House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Feb 1991

Column 828

that they had a quota of 35 breathalyser tests a day. At the end of that tremendous purge in 1986, they did not catch any more motorists than they had ever done.

Ms. Ruddock : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it absolutely proves my case. My hon. Friend has given an example of an area which, in his view, was over-zealous in trying to introduce random testing. He acknowledges that it caused consternation among the public because the police were stopping people on one pretext, when he suggests that they were endeavouring to test them for drink- driving. It is clear to me that, because of what he says rather than in spite of it, we need the new clause. We must ensure that breath testing is conducted on a truly random basis to avoid potential problems of the infringement of civil liberties or of any one group being singled out for testing. We do not support giving the police unfettered powers such as they have requested. Such discretion might lead to abuse or might be perceived to be discriminatory, thus undermining relations between police and public. Roadside checks are a guarantee of objectivity.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is disappointed that there was no detection of drink-driving as a result of a roadside check such as he described, that is not necessarily a problem to us. We are concerned about providing a deterrent. If the majority of people going through a roadside check are found on random breath testing not to be over the limit, it suggests to us that the deterrent of random breath testing is working.

Mr. Tracey : May I raise with the hon. Lady a question which I asked in Committee and which presumably she may now be able to answer? In order to carry out what she is suggesting, on behalf of the Labour party, how many extra tests and how many extra police officers or other officers of enforcement would be required, and what would be the cost of that operation? The House and the country should know those facts.

Ms. Ruddock : The hon. Gentleman knows that, neither in Committee nor here, have I had the resources to prepare the answer to that question. If the authorities decided to adopt the proposal, they would have the ability to make the appropriate resources available. I have said repeatedly that the provision is not designed dramatically to increase detection rates but dramatically to increase deterrence. Sir Bernard Braine rose--

5.30 pm

Ms. Ruddock : I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, having already delayed the House for a considerable time, and I am nearing the end of my remarks.

I am convinced that it is such a worthy proposal--I repeat, we are talking of the loss of 800 lives a year--that it would be appropriate to allocate the resources necessary to introduce the new deterrent element in an effort to persuade people to change habits that are still causing a significant loss of life through drink driving. If the Government defeat the new clause and continue to set their face against what is clearly a majority view in the country, their road safety campaign will lose much of its force. We believe that random breath testing should be

Column 829

introduced without delay. In any event, we make the commitment to introduce it as a priority when we are in government, if the present Government fail to introduce it.

Sir Bernard Braine : The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has an engaging manner, and in her closing words she came to the heart of the matter. On one side of the balance sheet is the question whether there is a case for a further deterrent. On the other side are 800 lives, fewer than the number killed some years ago, but still a considerable number.

I begin where the hon. Lady finished. I firmly believe that the new clause would greatly strengthen the capacity of part 1 of the Bill to deal with the still serious problem of drinking and driving and would thereby help to achieve the objective--with which I hope Members in all parts of the House agree--of reducing the toll of deaths and injuries on our roads.

The debate about random breath testing has gone on for many years. During that time, the figures have fluctuated, but more and more people, including children, have been killed and injured on our roads for various reasons, but one cause has clearly been the behaviour of drunken and irresponsible drivers. I guarantee that there is not a Member in the House who has not in the last year had an example--perhaps two or three--in his constituency of a child being killed wantonly by somebody out of control of the machine he was driving because he was under the influence of drink. I wonder how many Members have escaped the procession of relatives coming to one's constituency office asking for something to be done about this scandalous state of affairs.

As the hon. Member for Deptford said, the overwhelming majority of road safety organisations and the British public support the purpose of the new clause, and they, like many hon. Members, have become impatient with the Government's obdurate refusal to take the necessary action.

The arguments for random breath testing are well known, and I need not repeat them at length today. I shall make three points that go to the heart of the matter. The first concerns the confused and unsatisfactory nature of the existing law. Ministers often claim that random breath testing is unnecessary, because the police already have power to stop drivers at random, including stopping them at roadside check points and breath testing those whom they suspect of having imbibed alcohol. Basically, that means the police officer engaging the driver in conversation so that he can form an opinion about whether he may have been drinking. This elaborate rigmarole takes time and is more likely to irritate the driver than the blow-and-go procedure of random testing proper.

