| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Ashton : The hon. Member is absolutely right. There will be a lottery, depending on where one lives. In Nottinghamshire, they are red hot on breathalysers. In Derbyshire, they are red hot on speeding. If you happen to live in Sheffield, then for God's sake don't park on a yellow line. Every police force has its foibles and whims. The public know that if they do certain things in certain areas they will get the chop.
Mr. Spearing : That is a criticism of the police.
Mr. Ashton : Yes, it is. Let me tell my hon. Friend, however, that elected councillors have no say in these matters. I would not mind if it was the county councillors who told the chief constable, "We want you to crack down," but it is not--the chief constable himself decides. It is for him to say, "This is operational--you cannot tell me that I can or cannot implement it."
The public have no way of protesting democratically. If they think that the chief constable is being too tough with the breathalysers, there is not a damn thing that they can do. They cannot vote against it ; they cannot complain about it ; they cannot raise it in the House by putting down a question asking the Secretary of State for Transport to go and see the chief constable. We have been through this before, although when the issue last came before the House--two years ago--it was not even raised during a transport debate ; it was raised during discussion of the Criminal Justice Bill, and it was beaten then, but now it is trying to surface again.
Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford that the number who are killed by drunken drivers--800 out of 5,000--is far too high, she gave us no figures to show how many people are killed, for instance, by lorries on the motorway which are carrying too much weight and cannot brake in time, or by fog, or by speeding. All those are killers, and all need seeing to, but we never debate them or vote on them. This is the campaign that has been adopted, perhaps because it is considered a vote winner, with the result that a section of the motoring public are continually driving in fear.
If the new clause is passed, many towns and villages will find that Saturday nights become drastically and
Column 839
traumatically different. Social life will be affected, and employment will suddenly vanish for those who rely on catering and the pubs and clubs for their living--waitresses, for instance, and other working-class people who may have part-time Saturday night pub jobs.Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle) : I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman, so I am giving him an opportunity to clarify his position. He seems to be trying to excuse drink-driving.
Mr. Ashton : I am putting a case for the status quo. The present system is working--the number of drink-related deaths is falling every year. The hon. Gentleman may think that, if drink had been abolished, those 800 lives could have been saved, but 400 of them would probably have been lost in other circumstances. Accidents happen.
Random breath testing would have a major impact on Nottinghamshire life at Christmas. The average person wants tougher penalties to be imposed on those who cause accidents when they have been drinking and driving. The other day, someone who had killed a young man did not even lose his licence ; he was simply fined £250. A famous television star was involved--I mention no names, but hon. Members will know who I mean. That caused tremendous anger--understandably so--but no drink was involved. There are massive inconsistencies in the penalties handed out by the courts. The alternative is mandatory confiscation for 12 months for those 2 per cent. in excess of the breathalyser limit.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Unless speeches are briefer and interventions fewer, we shall be here until very late.
Mr. Channon : Let me bring the debate back to the point at which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said that we must address the matter very seriously. It is indeed a serious issue, and I congratulate her on bringing it to the attention of the House. The debate has shown that views differ strongly across the parties. The feeling of the House is not monolithic ; many Conservative Members agree with the new clause, and I suspect that some Opposition Members apart from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) oppose it. Surely we can all agree, however--indeed, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw just said as much--that we want a continual reduction in drink-driving.
Admittedly, the figures have fallen substantially. I believe that they have halved over the past 12 or 13 years, from about 1,790 to about 840. That is a great success, but it is not good enough. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and others are quite right to say that we should do all that we can to reduce the number who are killed or maimed in accidents caused by drink--or, indeed, by any other factor. The question that the House must decide is whether random breath tests will achieve the desired effect, and I do not think they will.
6.15 pm
I readily concede that many people outside, and masses of well-meaning organisations of high calibre, think that random testing is the answer, and those who argue against it may sometimes feel that they are in the minority. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree. Unlike the hon. Member
Column 840
for Bassetlaw, I do not think that it will make an enormous difference, nor do I think that the way in which the House decides tonight will have the dramatic effect anticipated by either the hon. Gentleman--as an extreme opponent of the new clause--or its extreme proponents. As we have been told time and again, the police already have the necessary powers.Mr. Day : Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Channon : This is the one and only time that I shall do so. I am sure that hon. Members want me to get on with my speech.
