House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Feb 1991

Column 852

to congratulate it on its achievements since then, but there is no doubt that it cut its drink-driving deaths between 1982 and 1984. It introduced mass random breath testing.

If we introduced testing to that extent, we should have as many tests each week as we currently have each year. There would be 25 million tests a year instead of approximately 500,000 a year. Every statistic may not be right. Some refer to England and Wales, some to Great Britain and some to the United Kingdom, but the rough figure is that there would be 25 million tests a year instead of 500,000. That would not do a great deal to increase detection.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on one point--deterrence must be built on the experience of detection. People would believe that they were being deterred only for about six months if there were not increasing detection. In 1967, when the breathalyser was introduced, for a few months, nobody took alcohol and drove. People then discovered that they did not get caught every time, so they slipped. There was a momentary boost to life--a momentary reduction in drink-driving casualties. I came to the subject in 1986, although I had the normal interest of a Member of Parliament before that, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, with whose speech I basically agreed.

In 1986, at the Department of Transport, I rediscovered the transport and road research laboratory. An inter departmental committee also recommended that we should move money from the publicity budget to research.

I discovered that the probable reason why our road deaths in this country have improved so much faster than those in other countries and the reason why our road deaths are at half the level of the Community average--and dramatically lower than those above the Community average--is that, almost always, what we did was based on fact or on a disprovable hypothesis.

I recommend those who are some years out of university, of college, or of the Workers Educational Association, to go back to Karl Popper's book about the open society and its enemies. It helps to find a disprovable hypothesis.

From 1984 to 1989, for which we have the most reliable and easily available figures, we achieved more than any other country that I have yet been able to discover in the reduction of drink-driving fatalities. Let us all remember that the only aim is to save lives. We sometimes become carried away about saving lives. At the age of 80 or 90, I do not want heroic efforts to be made to give me an extra six months. If there was a way to cut out drink-driving among the young, many parents would avoid the misery to which the booklet by the Mothers Against Drunk Driving was directed.

In a wide alliance, which I helped to construct, we built on the work of those before 1986 to continue the reduction in drink-driving. If people refer to page 25 of the article by Derek Jones in "The Casualty Report-- Road Accidents, Great Britain 1989", which was published in October 1990, they will see table 2J, which shows the transformation in drinking and driving by younger people. The number of young men who normally drank beer in pubs or clubs was reduced by two thirds if one judges by the proportion of those who died who were above the legal limit. That does not solve all the problems. Auberon

Column 853

Waugh is right to say that more people die in sober accidents than in alcohol-related accidents, but the alcohol adds to the risk. Let us consider whether what we have been doing has worked. People kept referring to the comparison with New South Wales. In 1984, 33 per cent. of dead drivers in New South Wales were above the legal limit. In 1989, 33 per cent. of dead drivers in New South Wales were above the legal limit. There were fluctuations in between, but over that five years, the figures did not improve. Anyone who comes to the House and who uses that as an argument to switch away from what we do to what the authorities do in New South Wales will be killing people.

I want to postpone my remarks about the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has a responsibility to share. I hope that he will return to the Chamber, because I do not want to refer to him without his being present.

In this country, we have cut the figure from 28 per cent. of our dead drivers being above the legal limit in 1984 to 19 per cent. in 1989--and the figure may be lower now. I do not think that there has been a dramatic continuation of the trend in 1990 or this year. The reason is that received opinion is suffering from a fashionable fallacy--that random breath testing, if introduced in this country, would make a significant difference to saving lives. There is no reason to believe that. If 40 per cent. of dead drivers were above the legal limit, there might be a difference. It would probably bring the reduction that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) mentioned. However, our figure is less than half of 40 per cent. What are people doing if they do not read the information?

7.15 pm

I should love to support random breath testing. If I thought that it would save a significant number of lives or if, on balance, it would save lives more effectively than the alternative approach has saved, I should support it, even if there was a three-line Whip. However, I ask all those who have any doubts to vote against the new clause because, if it were introduced now, it would have the same effect as it would have had if it had been introduced two, four or six years ago. It would cause people to chase a system that does not have persistent results.

The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was right to say that there are three ways to cut casualties. First, every host, whether in a pub, at a party or in a family home, should have an attractive range of alcohol-free drinks available on display--people should not have to ask for them--and the host should expect people to take them. The County Surveyors Society was the first group in Great Britain--except perhaps for a temperance party--to put on the menu card, "Your hosts have provided alcohol-free drinks on each table and they encourage drivers to take them." In Northern Ireland, the vintners--the Northern Irish term for victuallers or publicans--at their first annual banquet, were the second group of people to do that. I do not see that happen at dinners of medical societies, at police dinners or at parliamentary dinners, although it is the host's responsibility to make risk-free drink available to drivers.