The whole argument about random stopping seems odd for Ministers to employ, because it surrenders the main point at issue, which is the appropriateness and desirability of roadside checkpoints, the sole purpose of which is the breath-testing of motorists. The perversity of the existing law, and of Minister's arguments, is precisely that these concede the principle of random breath testing, but then allow it to be carried out only in a cumbersome and unsatisfactory way which is less effective than random breath testing proper and is more likely to alienate the travelling public.

That factor may help to explain why--as the House knows, I have had some connection for many years with senior police officers--some chief constables seem

Column 830

reluctant to use these powers. Moreover, what I would describe as this poor man's version of random breath testing is made possible only by the use of two different sections of the Road Traffic Act, the combined use of which has never been explicitly affirmed or approved by the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who has had considerable experience of transport and road safety matters, said on Second Reading, this kind of equivocation is simply not good enough. As he said, if we want random tests, there should be clear provision for them in legislation, and that should be clear to the police and the public.

I shall not delay the House, because many hon. Members wish to speak. My second point concerns what appears to be one of the principal, though one of the silliest, arguments against random breath testing employed by its opponents. We have been told many times that random breath testing would not work because the number of over-the-limit drivers detected at roadside checkpoints would be so low that, to achieve the present level of convictions, the police would have to carry out millions of tests, which would represent a clear waste of resources. That argument was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), in an article entitled "Why random testing won't work", in the Evening Standard of 30 June 1988.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : It appeared only in the racing edition. It was subsequently thrown out in favour of an article to save Elstree.

Sir Bernard Braine : Does my hon. Friend accept the statement made in the article :

"With 300,000 tests a year, random breath testing might catch between 1,500 and 9,000 over-the-limit offenders. That figure compares badly with the 120,000 convictions secured by the police using their existing powers"?

Mr. Bottomley : If the article said that, it contained a misprint. In simple terms, to catch as many people by random breath testing against target testing, there would have to be as many tests in a week as there are now in a year.

Sir Bernard Braine : As we know, the figures have declined, partly as a result of campaigns that some of us have waged over the years about irresponsible drinking, in regard not only to driving but to everything else. One can make two statements, the first being that alcohol taken in moderation is a pleasant adjunct to living, makes for conviviality and friendliness, encourages conversation and so on. The second is that alcohol taken to excess shortens life, undermines health, is a potent cause of marital break-up, non-accidental injury to children, road deaths and injuries, and is found in practically every category of violent crime. If there has been an improvement in recent years it has been largely due to the campaign that some of us have waged to try to change public attitudes to drink. I am still engaged in that campaign.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Ealing, Southall) : I am almost the Father of the House, and I take my hat off to the right hon. Gentleman for his lifelong campaign on this matter. However, I think he got hold of the wrong end of the stick when he alluded to alcohol making people feel pleasant. Alcoholics suffer from a major disease, and some such people fall to the floor and break limbs. That is not too pleasant.

Column 831

Sir Bernard Braine : I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I have been friends for many years. However, people who drive a motor car or any vehicle should not drink. The new clause seeks to increase the power of deterrence and to make people think twice or even three times before getting into a vehicle when they are under the influence of liquor.

The argument against the new clause is absurd, because it is based entirely on the bogus assumption that random breath-testing checkpoints would replace existing police activities rather than being an additional power used precisely for its deterrent effect. The hon. Member for Deptford spoke about that. Of course only a small proportion of drivers who are tested at roadside checkpoints are over the limit. Checkpoints are designed to be deterrents to drinking and driving, and if they did catch a large number of drinking drivers that would indicate not success but failure.

Thirdly, some hon. Members have spoken about the cost of random breath testing. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic estimated that the police costs of carrying out random breath testing would be about £12 million per annum. He added : "In essence, that would be money invested in abortive work because it would not result in more people being charged with drink-driving offences."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee G, 22 January 1991 ; c. 167.]

