House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Feb 1991

Column 817

routes will be controversial, as are some of the restrictions on the principal roads. Newham way in my constituency is at least a three-lane fast road in each direction. In one place, there is a fourth lane with a single yellow line. There is a doctor's surgery there, and residents have also been in the habit of parking there. They do not cause an obstruction or any change in the flow of traffic, they do not provide a hazard for most of the length, yet they are subject to raids by traffic wardens or by the police. I get letters about that. It is nonsense.

There is one power for operating enforcement and another for the designation of a yellow line, a double yellow line or a red route. We shall discuss the designation of red routes later. Under the new clause, would the responsibility for the designation and distinction between single and double yellow lines be in the hands of the borough or of a wider authority?

Mr. Chope : It is obvious that there is much common sense behind the contributions in this short debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for the constructive way in which they addressed the issues in Committee and for the way in which they have carried forward the debate. As I said in Committee, I have considerable sympathy with the principles underlying the new clause and the associated amendments. I told the Committee that the Government were considering what provisions would be needed to allow for a wider measure of local authority responsibility for enforcing parking controls beyond those already provided for in the Bill. I also said that I had it in mind that local authority parking attendants could be responsible for enforcing almost all parking regulations within particular designated areas within controlled parking zones. I am able to tell the House that we have developed the outline of a suitable scheme and will be bringing forward Government amendments in the other place. The principles of the scheme are that there will be a further rationalisation of the distinction between illegal or "prohibited" parking controls and "permitted" parking controls and the arrangements for enforcing them. This further rationalisation acknowledges the strategic importance of traffic flow on main roads and the responsibilities of the local authorities to their residents.

The fundamental underlying point is that, in London, the police are responsible for the day-to-day management of traffic flow and have specific responsibilities for security control, emergencies and ceremonial occasions. To fulfil those responsibilities, it is important that they are able to control strategic traffic flows on the main arteries and certain roads serving them. It is, therefore, proposed that illegal parking on and adjacent to those arteries will continue to attract criminal sanctions and will be enforced by the police and their traffic wardens. Off the main arteries, traffic and parking has fewer strategic implications, but raises heightened environmental and residential issues, so it is proposed that most illegal parking in those areas--except for endorsable offences--will be decriminalised and enforced by the local authorities.

4.45 pm

It will be for the local authorities to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport to establish "designated" parking areas in their boroughs. In those areas, most non-endorsable illegal parking offences will be decriminalised. The offences to be decriminalised will include waiting, loading, unloading and delivery prohibitions and

Column 818

restrictions, parking controls at bus stops, pavement parking and breaches of the commercial vehicle overnight waiting ban. The new system of penalty charges will be applied to those breaches and they will be enforced by the local authorities, which will have extended powers to wheel-clamp and remove vehicles contravening the new controls.

It will also be for the local authorities to propose the extent of the "designated" parking areas. The areas might begin in controlled parking zones, but they could also cover other areas. The Secretary of State will need to be satisfied with the proposals because there will be traffic and safety implications. He will need to be sure that local authorities are able to take on the new responsibilities and to arrange a smooth transition to avoid any major problems or disruption. He will consult the police about the proposals. When he is satisfied with them, he will make orders bringing the "designated" parking areas into force and subsequently extending them as required. In practice, there will be a link between the introduction of the new system of "permitted" parking and the designation of "designated" parking areas.

Further consideration will be given to the way in which the former illegal parking controls are marked and signed in the "designated" parking areas. For example, yellow lines have a specific force in law under the Traffic Signs Regulations 1981, and it may be necessary for the waiting and loading prohibitions to be marked in a different colour where the offences are decriminalised.

The police will retain overriding powers for use against parked vehicles anywhere in London where security or other policing issues are involved. They will be responsible for enforcing all parking controls on the main arteries other than those associated with "permitted" parking. Contravention of those controls will remain criminal offences. The main arteries will include priority routes and some other roads as well. The precise selection of roads will be a matter for discussion between the local authorities, the police and the Secretary of State.

In "designated" parking areas off the main arteries, the police will continue to enforce endorsable parking offences, such as parking on a pedestrian crossing and dangerous parking, and will retain the power to deal with vehicles causing an obstruction.