Mr. Day : Again, I seek clarification. My right hon. Friend has referred to extremist viewpoints ; will he identify those viewpoints in the well respected organisations that have supported the measure?
Mr. Channon : I am not trying to criticise any organisation. I am merely saying that there are those who are enthusiastically in favour of the new clause, and those who are enthusiastically against it ; and that, whatever the outcome, they will find that it does not make as much difference as they feared or hoped.
The present law has been cited several times. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has explained what goes on in Sussex ; as we all know, in effect, random testing already exists. I have read the persuasive speech made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), who rightly said that the police already have the requisite powers. Over the years, there have been many instances of police forces stopping people in such circumstances.
The powers already exist ; do we need to increase them? There may be a case for clarifying the law, but I think that it is already fairly clear. It has been explained again many times this evening : it is well understood that the police have the power to stop drivers and, if they have reasonable cause to believe that they have been drinking, to apply the breathalyser. Well, once he has stopped someone, it is not very difficult for a constable to decide that he has reasonable cause : he may not like the way in which the driver answers him, or the driver's breath may smell of drink.
What is the attitude of the police to the proposals? Some years ago, when my hon. Friend the Minister and I dealt with the issue, the police were altogether against random breath tests, but they changed their minds with remarkable speed over 24 hours : having been violently anti, they became violently pro. They have now made it clear, however, that they are not in favour of the random roadside checks recommended by the hon. Member for Deptford. The want unfettered discretion : they want to be able to stop any driver, regardless of whether he has committed an offence. I wonder how much they will use the measure if it is enacted. I have read an article in which the chief constable of Warwickshire, who I believe was president of the Association of Chief Police Officers and who is very concerned about the matter, explains that the police want unfettered discretion rather than what the Government propose.
The new clause will force drivers to pass through a check ; the police will stop every car, or one in 10--as suggested by the hon. Member for Deptford- -or one in five, or one in 20. I do not think that that will add much to the number of people who are caught. According to a
Column 841
parliamentary answer given the other day to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), some 100,000 tests would have to be carried out to establish that 1,000 extra drivers were over the limit.There are many other better ways of using police resources to prevent drink -driving, and that is my point. If the police want to increase their efforts in that regard, as they clearly did in Nottinghamshire--and I certainly would not oppose such a move--they can target tests and are much more likely to get convictions than under a system of random breath testing. What the police want is either to have unfettered discretion or to target people--to say that all young people, for example, must go through the checks. That is what some Opposition Members and the National Council for Civil Liberties and others find objectionable ; they think that young people or people in their thirties are most likely to fail the breath test.
Even the most jaundiced observer must agree that this country's record of road accidents is better than that achieved elsewhere in the Community. No wonder the European Commissioner is worried about traffic accidents. Elsewhere in the Community, the record is very bad ; Britain's is much better. That is not to say that we should be complacent. We should try to find ways of reducing the number of accidents still further. We have had campaigns to protect children--I have been involved in them myself--and on other important issues. What is the best way forward? The efforts made over the years by successive Ministers at the Department of Transport to increase publicity and deal with the treatment of offenders and the whole question of breath tests--I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, who did much during his period of office to increase public awareness of the issues--have ensured that the public are now much more aware of the risks of drink-driving, and people feel far more strongly about the subject than they did five years ago.
Would random breath testing change the situation? The police already have powers, and they do not want the powers that the hon. Member for Deptford would thrust upon them. Moreover, if the police increased their efforts in a more targeted way, they would be more likely to be effective and to catch drunken drivers, which is our whole purpose. I shall be voting against the new clause, and I hope that a great many hon. Members will join me.
Mr. Fearn : I added my name to the new clause because, in Committee, I was adamant that something needed to be done to restrict drink-driving. We need a deterrent. We have all met the person who thinks that accidents never happen to him or who believes that he will be all right because he knows--or thinks that he knows--his limit and feels that his ability will not be impaired. We have all met people who think that they will never be caught ; there are many of them.
