Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, policing in this country is local. It is therefore a matter of the judgment of the local police authorities. When public concern is expressed, they are mindful of it. The noble Earl has made his case today and that will no doubt assist them. We know that this phenomenon moves round the country and, as the noble Earl rightly says, there must be a determination to deal with it. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, commented on a number of issues. I do not think that the issue of the 30   mph limit is one for the Bill. Such decisions should be made locally. We have to be careful with legislation that is going to be imposed countrywide. We must be careful that we do not take away from local authorities and local areas all discretion in how these issues are tackled. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, were pessimistic about picnic areas on motorways. The French—dare I say this a week or so after the referendum?—do not set a bad example in their picnic areas. On the whole, they are maintained as well as it is possible to do it. I do not think that the French are congenitally tidier and more careful than the British. I have seen no evidence of that in other aspects of their national life. But picnic areas and rest areas on big autoroutes in France seem to work very well. I therefore adopt a position of considerable optimism about our initiative here. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for emphasising a point that I made a moment ago—that bad driving is the issue. When dealing with road safety, we must concentrate on bad driving. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said that there should be a national review of speed limits. We intend to issue updated guidance to highway authorities on setting local speed limits, but they will still have areas of flexibility and decision taking, as is proper. I recognise the disappointment of two of my noble friends—Lady Gibson and Lord Faulkner, both of whom have served as presidents of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—that aspects of the Bill seem to soften the penalty points for bad driving. We are concerned to graduate the points to fit the crime. We shall be exceedingly tough with those who infringe the law in an outrageous way and are a menace to other road users. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, indicated that his wife was the victim of the allocation of three points for the most marginal infraction of the law. We are mindful of such cases. We want proper respect for the speed limits and for the way in which law enforcement works. We therefore think that an element of flexibility is necessary in the points count, so that two points can be allocated against an individual who has marginally passed 30 mph in a 30 mph area. But, as we will discuss in Committee, that does not indicate that we are going soft on speeding motorists. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, made a most interesting contribution. My first note from the Box indicated that he had raised a ““technical”” issue. ““In spades”” is the only phrase with which I can respond. I am in no position to match his expertise on issues to do with time, save to say that, as he will recognise, the Department for Transport is a minor though important player in the debate on British Summer Time and double summer time. On the whole, we are convinced of the road safety advantages of such a change. But it is not just transport and roads that are affected by such a significant change. Consequently, the issue is not for my department. The Department of Trade and Industry takes responsibility for it. I know that because I answered a question on it from the noble Lord a short while ago. We are not convinced across the board that it is in the country’s interest to make such a change, but the Department for Transport knows the contribution that it could make to road safety. I therefore welcome very much the noble Lord’s contribution and the contributions of other noble Lords who also referred to this point, including my noble friend Lord Faulkner. It is important that we recognise the gains that would be made by such a change. I could go on for a very long time. However, I have already reached what is meant to be my sticking point of 20 minutes and I have not even begun to answer all the points that have been raised in the debate. That will guarantee a most lively and interesting Committee stage. I maintain again that the Government will, of course, produce the best Bill that they can. I look upon it as a rather perfect little Bill at this present time, but I have heard sufficient evidence today to recognise that it will undoubtedly be subjected to improving speeches in Committee. On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.