Once again, the argument is confused. Despite the objective of deterrence, the failure of random breath testing in the Minister's eyes seems to be that it does not catch enough offenders. If my hon. Friend is to be consistent, he must presumably regard random breath testing as a failure, even in New South Wales. I understand that people in Australia have a great propensity to consume alcohol. Perhaps it is due to the climate.

The Federal Office of Road Safety reported in 1989, and stated : "Following the introduction of random breath testing there was a sharp fall of about 30 per cent. from 1982 to 1983 in the number of proven drink driving offences, suggesting that ther may have been a very real drop in the incidence of drink driving."

My hon. Friend the Minister has his own view, but I think that most of us would welcome a reduction in the incidence of drinking and driving as a sign of success rather than failure. We would also welcome economic savings commensurate with those produced by random breath testing in New South Wales.

The same report also stated :

"Federal Office of Road Safety data suggest an estimated net economic saving to the community of $169 million over the first three years of the operation of random breath testing in New South Wales." I am not suggesting that it is possible to make simple comparisons between one country and another, and the hon. Member for Deptford did not fall into that trap either. We cannot expect savings directly proportional to those enjoyed by New South Wales. However, the Minister should not estimate the cost of random breath testing in this country without taking into account the likely economic benefits, because experience elsewhere suggests that one of the main advantages of random breath testing is precisely its

cost-effectiveness. Even if it were to transpire that random breath testing costs us some money, it would still be worth the price. Indeed, what price should be placed on a human life wantonly destroyed by a drunken driver?

Column 832

5.45 pm

Sir Ian Lloyd : My right hon. Friend speaks about price and mentions New South Wales. He will have seen most of the reports and figures that I have. Does he agree that the most significant cost saving occurred where self-breathalysers were introduced to all the service messes? In that case, the reduction, which may have been coupled with random breath testing outside, was about 80 per cent. A large percentage of that figure was considered to be due entirely to the fact that giving people the opportunity to find out whether they would be dangerous on the road in itself made a large contribution to the results.

Sir Bernard Braine : I always listen to my hon. Friend with the greatest attention, because he is careful about the facts that he adduces. He seeks to reinforce my argument. Any device or propaganda or legislation which increases deterrence and makes it less likely that somebody will get into a car and behave in a way that will destroy life or injure somebody must be right.

The intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) during the speech of the hon. Member for Deptford is worthy of study, although I do not think that the hon. Lady took up his suggestion. It is not the first time that my hon. Friend has imparted wisdom to the House, and I hope that everyone will listen to him more carefully in future. The first person to whom he should talk is the Minister.

Like other hon. Members, I have received a letter from a Mr. John Knight, co-founder of the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. He enclosed photographs of some of the innocent victims of drinking drivers, and I wish that every hon. Member could see those photographs before entering the Division Lobby tonight. Some of them depict the happy, bright-eyed faces of young children who are full of the joy of life, a life that was shortly to be extinguished by an accident that could have been prevented, at a cost, we are told, of a mere £12 million a year.

For those children it will be too late, but it is not too late for the House to take a step that would save many other lives. The great majority of our constituents--perhaps I should say the great majority of our constituents, because I cannot speak for other hon. Members--wish us to take that step. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the arguments and let those of us who have a conscience on this matter vote freely.

Mr. Ashton : Unfortunately, all too often in debates such as this we hear arguments from hon. Members who are not so much against drink-driving as against drink. Hon. Members who feel that way should be honest and say so. There is nothing wrong with people saying that they are against drink or that they are abstainers who believe that drink should be abolished. If people did that, at least we would know where we stand. I am against smoking and I am a member of the Committee examining the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill. I do not try to stop people smoking cigarettes. I use statistics in my arguments, and they show that 100,000 people die every year from smoking. Perhaps 1 per cent. of them die from secondary inhalation. That is 1,000 people--more than the 800 we are debating--but I am not aware of any big campaign against it. I do not propose to blind the House with statistics, but I should like to examine some of the facts and figures.

Column 833

Ms. Ruddock : I hope that my hon. Friend is not implying that those of us who are so enthusiastically moving the new clause--this is certainly true in my case--are abstainers or would seek to ban all alcohol or dissuade people in a general sense from taking alcohol with it is safe to do so. It would also be wrong to imply that I am not concerned about the hazards of smoking and that we have not done our best to campaign against that as well.

