Road Traffic Act 1988 (Alcohol Limits) (Amendment) Bill [HL] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office

Road Traffic Act 1988 (Alcohol Limits) (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts
Friday 11th March 2016

(8 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debate on whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Portrait Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, on the Second Reading of my amendment Bill on 29 January, I opened by saying that the Bill was precisely in accord with what had been piloted through the Scottish Parliament. As a consequence, it contained a provision in Clause 2 that permitted a person to elect to have a specimen of breath replaced with a specimen of blood or urine. However, as this former statutory option was removed from the Road Traffic Act 1988 by Part 1 of Schedule 11 to the Deregulation Act 2015, which came into force in April 2015, I therefore need to withdraw Clause 2 from my Bill. Therefore, I oppose the question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 disagreed.
--- Later in debate ---
Moved by
1: Clause 3, page 1, line 17, after “regulations” insert “, made by statutory instrument,”
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Portrait Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
- Hansard - -

My Lords, this amendment arises from the 20th report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published on 5 February 2016, relating to Clause 3(2) on the powers to appoint the commencement date for enactment. The committee recommended that, additionally, subsection (2) should require the regulations for the commencement date to be made by statutory instrument. I accept this and accordingly move the second amendment, which meets its recommendations and relates to Clause 3.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Portrait Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I agree that changes such as these have an impact. As he rightly pointed out, Scotland has introduced changes. We are talking regularly with our counterparts in the Scottish Government, but it is right that we await a more substantial evidence base for these changes. As I said, we are not contemplating any changes at this time.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Portrait Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
- Hansard - -

My Lords, neither of the amendments today is contentious so they should not pose any difficulties for the Government, although I know that the purpose of the Bill does. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out again that the Government are endeavouring to limit the damage done to individuals by drunken drivers. However, I am sorry that they still maintain there is not sufficient cause for embracing this measure, which would, in my opinion, lead to further lives being saved, fewer accidents and fewer people being damaged than is the case at present.

I do not want to repeat all that I said on Second Reading. However, notwithstanding what the Government have done, the numbers of deaths, accidents and injuries have virtually plateaued since 2012. Notwithstanding the minor changes made recently, there does not seem to be any indication of significant change ahead, even though Scotland has shown that very big changes can be effected by moving down to the 50 milligrams limit. While the Government are still digging in, I hope that the many individuals, organisations and members of the public who have supported me—I express my public gratitude to them—and who are in favour of this measure will continue to put pressure on the Government to bring about a change which will be in the best interests of all concerned, other than, perhaps, the drinks and hospitality industry.

Amendment 1 agreed.