If we could have swapped half the random breath testing for the three points mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, we should have had fewer drink-drive deaths this week. Instead of 21 people in

Column 854

the United Kingdom dying through drink- driving, the figure might have been down to 15. One cannot always lead the media and one certainly cannot lead some of the leaders in the media to realise these points. I must make passing reference to Adam Raphael's succession of articles in the Observer over the past four years in which he has never given any of these facts.

The second point is that the passenger who includes their own driver in a round of alcoholic drinks is something that none of us would tolerate for an airline pilot, a train driver or a member of a crew of a ferry.

I have an image--perhaps a false image--of a 2CV with a hairy man with earrings sitting in the passenger seat. He goes into the pub and comes out, having bought a drink for the woman who is driving. They have a sign on the back saying "Nuclear power, no thanks", as though the risk of a scrap of radioactive dust resting on their noses for a second was in some way more dangerous than sinking a half pint or a pint or two in the pub and then going driving. Passengers, especially if they are over 18, are consenting adults in those circumstances. They are not totally innocent victims. Every passenger should pre-plan to be driven by an alcohol-free driver.

The third point concerns the drivers themselves. No driver should wait until half way through a party or a pub session before deciding how he is to get home or what he is drinking. We should encourage drivers to pre- plan.

Random breath testing will not help with any of those points. It is another part of the game of cops and robbers with the police. We do not want people to come anywhere near the legal limit and then to say that they are all right if they are below the level at which they can be arrested and convicted virtually automatically. We want less offending and less drink- driving.

It is fashionable to support random breath testing. When James Dunbar, the police surgeon from Tayside, first discovered what had been happening in Sweden and in New South Wales in 1985-86, he did a service to the country. He started to show that one could cut drink-driving pretty dramatically. His work was shown to various people, including myself. I went to New South Wales to check the figures, although I did not go to Sweden. I kept ringing up Sweden and asking people there to provide the information.

The time series was not easily available. There were two or three sessions of years for which James Dunbar had information. He may have had the information for Finland. However, the time series for each country is not easily available. If it is, I should love it to be sent to me.

The National Audit Office, in one of its most shoddy pieces of work--report No. 517 in 1988--began to talk about random breath testing. Its job is to examine Government Departments, not to interfere in ministerial decisions. The decision whether to have random breath testing is clearly a decision for Parliament and likely to be based on a ministerial recommendation to Parliament. The National Audit Office also has a responsibility to consider the effectiveness, efficiency and economic operation of Departments. Irrespective of those three Es, in the 15 months before the National Audit Office reported we were dramatically successful at a lower cost to the taxpayer. In the 15 months before the Select Committee on Transport examined the permanent secretary at the Department of Transport, the number of drink-driving offences committed by young men under 30, appeared

Column 855

from surveys to have fallen from 2 million occasions a week to 600, 000. That was a reduction of two thirds in the incidence of that criminal and lethal activity.

That approach has clearly saved lives, reduced crime and has not relied on a police officer behind every lamp post. One would have expected the National Audit Office therefore to extend that principle into other areas of crime reduction where silly lives are not lost.

Sir Philip Goodhart : Does my hon. Friend accept that, during that period when there was a substantial improvement, there was an enormous increase in random stopping? Random stopping by the police is surely the key.

Mr. Bottomley : I was describing what I could call the ignorance area. I was learning about what to recommend to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the former Secretary of State for Transport, who was involved in many of the decisions and in whose name many press releases were issued. I hope that he will not mind if I share that credit with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who was the first Secretary of State for Transport to endorse the message that people should not drink and drive at all. He moved away from the message "keep low".

The number of breath tests may have increased from 300,000 to 500, 000. However, because of the white noise from the random breath test brigade, people do not consider the facts. Those facts are available in the road accident statistics and they are available in the transport and road research laboratory studies.

They do not reach the general public because the media will only allow the public to learn that people will not run the risk of being caught unless they are caught by a random breath test. If the 42 per cent. of people who are caught driving above the legal limit for drink-driving did not believe that they were likely to be caught, they were wrong.