Mr. Ashton : That is not the case that I am making. I was trying to weigh one campaign against another.

Last week, the EC reported on the annual cost of road accidents. It said :

"The UK death rate from road accidents is just under half the EC average."

It is about time that we started giving drivers some credit for the fact that, year after year, our roads become safer and safer. If my hon. Friend were to compare the number of vehicles on the roads in the 1960s and the number of deaths from drinking compared with the situation now, she would see that the percentage rate has declined. Nobody gives drivers the credit for that. I accept that too many are still killed, but the numbers are declining all the time. The system is working.

Ms. Ruddock : If my hon. Friend had been present for any of the road safety debates in the House he would have heard Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen acknowledge on every occasion the great efforts and achievements of the Government in reducing the number of deaths and injuries due to road accidents. Nevertheless, 5,000 deaths are not acceptable.

Mr. Ashton : We might have one of the best accident rates in Europe, but we have the second worst accident rate when it comes to children on their way to school. Why do we not have a campaign to stop people killing children going to school? Hardly any of those drivers have been drinking. [Interruption.] That is a valid point. All these arguments are often put together by people who are against drink, full stop.

The greatest number of deaths from drink-driving occur not at Christmas but in May when the nights become lighter and people start driving into the countryside. But it is always at Christmas that the Government announce big expensive campaigns with television advertisements and the police go on to the streets with their breathalysers. Such campaigns often have the wrong emphasis. My part of the world has experienced exactly the type of system that my hon. Friend wants to introduce. I am a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Britain has 43 different police forces and the chief constable of each is a law unto himself. He decides, often on a whim or a fancy, what sort of breathalyser campaign he will launch.

For five years, Nottinghamshire had a chief constable--he has now passed on and I shall not denigrate him in any way--who was vehemently against drink in any way, shape or form. Those five Christmases were a nightmare. On one side of the River Trent, about 200 people would be breathalysed ; on the other side of the River Trent, 200 yards away, 4,000 would be breathalysed. In the other direction, in Derbyshire, about 200 were breathalysed, while in Nottinghamshire there were 4,000. That created an atmosphere which almost killed off Christmas for many people. In places such as Worksop in my area, nothing

Column 834

moved--people were frightened to go to parties, dances would be half empty and the pubs and Christmas entertainments lost thousands because of the police campaign. In the end, the campaign proved nothing.

The police were stopping traffic to test windscreen wipers or lights. People were stopped on their way home from work at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. God knows what it cost in police manpower. Many of the drivers were very annoyed. They had not had a drink, they were being delayed on their way home from work and in the end the campaign produced next to nothing.

Sir Ian Lloyd : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if someone is stopped for a windscreen wiper check but has not been involved in a moving traffic accident and does not give obvious signs of drinking, the police are acting illegally in asking such persons to take a random breath test?

Mr. Ashton : The hon. Gentleman is right, but who will challenge the police? What brave man or woman in the street will refuse to take a breath test and be prepared to go to court? It does not work that way. Most people just blow in the bag to get it over with and obey what they think is the law.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : I may eventually come to the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman, but on this point I think that he is wrong. It is not the public perception of testing that matters. The person who never drinks and drives looks on himself as a potential innocent victim ; the person who does some drinking says, "Thank heavens I wasn't above the limit" ; and the person above the limit is caught bang to rights. That is not the objection. The objection is whether it will do much good.

Mr. Ashton : The hon. Gentleman can make his case when he makes his own speech.

I represent a rural area. Many of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench represent cities. Labour Members tend to represent city constituencies. My constituents cannot get a bus down to the pub, and there is no tube, as there is in Deptford.

Ms. Ruddock : There is no tube in Deptford.

Mr. Ashton : There is public transport in London. If I lived in London, I would not even have a car--it would be a waste of money--but in rural areas people cannot work without a car. They cannot get their kids to school or go shopping--they cannot do anything without a car. Without a car, the quality of life is vastly different. If one of my constituents went to the village pub in his car and had a couple of pints, the only thing that he might knock down would be a rabbit. The roads are deserted in rural areas. People do not speed down to the pub for a couple of pints on Saturday night. It does not happen. My hon. Friend is trying to make one law which will apply throughout the country and it will not work. Closing hours are not as rigid in rural areas as they tend to be in cities. There is a much more relaxed attitude. It is a different life.