As we have already heard, a recent survey by the transport and road research laboratory showed that 42 per cent. of those who admitted to drinking and driving did not think that there was any great chance of detection under existing practice. Until drivers are convinced that there is a good chance that they will be stopped, tested and charged, drink- driving will continue to cause death and destruction on our roads.
Before I deal with civil liberties--the subject on which I wish to concentrate today--I must express my disappointment that, on a matter such as this,
Column 842
Conservative Members are not to be allowed a free vote. I do not understand why. Clearly there are many arguments for and against the new clause, and hon. Members ought to be able to express their views and beliefs through a free vote. The Liberal Democrats are to have that opportunity. It was evident from the vote on the Road Traffic (Random Breath Testing) Bill 1987, introduced by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) and sponsored by myself and others, that, given the opportunity, hon. Members would overwhelmingly support the new clause. I am sorry that they are not to have that opportunity. We have heard the cry that random breath testing will infringe a person's civil liberties. That may be true, but the claim can be refuted. As I have pointed out both in the House and in Committee, anybody who gets behind the wheel of a car while under the influence of alcohol automatically and immediately infringes the liberty of others. Random breath testing will protect the liberties of the majority of road users.The roadside checks that the new clause advocates will be conducted in controlled conditions, with authorisation in writing from senior police officers. In some respects, such checks would represent less of an infringement of individual liberty than the present system, because all drivers would be treated equally. At the moment, individual police officers or traffic patrols can pull a car over when they want to test for drink- driving or when they suspect that the driver may have been drinking, if the car has any defects, no matter how minor--it could be inadequate lighting over the licence plate. They have discretion at that level to make a random breath test.
That has often led to the accusations that the police target certain individuals, especially the young. The statistics tend to back that up, although surveys show that those most likely to be guilty of drink driving are in the older age groups. Unnecessary ill feeling and friction often arise as a result of present practice. That would not happen if motorists knew that any driver was likely to be pulled over and we have heard how, in New South Wales, random roadside testing is believed to have improved public relations between motorists and the police.
As I said, I do not want the discretionary powers of the police to be reduced, but I believe that they would become less necessary if we introduced roadside checks. Such checks would certainly be less of an infringement of people's civil liberties than certain measures advocated by the anti-random breath testing lobby. I refer in particular to the measure in early-day motion 495, which suggests that one method to be used as a deterrent should be
"inquiry by police and courts as to the drinking locations and companions of the illegal driver".
Surely such measures would lead to greater infringement of the liberties of innocent persons. I do not think that the clientele of public houses, wine bars, or other drinking establishments would greatly appreciate the courts or the police making inquiries into how they spent their leisure time.
Mr. Peter Bottomley : If the hon. Gentleman and I were drinking and I knew that he would be driving afterwards, I would say to him, "You should not be taking alcohol." My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) would also insist on that. If people continue to believe that they have no responsibility for those with
Column 843
whom they are drinking, and if those with whom they are drinking then kill someone, it is perfectly reasonable for the police and the courts to make inquiries.Mr. Fearn : I wish that everyone were like the hon. Gentleman and me. Perhaps he and I would do and say that, but not everybody would, and irresponsible people do go out and kill people--we know that the figure is at least 800.
Random breath testing is supported by many organisations, including the NCC and the Consumers Association. Some 3,000 of the 3,400 responses to the Home Office consultation paper on changes to breath testing legislation favoured additional powers for the police. Surveys conducted on behalf of the Consumers Association and others show that the public at large would support more random breath testing and are willing to surrender part of their individual liberty in the interests of the liberty of the majority.
The House is representative of the people. It has the power to do something on their behalf. I hope that, in the interests of preventing the carnage on our roads, hon. Members will break ranks tonight and support the new clause, which is a most worthy proposal. 6.30 pm
Mr. Day : Before coming to the points that I want to make in support of the new clause, I should like to thank the Minister for his forebearance in the meeting that he had this morning with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and myself. We are very grateful to him for listening to our views.