The aim of the scheme is to improve the arrangements for enforcing parking controls in London in a way which reflects the prime nature of the controls and the primary traffic interests of the police and the local authorities. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friends and, indeed, the whole House to the extent that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) will feel able to withdraw the new clause, which puts the onus on the police to apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have said that, in the Government's view, the presumption should be that the police would be responsible for enforcement on main routes and that local authorities will be able to apply if they wish to take over the burden of enforcement on the other routes. Our open debate on the issue shows the value of a constructive Committee.

Mr. Spearing : Will the Minister clarify the matters of cost and of traffic wardens? Do I take it that the cost of policing the new local authority-controlled areas will be borne by the local authorities in a manner that they can best achieve? Obviously the cost cannot be met from parking meters. Will the Metropolitan police traffic

Column 819

warden service be confined to the functions of the Metropolitan police, or will that service be made available--with or without a fee--to the local authorities?

Mr. Chope : The cost of enforcing the local authority-controlled areas will be borne by the local authorities. The local authorities have assured us that they can generate sufficient income from the penalties associated with enforcement to cover their costs. The zeal with which local authority parking attendants in Westminster carry out their responsibilities is clear. Westminster has a healthy surplus on its account.

The traffic warden service will continue to be the responsibility of, and funded by, the Metropolitan police. I have heard no suggestion that local authorities want to use traffic wardens on a contractual basis. There is more than enough work for traffic wardens on the main routes under the control of the Metropolitan police.

Mr. Fearn : The new clause is welcome, although I hope that we can have some clarification in another place if the new clause is withdrawn. Although the local authority and the police are involved, will the Secretary of State take the ultimate decision?

Mr. Chope : Yes indeed--my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take the ultimate decision on applications.

Ms. Ruddock : We tabled amendments in Standing Committee to give boroughs powers to enforce yellow lines. We also tabled a new clause to create permitted parking zones. Therefore, we believe that we have contributed to the constructive discussion to which the Minister has referred.

We referred in Committee to the duplication of powers that would have to exist if the local authorities are to be responsible, as is made possible in the Bill, for the parking bays and meters, but cannot enforce the areas with yellow lines which so frequently occur between those bays.

We also referred to the fact that decriminalisation of certain offences already occurs in the Bill, and we therefore thought that the argument that those yellow lines had to be enforced by the police did not hold up. The Minister said in response to our argument in Committee that enforcement of prohibited parking offences must, as a matter of policy, remain with the police and the traffic warden service. However, he raised our hopes when he said that he would try to find some way to bring forward controlled parking zones and the designation of special parking areas.

We are more than delighted by the fact that the Minister seems to have listened to our pleas. The Association of London Authorities will also be delighted that at last the measure for which it has pressed for so long will, one hopes, find its way on to the statute book.

In Committee we referred to the fact that there are considerable problems of enforcement due primarily to attitudes within the police and to the scarcity of traffic wardens. We recorded that although traffic flows had increased dramatically in the past five years, the traffic warden service had decreased by 15 per cent. We are more than aware that effective enforcement requires transfer to the local authorities, which have such vested interests in enforcement that they will do it well. The Minister said

Column 820

that the authorities would propose the extent of designated areas within the control zones under their influence and I am sure that those designated areas will be extensive.

We agree with the Minister and hope very much that there will be no proposal to reduce the present level of person power within the traffic warden service. We believe that much stricter enforcement is necessary. A reduction in numbers in the traffic warden service would have a deleterious effect on enforcement on the major routes and main arteries.

We are cheered by the fact that the measure will make progress. We support it and we congratulate the Minister on being so co-operative. However, it has been suggested that the yellow lines should adopt another hue--I believe that purple and blue have been suggested. I hope that the Minister will not make up his mind about that. Such a change might appear to be an unnecessary concession to opinions expressed by the police and the idea that they must hold on to control of yellow lines. Perhaps it would be more helpful to maintain yellow lines for all purposes so as to give a clear message to the public that yellow lines mean that they may not park at certain times in particular areas. I urge the Minister not to have a set mind about the colour of those lines under the new arrangements.

Mr. Tracey : My hon. Friend the Minister must surely believe that he has got off to rather a good start in terms of the unanimous approval of the new clause.

Ms. Ruddock : Not for long.

Mr. Tracey : Well, he has it at this stage anyway.