Mr. Andrew Bowden : I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman, but he is going over the top. He is not treating the matter as seriously as he should. He is virtually saying that his constituents in Bassetlaw are exceptional and should be excluded from drink-driving laws. It is crazy to say that they should have a special dispensation.

Column 835

Mr. Ashton : The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. There are 43 different police forces, representing a wide range of areas--from inner cities with high crime rates to rural areas where there is little crime. To say that this is the law for 43 different police forces to administer as they like will result in the shambles that we have seen in Nottinghamshire.

Dr. Godman : I have been here since the start of the debate. Debates such as this, and drink-driving legislation passed by the House, may well be upstaged and overruled by the EC. Is it not the case that at this moment the European Commission is anxious to bring about a dramatic reduction in the permissible level of alcohol in a drivers' bloodstream?

Mr. Ashton : I did not mention the European Community, so I do not know how the hon. Gentleman's intervention is applicable. I mentioned our rate of accidents and said that we have half the number of deaths that they have in Europe, but I shall let that pass.

To return to my argument, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said that random breath testing is Labour party policy. I do not remember that being debated at any of our conferences. I do not remember anyone, anywhere, saying anything of the sort. The Labour party prides itself on its grass-roots democracy. Resolutions come from the constituencies, from the ordinary rank and file members who pay their £10 a year, make the policies and send resolutions to Blackpool or Brighton where we have a long debate about them. I have never read one line of debate about random breath testing in Tribune or anywhere else.

Ms. Ruddock : It is in that document there.

6 pm

Mr. Ashton : I have no doubt that my hon. Friend may have a fat document on transport in which she has smuggled something through on the bottom of page 419, chapter 21, without anyone knowing about it, and she is now saying that it is Labour policy.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) : The hon. Member--I shall not call him my hon. Friend--has taken as long on this argument as on everything else that he has mentioned in his speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member should not turn his back on the Chair.

Mr. Prescott : You need not look so serious about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not such a major crime.

At the party conference, we debated a document entitled "Moving into the Nineties", which made policy absolutely clear. After major discussions in the movement, after resolutions, discussion at the executive council and at the conference--whether the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) chose to debate it at the conference is a matter for him--the whole document passed through the democratic process through which Labour party policy has to pass. Therefore, I am entitled to say that he should withdraw his remark because there was debate, the policy was clearly defined and was a matter for amendment and discussion in the executive council, which came to the view that we are putting forward today.

Mr. Ashton : If the hon. Member can show me the report of the Labour party conference at which it was

Column 836

debated in Brighton, Blackpool or wherever-- I have been to every conference for the past 28 years--I shall certainly withdraw my remark.

Mr. Allason : I do not wish to intrude into other people's grief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but is it appropriate for the Labour party to discuss what is or is not party policy when we are supposed to be discussing the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Perhaps the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will keep a little closer to the amendments and the new clause.

Mr. Ashton : I pursued that argument because my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Deptford, have been saying what they would do if we were in power. So far as I am concerned this matter has not been debated at our conferences and my hon. Friends the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has not taken up my offer to show me the report of the Labour party conference where it was debated.

Mr. Prescott : Where the document was debated?

Mr. Ashton : No, where the policy was debated.

Mr. Prescott : If you did not raise it, you twit, it may not have been debated.

Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton) : Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to call his hon. Friend a "twit"?

Mr. Ashton : The trouble with my hon. Friend is that when he loses in debate he loses his temper.

I shall move on to my next argument. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will listen to me, as I have been in the House longer than he has and I can tell him what happened. There was a by- election in Leicester when Barbara Castle was Secretary of State for Transport--she could not even drive, but we made her Secretary of State. She introduced the breathalyser and Labour lost a safe seat at the by- election because of it. The former Labour Chief Whip, Mr. Bert Bowden, whom you may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, fought that by-election and lost the seat for Labour. He retired, went to the Lords and became chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Association. The Tories went around every working men's club and miners' institute in Leicester before the by-election--they would do it again now--to tell them that the breathalyser was to be introduced. It cost us hundreds of votes. There was no question about it.