I wish to make it clear that, in my remarks on the new clause, I speak not just as an individual but in my capacity as co-chairman of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. Also in that capacity, I wish to put on record the disappointment of the council that our amendments on retesting for alcohol-related
offences--amendments that had all-party sponsorship--were not called. We feel that those are central to the potential of the Bill. Indeed, they reflect a major part of the recommendations of the North report.
The case for introducing random breath testing in the United Kingdom can be summarised by reference to three pieces of Government research--one Australian, and two British. First, research conducted by the transport and road research laboratory found that a large proportion of drivers in the United Kingdom who admit to drinking and driving believe that the chances of their being caught are small. This perception is confirmed by information on the actual risk of detection from the British crime survey, which suggests that the chances are as little as one in 200 excess-alcohol driving trips. Secondly--this has been referred to already--research conducted by the Government of New South Wales shows that highly visible mass random breath testing, targeted at times when drinking and driving is most prevalent, increases the driver's perception of the chances of his being caught, thus deterring potential offenders and reducing the number of road accidents.
Thirdly, there is evidence that United Kingdom drivers surveyed by the transport and road research laboratory believe that routine random breath testing would provide an effective acceptable way of reducing the number of road
Column 844
accidents. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Joan Ruddock) presented all the arguments supporting the case for random breath testing.I propose to deal with some of the arguments that have been advanced against its introduction, none of which I find particularly convincing. I was surprised by the recent motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), which suggests that the available evidence does not support the belief that mass random breath testing would be helpful. A number of countries have introduced the measure, but I shall restrict my remarks to the evidence from New South Wales, as the experience there has been rigorously monitored, and there is much information on the effects. Random breath testing was introduced in New South Wales in December 1982 as a three-year experiment. The overall objective was to create a very high perceived risk of being randomly breath tested if one continued to drink and drive. The figures that I am about to quote may be found in a paper entitled "An Overview of the Random Breath Testing Trial in New South Wales", which was produced by three members of the New South Wales traffic authority. I commend that paper to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham in particular.
Mr. Peter Bottomley : Does my hon. Friend have a copy?
Mr. Day : I shall show my hon. Friend a copy afterwards. Part of the monitoring exercise of the trial to which this document refers was to look at the effect of the measure on accidents and casualties. It was found that, as a direct result of random breath testing, the average yearly reduction in the number of all fatal crashes was 21 per cent. The average yearly reduction in the number of crashes involving injury of all levels of severity in which the driver or rider was over the legal limit--in the case of New South Wales, 50 mg per 100 ml--was more than 35 per cent. Public support for the measure rose from 64 per cent. before random breath testing to 85 per cent. afterwards. Social security savings amounted to 20 times the cost of implementing the measure. So convincing were the results that the measure was placed permanently on the New South Wales statute book. Michael Knight MP, the then chairman of the parliamentary committee charged with assessing the affects of the measure, concluded :
"Random breath testing has been the single most effective tool in the struggle to reduce the road toll in the history of New South Wales."
Therefore, it is simply not the case that the call for random breath testing cannot be supported by good evidence. Evidence from Sweden shows that random testing works not only in countries that have higher levels of drinking and driving than does the United Kingdom, but in countries where the levels are much lower. It is important to point out that simple comparisons, between international rates of progress in this field can be misleading. I am sorry that they have been used as an argument against random breath testing. The argument runs that as the United Kingdom has reduced drink driving faster than most other countries, why should the existing policy be changed? That question has been asked in the House today. It is a welcome fact that we have made good progress during the last 10 years, having reduced the rate of over-the-limit deaths from one in three to one in five. This has come about as a result of a number of
Column 845
factors : changes in the 1981 Act providing for evidential equipment ; increases in breath testing ; and increased social pressure as a result of Government publicity campaigns and the efforts of the campaign against drinking and driving.However, if we stick to simple comparisons, we shall not do as well as we could. Sweden, for example, could be said to be doing better, having got the rate of over-the-limit deaths down to one in 14. But in reality, these figures do not mean very much. We have to remember that different legal limits, mixes of traffic, climate and road conditions all confound meaningful and scientific comparison between international rates of progress in this area. We heard this type of argument during the debate on the legislation making the wearing of seat belts compulsory for front-seat passengers, when crude number-crunching exercises were advanced to suggest that seat belts did not appear to save lives, because savings did not show up easily in some national data. It is fortunate that those negative arguments did not hold sway.
