The way in which the bill before you is constructed, unless I'm mistaken, leads to blood testing. There's a breath test to start with, which leads eventually to better evidence of impaired driving or driving over a certain limit, which is blood testing, so blood testing would be clearly more invasive physically than a breath test. I'm not an expert, but I accept the view that it's more accurate in terms of showing the proportion of alcohol or drugs in one's body. But the law before you starts with breath testing and leads to blood testing for the actual evidence that the offence has been committed. We think that's appropriate.