The same is true in many of our constituencies today. We represent miners' institutes in rural areas and areas where there has been a lot of slum clearance, where working mens' clubs are trying to hang on. [Interruption.] I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would listen instead of rabbiting all the time.

Mr. Prescott : I am trying to counteract some of the reactionary elements in the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Ashton : I am not reactionary--I am speaking for the working- class Labour voter.

Mr. Spearing : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ashton : No.

Mr. Spearing : I speak for those voters, too.

Mr. Ashton : I have given way about 15 times and I am trying to make a speech.

Column 837

Many working men's clubs are hanging on by a thread because the houses around them have been pulled down, and because members are getting older and dying off. This is true of any large city. It must be the same in Hull as it is in Sheffield, where there used to be 65 working men's clubs but the number is now down to about 30. It is probably the same in Doncaster, which you represent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is killing them off most is fear--people are afraid of going out at night and of taking the wife out on a Friday or Saturday and getting breathalysed. Members of working men's clubs will tell hon. Members that. Why do members not bother to come? Why can they not even get enough people for a game of bingo? Club members do not want to get breathalysed ; they would sooner buy a six-pack, sit at home and watch television.

Mr. Spearing : I understand many of my hon. Friend's arguments, but in his catalogue of what may be justifiable crimes, is he telling the House that we should not be worried if people drive around having had not just two pints but sufficient alcohol to be above the limit? If my hon. Friend analyses what he has been saying--apart from some of the justifiable criticisms that he has made--he will surely realise that he has not tackled the proposals made in the new clause.

Mr. Ashton : Yes, I have. I am trying to get across the message that every person and every area is different.

Mr. Spearing : Even if they are over the limit?

Mr. Ashton : Let me finish putting my case.

Everyone I know who drinks and drives occasionally is in favour of tougher sentences for drunk-driving. They think that a drunken driver who kills someone should go to prison for 10 or 15 years. Everyone I know who is against random testing is in favour of tougher sentences. To say that because one likes a drink one is in favour of drunken driving is like saying that because one likes sex one is in favour of rape. It is not true. It is nonsense.

It is not true to say that, because people like to drink a pint of beer and then drive home from the pub, they are in favour of killing people on the roads or that they support drunken drivers who are a menace to society. However, they object strenuously to people who do not drink but who assume that because they would feel woozy and unfit to drive a car after one pint of beer everyone else is the same. People who do not drink make far too many generalisations, and assume that, because drink has a powerful effect upon them, the bloke sitting next to them who has drunk a pint is not fit to drive either. That is not true.

Mr. Spearing : I cannot have expressed myself sufficiently clearly. My hon. Friend may be justified in making some of those remarks, but is he saying that a person who agrees with the legal limit--I think that we all do, even those who drink two pints and then drive home thinks that people who go above that limit should not be subject to some sort of check? He must realise that someone who has had more than the legal limit is a dangerous driver--whether that limit is too high or too low is another argument.

Mr. Ashton : The average person would accept it if the existing check prevailed. If someone drives a car which is swerving or if there appears to be something wrong with the car or the way it is being driven, it is perfectly

Column 838

acceptable for the police to stop them. No one is arguing about that. The average bloke, who might drink one pint and then drive home, is saying that it is monstrous if testing becomes a lottery, depending on where one lives, the time of day and whether one takes a chance and has a pint. That is too much of a lottery.

As always, the King Herod principle is in operation--because a handful of football hooligans cause a riot at Tottenham, away supporters are banned from every ground in the country, or because there is a problem with Leeds football supporters, one does not let them go to Hull. That is not what policing and justice are all about. Justice is about punishing criminals.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : Is not the crux of the hon. Gentleman's argument simply the fact that the random breath test will not work? Is it not a fact that the police do not want to be pinned down at a road block, stopping motorists and breathalysing people who have probably not been drinking, while all manner of mayhem is going on just around the corner? They would much sooner go out on patrol to do the job that they have been trained to do.

Next Section

Home Page