I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eltham. Indeed, I think that he was one of the best Transport Ministers we have ever had--especially in road safety. I am particularly surprised at his attitude in advancing this sort of argument. I find it difficult to square his present stance with the stance that he took when he was responsible for roads and traffic. In answer to a parliamentary question on 4 April 1989, he advised against drawing simple international comparisons of this kind. He said :
"Simple comparisons and statistics may be misleading ; for instance, the legal limit for blood alcohol content in New South Wales is 50 mg/ml, and in this country it is 80 mg/ml."--[ Official Report, 4 April 1989 ; Vol. 150, c. 18. ]
Mr. Peter Bottomley : I hope that I shall get an opportunity later to speak in my own right, but I should like to put this matter in context now. As I understand the situation, the difference between the figures produced by the 50 mg level and the 80 mg level is probably two percentage points. My understanding is that the figure for dead drivers above the legal limit in New South Wales is 33 per cent., and that in this country it is 19 per cent. If the two percentage points were added, the figure for dead drivers above the legal limit in this country would be 21 per cent. There does seem to be an unexplained difference. Perhaps New South Wales would gain by copying us.
Mr. Day : I readily acknowledge my hon. Friend's great understanding of these matters, but the assumption at the end of his intervention did not necessarily correspond with the facts that he had put forward. However, I take note of what he said.
I wish to return to the suggestion that sufficient breath testing is being done at present and that, somehow, conducting random breath testing would be going over the top. According to the last set of annual figures for England and Wales, only one in 50 drivers was breath-tested annually. That means that, on average, drivers are breath-tested only once in their driving career. That is hardly excessive or overbearing. The figures provided to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary suggest that the average number of breath tests per traffic officer is only one per week. Again, I do not feel that that is in any way excessive. Even the most enthusiastic random breath
Column 846
testing policy, which aims at the testing of one in two drivers annually, would result in every driver being breath- tested only once in two years. In my view, that is hardly excessive.I emphasise that this new clause does not seek to give the police unfettered discretion to stop motorists and breath-test them. Despite the explanation by the hon. Member for Deptford, the intention seems to have been misunderstood as being to increase the rate of detection. In fact, it is to increase the level of deterrence. We do not want to detect drunken drivers ; we do not want to have drunken drivers on the road at all.That is what the new clause is all about. I do not accept that because the police can act to stop motorists under two separate sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988, they necessarily have sufficient powers. That legislation has led to great confusion, particularly regarding interpretation. The chances of detection range between one in 250 journeys in some parts of the country, and one in 4,000 in others. Such a lottery can hardly be fair.
The extra power in the new clause would clarify the position for drivers and, more importantly, for chief constables. As I said on Second Reading, I have heard Ministers say that the police already have adequate powers to act and that no further measures are necessary. That implies that the Government accept the principle of random breath testing--we are arguing only about the practice--so why cannot they accept the new clause?
I would welcome an explanation of how the Government hope to achieve casualty reduction figures while rejecting the major contribution that the new clause would make towards achieving those figures. Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain how he hopes to convince the 42 per cent. who admit to drink driving yet believe that they will get away with it, to change their ways, if the Government are not prepared to take further action. There is a danger that the public will believe that the Government find that 42 per cent. acceptable.
As for civil liberties, I am sure that no hon. Member would agree that people have the right to take whatever action they wish, irrespective of the consequences for others. We all broadly accept that responsibilities go with rights, and we must therefore also accept that drink drivers are, tragically, often guilty of that. I remind the House that drink driving- related accidents account for 800 deaths and 22,000 casualties a year. Furthermore, half of the victims will not have been drinking and driving.
Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : While my hon. Friend is on that subject, does he agree that a possible alternative way to deal with the problem is to ensure that every driver who is caught driving over the prescribed limit is charged with reckless driving? Such a charge could be made on the basis that, in this day and age, to get into the driver's seat knowing that one is over the limit is a reckless act. It therefore follows that if, as a consequence of drinking and driving, they cause death, they should be tried for causing death by reckless driving.