My hon. Friend the Minister has closely met the spirit of the new clause and the associated amendments. We will read my hon. Friend's detailed comments when we receive the Official Report tomorrow. The Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association will also examine his comments closely before the Bill moves to another place. Naturally we want to consider the details that my hon. Friend has given us today and other details that presumably we will be given in another place. Obviously, the details of the amendment to the legislation will have to be scrutinised closely.

I am particularly interested in the definition of a main road or route that will still be controlled by the police and traffic wardens. I will also be interested to examine my hon. Friend the Minister's wording with regard to enforcement in relation to parking on footways. A number of my colleagues and I raised in Committee the serious problem of inadequate enforcement of controls on parking on footways which can be very dangerous. There is an additional anomaly in that, until now, only the police have been able properly to enforce controls on heavy vehicles parked on footways--a practice that is completely unacceptable to all citizens in London.

I will be very interested to learn how far the Government are prepared to develop the idea of orders giving the local London authorities the power to enforce things other than yellow line parking and parking bays. My hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), also referred to boroughs enforcing rules on parking on red routes.

We have made considerable progress today towards good reason and common sense prevailing over what was previously apparent bureaucratic intransigence. That spirit has been welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. I give thanks for the co-operation that we and the London

Column 821

authorities have received from officials at the Department of Transport and at the Home Office as this issue also involves the police.

I look forward to the Government's proposals being introduced in another place. In the light of all that we have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Random breath testing at roadside checkpoints

In subsection 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted after subsection (2) the following subsections :-- "(2A) The Secretary of State may make provisions, by regulations which shall be subject to approval by each House of Parliament, for roadside checks at which either all vehicles or a sample of vehicles may be stopped by a constable in uniform under section 163 of this Act for the purpose of administering breath tests to their drivers at or near the place where such vehicles are stopped to ascertain whether any offence has been committed under section 4 or 5 of this Act.

(2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) above shall provide for any roadside check under subsection (2A) above to be authorised in writing by a senior police officer and for the display of signs making the purpose of the check clear to road users and for the maintenance of records of the authorisation and of the location, date and time of such checks.

(2C) Regulations under subsection (2A) shall be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to England and Wales and by the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to Scotland.

(2D) The Secretary of State shall consult chief officers of police and other organisations on a Code of Practice for the detailed operation of roadside checks carried out in accordance with the Regulations under subsection (2A).".'.-- [Ms. Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5 pm

Ms. Ruddock : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As hon. Members have said, we began this afternoon's debate in considerable harmony, but I fear that I am about to change the mood somewhat. However, I rise to move the Second Reading of the new clause, conscious of the fact that the majority of hon. Members support its provisions. They and I believe that introducing random breath testing should be one of our highest priorities for road safety in this country. The new clause commands all- party support. However, sadly for all those who are affected by the actions of drunk drivers, I fear that the new clause may not succeed. I understand that the Government have imposed a three-line Whip despite the strong support for the new clause among their own Back Benchers, and despite the many requests that a free vote should be allowed to enable hon. Members to vote according to their consciences. I can assure the House that a free vote has been granted for Labour Members. We cannot help but suspect that the Government knew that they would be defeated on a free vote.

Tonight, hon. Members could act in concert to introduce a measure that is supported by over 70 per cent. of the population but, because of the Government's intransigence, I suspect that they will be prevented from doing so. I hope that many Conservative Members will feel

Column 822

able to show the Government by their votes tonight that they are not to be bullied into rejecting this important measure.

The list of organisations that support random breath testing is impressively long. It includes not only the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety, to which I pay tribute for its persistent and excellent work in this area, but the British Medical Association, the Consumers Association, the Campaign against Drinking and Driving, Alcohol Concern, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain, and the County Road Safety Officers Association, to name but a few.

Public support for random breath testing has been consistently strong.

Mr. Conal Gregory (York) : The hon. Lady is making a good and telling point early in the debate. Does she know of any agency that supports the Minister's view?

Ms. Ruddock : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and confirm what I suspect he thinks--I know of no agency that supports the Government's view--

Mr. Chope : What about the Royal Automobile Club?

Ms. Ruddock : The Minister will have an opportunity to list his own supporters when he makes his speech.

