation, but that is what legislation is about; to see what we can get from Ministers during the course of it. Road safety grants appear in Clause 1. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred to them. It is not clear from the legislation how they are to be administered. They are left in the hands of the Secretary of State, which is always dangerous. There is no indication—and the Local Government Association is interested in this—whether those grants would be ring-fenced, or top-sliced, or whether they would be handed out by bids, or as part of a grant. We should like to explore that. Finally, motorway picnic areas sound absolutely fantastic, but they would be a nightmare if they were not maintained, looked-after and supervised. We do not want to give permission for something that ends up being another area that people avoid like the plague because they cannot go there safely and find clean facilities. It has been an interesting afternoon. I look forward to the Minister’s replies to some of the matters that have been raised.