6.45 pm
Mr. Day : My hon. Friend's remarks are worth considering. Although penalties are important, they are not the main factor. Deterrence is the most important factor, so, to some extent, penalties apply, but the greatest
Column 847
deterrent is to know that one has a chance of being caught. The new clause is important, because it will increase the public's perception of the possibility of being caught.A significant number of my hon. Friends have asked whether we could have a free vote on the new clause, and I register my disappointment that that has not happened. The Government could have paid no greater or more eloquent testimony to the arguments of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety than to apply a three-line Whip. The measure should have been dealt with in the same way as the seat belt legislation and left to the individual conscience and intelligence of hon. Members. Many hon. Members, whatever their views on the matter, would have wanted that.
I hope that hon. Members, whatever they feel about the issue, will consider the matter in depth. They must all agree that lives are important and that drinking and driving is silly and wrong. Notwithstanding the three-line Whip, I hope that they will join me in the Lobby in support of the new clause.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : I shall be brief, particularly as so many of the arguments have already been put most volubly by other hon. Members.
When I added my name to the new clause, I did not expect the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) to call me a killjoy, especially as I represent no fewer than 43 distilleries on Speyside, and have a strong interest in the future of the whisky industry. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that, although I have that interest at heart, I also recognise the importance of the new clause. He may care to reflect on that fact that people who now visit distilleries on Speyside as part of a tourist visit, instead of being offered a dram of whisky at the end of the visit, are now offered a miniature to drink when they get home. That shows the responsible attitude that the distilleries have adopted to the problem of alcohol abuse. Like the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I represent a substantial rural constituency, but I cannot accept his argument that the introduction of random breath tests will result in many restaurants, bars and clubs closing down because people will be frightened to move. In my constituency, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, most of the vehicles going to social gatherings are taxis. Taxi drivers have benefited from the introduction of the breathalyser test. My constituents must cover vast distances but they join together to share taxis in order to avoid drinking and driving. Alternatively, one person in a group exercises self-discipline and says, "I am driving so I shall not drink, and that is the end of it." I have sat through many a party into the wee hours of the morning, nursing a tonic or a soda water. I wish that all drivers would exercise the same self -discipline.
Also in my constituency, I have the chairman of an organisation known as SCID--the Scottish Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers. That organisation would agree with many of the arguments about sentencing policy and about the need to look at other aspects of road safety--for example, how many years' driving experience people should have before they sit beside a learner driver, and other aspects that it considers part and package of its campaign against irresponsible driving. However, it has also consistently emphasised the need for random breath testing. It sent to me, and presumably to many other hon.
Column 848
Members, case histories of the families of victims, where young people had been killed by drink-drivers. They show the sheer psychological torture through which those families go as a result of such bereavement. One cannot help but be touched by those stories. The House has a responsibility to those families who have been deprived of one of their loved ones in such a way and should back a campaign that is worthy of support and has clear public demand. We also have a responsibility to remind drivers what they stand to lose if they are convicted of drink- driving. They will suffer the humiliation of being found out. Many of them will lose not only their licences but their jobs. Their loss can bring family tensions, and their recklessness can destroy the innocent lives of their own families. I am making a plea for drivers to exercise greater self -discipline and to remember what they may lose.The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) mentioned self-test kits. Just before Christmas, there was a possibility that such kits might be introduced in Scotland. The idea was rejected by representatives of the Scottish Office, so it was not encouraged. It seems possible that putting self-test kits in any establishment where alcohol is served might encourage people to drink up to the maximum legal level, rather than discourage them from drinking at all.
I would prefer it to be an offence to drink any alcohol when one takes a car on the road. A car is the most lethal weapon that any of us are likely to own in our lifetime. To take alcohol while driving that lethal weapon seems to be the height of irresponsibility, and I shall not encourage the use of self-test kits. I listened to the intervention of the hon. Member for Havant with care, but was not persuaded that encouraging people to drink up to the legal limit was the best way forward.
Sir Ian Lloyd : I have carefully studied the issue, and I know that, where such instruments have been generally and widely available, there is no evidence that they encourage people to drink up to the legal limit. The obverse is true--the lower the limit, the greater the obligation on those who may take a drink or half a drink and then drive, to find out specifically, before taking the risk, whether they are in a position to drive.