Mr. Chope : Will the hon. Lady confirm that the RAC is in favour of the Government's view on this matter?

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : What about the police?

Ms. Ruddock : I have not received any communication from the RAC to suggest that position. If the Minister has such a testimony, I am sure that he will use it in support of his own case when he makes it.

I repeat that public support for random breath testing has been consistently strong. Over the past three years, seven surveys have shown more than 70 per cent. public support for it, including a survey conducted last November by the Government's own transport and road research laboratory. A survey last March by the Harris research centre showed that drinking and driving is among the top three offences that people felt should be given priority by the police. By contrast, fewer than 50 per cent. of the police who were interviewed thought that it deserved priority attention.

In Committee, when we were discussing a similar amendment, the Minister suggested that random breath testing would involve too much police time and too many resources when the incidence of criminal behaviour in other areas is increasing. However, about 800 deaths a year are caused by drink driving. Surely, that number is serious enough to make this issue a priority for police resources. If those 800 drink-drive deaths were perceived as 800 murders, as they frequently are by the bereaved, surely they would be a police priority.

Mr. Ashton : Does that figure of 800 deaths represent deaths caused by drivers who have been drinking, or drink-related accidents which, in many cases, mean that perfectly sober drivers have knocked down a drunk who was coming out of a pub and who stood in front of their car? There is a difference in those statistics. Will my hon. Friend make the statistics clear?

Column 823

Ms. Ruddock : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his point, but I see from frantic signs on the Conservative Front Bench below the Gangway that another hon. Member wishes to enlighten him on that point.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : I do not know whether it will enlighten hon. Members, but a casualty report has shown that, in 1988, there were 840 deaths where the driver or motor cycle rider had an illegal level of alcohol in his blood. The dead drunk pedestrians come on top of that.

Ms. Ruddock : I am grateful for the help that I am being given, but I am under no illusion that that assistance will continue. Like the whole House, I am deeply concerned by the fact that 800 deaths per year arise from drink-drive offences. The public understand that that should be a major priority for our police forces. I suggest that they will not understand any rejection of these provisions today, especially given the fact that on the last occasion when a similar proposal was tested in the House, on a ten-minute Bill that was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), it was supported by 165 votes to 49. Does the House really want to give an entirely contradictory message today?

Mr. Ashton : Yes.

Ms. Ruddock : Returning to the new clause, its purpose is to insert into the Bill a clear and straightforward procedure to enable the police to carry out random breath testing. It would authorise the Secretary of State to make regulations for roadside checks to be carried out by the police at which either all vehicles or a sample may be stopped for the purpose of administering a breath test to the driver. The new clause states that the purpose of the checkpoint must be clearly signposted and authorised in writing by a senior police officer. The proposed subsection (2D) authorises the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice for the operation of the roadside checks.

The Minister suggested in Committee that such provisions would still require the police to suspect that a driver had been drinking before they could breath-test him. I am happy to assure the House that I have taken further expert advice and feel sure that the Minister was mistaken.

Mr. Paul Channon (Southend, West) : The hon. Lady mentioned sampling a moment ago. What does she mean by "sampling"? Under her new clause, would the police be entitled to stop all young people, for example, or all women or all men? How does sampling work? I had thought that random breath testing would have to involve everyone.

Ms. Ruddock : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for posing those questions, because we are very clear in our minds about what we mean. I believe that there is a scientific definiton of "random". It has to be proved that it is truly random. Testing can be random if every passing car is stopped for the obvious reason that no-one knows into which category the driver of that vehicle may fall. Testing can also be shown to be random if, for example, every 10th vehicle is stopped because, by the same token, the person stopping that vehicle could not have anticipated whether its driver was young, old, female or black. That is random. That, indeed, is the purpose

Column 824

behind this new clause. We are clear and we have checked extremely carefully with several authorities that our new clause truly offers the opportunity for random, accountable and controlled breath testing.

The case for random testing has been made many times, and undoubtedly it will be made many times again today. I make no apology for repeating some of the arguments. It is true that there has already been a gradual reduction in the number of accidents resulting from drinking and driving. That can be attributed to several factors, including publicity campaigns and changing the public's perception. But we cannot afford to be complacent about our rate of progress. Research suggests that one in 50 drivers at any one time is over the prescribed limit.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : Is not that one in 50 at pub closing time on Thursday, Friday and Saturday night, not at any one time?