Mrs. Ewing : While I accept that point, I believe that various tests have shown that different kits give different readings. If they are to be introduced, they will have to be critically monitored to ensure that they are effective. I am not yet convinced that they are that efficient. We must try to become a society in which people do not drink and drive at all--we should legislate for that, as many other European countries do.
Many hon. Members who are opposed to the new clause have argued that it will not resolve the problem, because there is no guarantee that we will catch additional drink-drivers. The purpose of the new clause is not to catch drink-drivers, but to deter them. If an individual feels that the police are able to use random breath testing, that will act as a deterrent. If we keep off the road just one more possible drink-driver who is likely to cause an accident, the new clause will have the potential to save lives and avoid injury. The purpose of the new clause is to act as a deterrent-- surely we should support that.
Sir Philip Goodhart : The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) made a powerful speech, with almost every word of which I agree.
Column 849
I do not think that any of us would dispute the fact that drink driving is a serious social and human problem. Since the breathalyser was first introduced 25 years ago, at the end of the 1960s, more than 25,000 people have been killed by drink-driving on this country's roads. In a quarter of a century, the number of humans we have wiped out is equivalent to the entire expeditionary force in the Persian Gulf.The position is improving. During the past 10 years, the number of people killed and injured by drink-drivers on our roads has decreased by 50 per cent. There are a number of reasons for that, including a changed perception within society. The fundamental reason why the number of deaths and injuries on our roads has dropped so sharply is that the number of breath tests during the past 10 years has trebled--three times more breath tests were given in 1990 than in 1980. The public's perception that the police now put far more effort into carrying out breath tests has led to that quite dramatic reduction in the number of deaths and injuries.
There are more breath tests than there were, because the police take a much broader view of their powers to stop drivers. During the past few years, we in this country have developed a system of de facto random testing. There is random stopping, which almost invariably leads to testing. The police have introduced a system which is, in effect, random testing, but the House has not yet given them the powers to implement it.
We tell the police to stop people randomly, but we hesitate to give them the powers for random testing. It is interesting that so few people want to abolish the power of random stopping. Even the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who made a powerful speech against the new clause, does not want to abolish that power. He said that he was in favour of the status quo, but he did not say that he wanted to go back on the status quo and abolish the right of random stopping. Even he is happy with that power as it exists.
If there were an amendment giving the police what they want--unfettered powers to stop and test--I would vote in favour of it, but there is no such amendment. Instead, we are discussing the much more limited new clause, which was moved so well by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). I am prepared to vote for it because I believe that it will increase the deterrent power, which is all-important.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic said that our acceptance of the new clause and its implementation by this country's police forces would cost an additional £12 million a year, which is a lot of money. However, the 800 deaths a year caused by drink-driving also cost society a great deal. If increased deterrence leads to a further reduction in such deaths of 10 per cent. a year, and we save an additional 80 lives a year at a cost of £12 million, that money will be well spent. I intend to support the new clause this evening.
Dr. Godman : I promise to be brief. My speech will not be as learned as some that we have heard this evening, and I intend to offer no comparative evidence in support of the new clause. I have been astonished by the level of knowledge of the traffic laws of other countries shown by some hon. Members. It seems that many hon. Members have visited New South Wales, Sweden and other places. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) is but one of the hon.
Column 850
Members who used comparative evidence extensively in his support of the new clause. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) seems to be a brilliant expert in the methodology of statistical analysis. I shall skip that approach.I think that the hon. Member for Cheadle said that drink-driving is silly behaviour. He seems to be nodding, but I am sure he would agree, on reflection, that drink-driving is dangerously irresponsible behaviour, whether the driver has drunk one pint--to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)--or four or five pints, or two or three glasses of the best Chardonnay. To drink and to drive is to commit an irresponsible act.
Mr. Day : If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will find that I added something to that statement which is more in tune with what he is saying.
7 pm
Dr. Godman : I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman intervened. The new clause would act as a pretty powerful deterrent, and that is how we should regard it. The police forces involved would need a code of practice, as the new clause states, which would emphasise the need for civility, courtesy and firmness when checking people. The number of people who are killed and maimed because others commit the dangerously irresponsible act of getting behind the wheel of a car after having drunk alcohol should persuade hon. Members to ignore the Whips and to support the new clause.
I wish to make one criticism of the irresponsible behaviour of courts in Scotland. I say "irresponsible" because some of our sheriffs impose appallingly slight sentences on people who have been convicted of drink- related offences. When a driver's skills have been impaired by drink to such an extent that he or she causes an accident or hurts someone, he or she should receive condign punishment when convicted in a court of law. Too many sheriffs have let people off with trivial sentences.
If the new clause is to act as a deterrent, people who are convicted of such offences should be punished, and punished severely. I look forward to the day when the European Community, by way of a qualified majority vote, introduces to the 12 nations a drastically reduced permissible level of drink for drivers. When that issue was raised in the Council of Transport Ministers, it just failed to get the qualified vote. I look forward to that vote being reversed. As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, people should not drink before getting into a car. That is why I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. There should be no question of having a pint and then getting into a car. If one is driving, one should not drink at all. That is the message that the House should send out, whatever happens to the new clause.
Mr. Peter Bottomley : I agree. It is important that people get the message that they should either drive or drink, but not both. The choice is the bottle or the throttle--"If you have the wagon, stay on the wagon." People should get together with their friends and appoint a driver.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on one point. Cutting out drink-driving--rather
Column 851
than reducing it to the legal limit--is not against the interests of the country pub. Anyone who thinks that it is should get in touch with Ron Jones who used to be the president of the National Licensed Victuallers Association and is landlord of the Friar Tuck and of the Little John, in Hatfield Woodhouse, nine miles east of Doncaster. He is a Yorkshire publican who will confirm that, if a pub does its job correctly and provides an attractive range of non-alcoholic and low -alcohol drinks, and if people either walk to the pub--one advantage of having a local--or allow one person to drive others, the pub's takings will increase because three people will not each feel guilty about their car or motor bike in the pub car park. There are three problems with which we must deal--apathy, ignorance and stupidity. I usually tackle the problem of apathy by quoting the first paragraph of an article written by Auberon Waugh in The Spectator on 15 February 1986. It was the first article that affected me when I went to the Department of Transport as one of the predecessors of my hon. Friend the Minister. It is well worth reading for those who have not yet done so. It appears in most road safety debates.However, I prefer today to read from a booklet produced by MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which is an American organisation. The booklet is called "Will It Always Feel This Way?" The first page is entitled "What it feels like now". It states :
"Right now, if you are like most people responding to the killing of their child, you are experiencing pain.
The pain can feel as though it is in one special place--your head or chest. Or it can feel as though it has taken over your whole body. Or it may just be pain, not settled anywhere.
The pain can be so intense that it is almost intolerable. You feel driven to do something, even while knowing there is nothing that can be done.
It is hard to concentrate, easy to become distracted. You may start an activity, forget what you were about to do, start again. If you are thinking about the child killed, however, you don't become distracted. Then you are focused. You may have the feeling of still being able to do something for the child. You may feel this way even if in the back of your mind you know that it isn't so. You may feel filled with anger. You are likely to be angry at the drunken individual who was truly responsible for the killing ; but you may also be angry at members of the legal system or the hospital staff. You may be angry at anyone who doesn't understand. Your anger can be directed against yourself for not having done something that would have prevented what happened--no matter how illogical this is."
It continues. No one should doubt that we have a serious responsibility in terms of legislative powers, as do the police and everyone involved--the driver, the passenger, the host, the drinking location, the breweries, the Scotch Whisky Association, and others. We all have a responsibility to cut out the remaining 840 deaths a year, but I suspect that the figure is probably down to about 650. There were 840 deaths in 1988. Each year we have, on average, cut the deaths from drink-driving by 100. We have halved the number of those deaths in the past 10 years. Sadly, that cannot be claimed by other countries.
We have talked about New South Wales, and I congratulate it on its achievements between 1982 and 1984. I do not have the information necessary to allow me
| Next Section
| Home Page |