Ms. Ruddock : I shall look into that. I have taken on trust the information that I have been given. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, the information comes from an expert source. I have no reason to question it. If the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is certain of his facts, I am prepared to accept that. It does not alter in any significant way the case that I make. It is obvious that a substantial number of people in Britain are prepared to say when questioned that they have driven when they believed that they were over the limit.

Mr. Bowis : Does the hon. Lady agree that, where recent campaigns against drinking and driving have been successful, it appears that it was because the public perception that there was already a degree of random testing? When I talk to my local police they say, not that they do not want to enforce the law against drinking and driving but that they already have adequate laws to enforce. Will the hon. Lady explain what is lacking in the law that persuades her that we need to strengthen it through the measure that she proposes?

Ms. Ruddock : I am happy to do that. I shall come to those arguments in a moment. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the public perceive that there is already a degree of random testing. He will also acknowledge that the public have become aware through reports that such testing is carried out by certain police forces but that in other areas it does not happen. Therefore, if there is any deterrent value in random testing, as I believe that there is, it is not available uniformly, even through the present system. As I shall explain in a moment, the present system is not the same as random breath testing, as proposed in the new clause.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown) : I have great sympathy with the idea of random breath testing, not least because anything that can be done to stop drinking and driving must be done. But the hon. Lady implied in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that she would want directly to interfere with the operational decisions of individual police forces by compelling them to operate random breath testing on the basis that she suggests. My police force in Sussex has advised me that it has all the powers that it needs in practice to stop motorists whenever it wishes.

Column 825

5.15 pm

Ms. Ruddock : If the measure became law, it would be apparent to police forces everywhere that the procedure was better in that it was clearer. It provides one power that could be used to establish random breath testing whereas at present, as I have promised to describe, the police rely on two powers and seek to combine them to create a type of random testing which we believe is inadequate.

We do not suggest that police throughout the country will have to undertake testing. We seek to provide powers for them to do so. We believe that there is such tremendous public support for the measure that police forces will wish uniformly to use the new powers made available by the House.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : There is public support for hanging, but we do not have hanging.

Ms. Ruddock : Let me continue with my argument. We are talking about what we believe are the preventable deaths of up to 800 people per year. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) does himself and the House no favours by bringing hanging into the debate. Lest hon. Members fail to keep figures in their minds, let me repeat that about 800 deaths and up to 22,000 injuries per annum are caused by drinking and driving.

Mr. Ashton : How many deaths occur on the roads which are not drink- related?

Ms. Ruddock : My hon. Friend asks a fair question. There are about 5,000 deaths in road accidents per year in Britain. That figure is far too high, and the deaths occur through a variety of causes. However, I remind my hon. Friend that a single cause accounts for 800 deaths and 22,000 accidents resulting in casualties. That is the subject of our debate tonight. I believe that the House treats the subject with great seriousness and that, if there is anything that we can do to reduce the figure by 15 per cent., 5 per cent. or even 0.5 per cent. we should carefully consider it.

Sir Ian Lloyd (Havant) : I have been following the hon. Lady with great care and great interest. She used the words, "if there is anything that we can do" and "if there is something that we can do". I have argued on the Floor of the House on many occasions that modern technology provides a complete solution to drinking and driving. There is something and there is anything. If the Government so chose, every motor vehicle could be required by law to be equipped with a device which made it impossible to drive it if the driver was over the prescribed limit, whatever that might be.

Does the Labour party support that? If so, we are at one in our objective and at one on the method. New clause 2 takes an entirely vindictive approach, but we should seek a solution. The solution is available. There is a variety of methods. The technology is available. If, as my new clause suggests, we encouraged the public to be fully aware of whether they were near the limit, drinking and driving would be reduced. Experience in Australia shows that the massive reductions achieved were largely attributable to that approach.

Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point) rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. One intervention at a time, please.

Column 826

Ms. Ruddock : I fear that I am in great danger of being distracted from my speech, but I am willing to give way to the Father of the House.

Sir B. Braine : Is there not a device for overcoming the dreadful problem of deaths and injuries on the roads which is much simpler than that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), whose knowledge of modern technology no one would dispute? The solution is that people must be deterred to the point where it becomes the natural thing not to get into a car when one has been drinking. Either one does not drink or one does not drive.

Ms. Ruddock : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for their interventions. I assume that they will seek to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They will make their own speeches which, of course, will contribute greatly to our discussions.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) : They should vote in the Lobby with us.

Ms. Ruddock : Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says, hopefully they will vote in the Lobby with us tonight.

We need to do more work to reduce the level of deaths and injuries caused by drinking and driving. Those of us who are in favour of random breath testing believe that efforts must be directed at changing the perception of drivers of the risk of being caught. In Britain that perception is still low ; 42 per cent. of drivers admitting to drink-driving believe that the risk of getting caught is small. Clearly, we need to increase the deterrent as well as continue to detect offenders.

Countries which have introduced random breath testing believe that it has been successful in heightening drivers' perception of the risk of being caught, and that it has made a major contribution to reducing the number of deaths and accidents on the road. I acknowledge that overseas comparisons are difficult because of different systems, legal alcohol limits and procedures. Nevertheless, experience in New South Wales, which still has a higher accident rate due to drink-driving that we do, and in Sweden and Finland, which have lower rates at 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. respectively of all deaths, shows that random breath testing works.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : The last time I looked at the Swedish figures, they were counting only the accidents on which they had done an analysis ; they estimated that there were twice as many as those whom they caught. Therefore, the Swedish figure may be the same as that for Britain. That needs checking, but that is my research. My question may be technical. Over the years, we have had estimates of the number of lives that would be saved if we had random breath testing or what is proposed in the new clause, which is not what the Association of Chief Police Officers wants. Has the hon. Lady any estimate of how many lives might be saved if we introduced the new clause, gave unfettered discretion or introduced the mass random testing which they have in New South Wales?

Mr. Spearing : Fewer deaths.

Ms. Ruddock : I am grateful for the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr.

Column 827

Spearing). If the public perceive the provision as a considerable deterrent, and if people are prepared to admit that they are drinking and driving because they feel that they will get away with it and not be detected, we have every reason in logic and in our knowledge of human behaviour to expect that they are more likely to curb their habit if they think that they are likely to be detected in a criminal offence. That being the case, we believe that there would be a fall in the number of accidents associated with drink driving if the provision were introduced.

Before I began this part of my speech, I acknowledged that it was difficult to make international comparisons, but we know from the subjective evidence, at least of those which have brought in such measures, that a fall in deaths and casualties due to drink driving has resulted from their introduction. That is good enough for me, and I believe that it is good enough for the majority of hon. Members. The research which would follow the introduction of the measure would show whether our case was proved. There is no evidence in this country--and there cannot be until the provision is introduced--but there is every reason in logic to believe that it would be effective. That is what the public at large--the people who would be affected--themselves believe.

I cannot give figures, but let me put it on record that I believe there would be a reduction in road deaths. That is what matters--that there should be a reduction of any kind and at any level, because any life saved as a consequence of new legislation is a life worth saving.

In Britain the current procedures are cumbersome and inefficient. When we discussed the matter in Committee, the provision was thought by the Minister to involve too much police time and resources. Chief police officers, who seek a form of randomised testing, have to use two procedures. That cannot in itself be helpful to their administration. It is not true to suggest that the police already have the power for random breath testing. Only by the use of two existing powers can the police do anything that corresponds to random testing. The police have the power to stop any vehicle at random. Under section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a constable may administer a breath test only if there is reasonable cause for suspicion that alcohol has been consumed.

We are seeking to give the police new powers to complement the existing powers. We are not seeking to remove any powers. The police could still stop any vehicle and, having stopped that vehicle, conduct a test if they had reasonable grounds for suspicion. In addition, the new clause would enable them to establish roadside check-points where they could administer truly random breath tests. We must ensure that breath testing is conducted on a truly random basis to avoid any potential problems of the infringement of civil liberties.

Mr. Ashton : In 1986, Nottinghamshire police, who at Christmas have always breathalysed four or five times more drivers than police in any other county, got to the stage where they were breathalysing people who were queueing for petrol. The police were stopping long queues of cars at the side of the road to do, they said, checks on windscreen wipers, and then they breathalysed the drivers. There were strong rumours that policemen had been told

Next Section

Home Page