If it were not so serious, it would be entertaining to hear someone explain that what matters is the perceived risk of being caught and not the real risk of being caught. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred indirectly on 10 December to someone being caught three times. Such a person must not rely on being caught--he must change his behaviour. I believe that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East should resign, but not because of his behaviour. We all make mistakes. I drove badly on the day of his court case and I did something that could have resulted in a loss of life. I do not argue that the hon. Gentleman did that. He should resign because the facts show that opting for random breath tests would cost 200 lives a year within two years. That rate over a decade would cost thousands of lives.

The Opposition's policy is wrong. If they were to offer suggestions which would work, I would support them. All the evidence is that random breath testing at best is a distraction, and at worst would cause more lives to be lost than could now be saved.

Ms. Ruddock : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remarks. It is unacceptable for him to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I or any other hon. Member would table a new clause if we believed that it would result in the

Column 856

loss of 200 lives a year. We would not, and we have not, done that. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has offered his personal opinion, but he has produced no evidence to support it.

Mr. Bottomley : The hon. Lady is plain wrong. I do not blame her, because she is not the boss. I am following the habit of her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who is the boss. If we had introduced random breath testing in 1982, as New South Wales did, or in 1986 or 1988, or if we introduced it now and relied on it to reduce the rate at which people die in alcohol-related accidents, we might have achieved what New South Wales achieved. There would have been 50 per cent. more deaths as a result of drink driving then we now have.

Ms. Ruddock : It is not a question whether the boss is here or not. I made the speech and I will defend it. We have not suggested, as I made absolutely clear, that our proposals in the new clause for random breath testing are a substitute for measures which the Government are pursuing. Nor do we suggest that with hindsight it would have been a better alternative. We propose an additional measure that we believe will result in a further reduction in the number of drink-driving offences and so build on the good results of this country in that respect.

Mr. Bottomley : The hon. Lady is leading on to what really matters. If we believe that random checks, even under the method proposed in the new clause, will not add to detection of the crime, in the long term that will not be an effective deterrent. It will not achieve anything. It caused Alcohol Concern to write to hon. Members stating that 500 lives a year would be saved and that that figure is more than half the number of lives still being lost in alcohol-related crashes. That is not possible. A similar argument is made by Derek Rutherford, and it is led by people like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). They are all wrong. In fields such as medicine or education, if people can be shown to be wrong, they keep quiet.

I want to consider what measures would actually work. First, the police around the country should follow the lead of what happens in Scotland, where police try to test every driver involved in a crash. That does not happen in most parts of England, and particularly not on Merseyside or in London.

If we are to have a change in the law, all drink-drivers as a condition of bail should be expected to surrender their licences until they attend court. There would then be no delay in facing the consequences of one's actions. We should also ensure that we try to discover where people got into a condition that is criminal and so often lethal. In that way, people would have to face up to their own responsibilities, instead of relying on the mystique or white magic of random breath testing.

We must make progress so that drink-drive deaths are so infrequent that, when one occurs, the Opposition spokesman on transport calls for the resignation of the Transport Minister. When I was Under-Secretary of State for Transport for three and a half years, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East did not once call for my resignation, even though 14 people a day were dying on our roads. He was not interested in that. He wanted the

Column 857

glamour. The Opposition and my colleagues should agree on ways to make progress and to continue to reduce deaths on our roads.

Mr. Bidwell : The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has experience as a junior Transport Minister, but he said nothing to convince me that my Front-Bench colleagues are wrong.

Any additional activity should be pursued in the campaign to stop drinking and driving. As has been said earlier, people who drink and drive have a lethal weapon in their hands. That is enormously dangerous. Those people are careless. They are not all drunkards or alcoholics, although the number of alcoholics is increasing. Princess Di came to my constituency not too long ago to open an anti-alcohol clinic called Turning Point. The movement to combat alcoholism is increasing and has had to do so. People in a drunken state will be prone to take risks, a point that has not been raised so far. 7.30 pm

As many other hon. Members have said, the power of this new clause is that it must increase the deterrent. It is a matter of logic. We are asking the police to undertake an additional activity. I am glad that Labour Members have a free vote on the new clause, because that will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) to do, what his conscience guides him to do, so that he can go down to his working men's club and look those present in the face. However, I am considering the new clause in the broad range and asking myself whether it will decrease the possibility of drunken drivers killing other people. I think that it will.

I take on board what the hon. Member for Eltham said about the occasion when the former Member for Blackburn, who is now a Member of the other place, introduced the first breathalyser legislation. The hon. Gentleman implied that the pubs suddenly emptied. They did not. In my own constituency, racially prejudiced publicans who had previously refused to serve black and brown people, when faced with a sharp reduction in their custom, were glad to serve anybody, and welcomed everybody with open arms, even those wearing turbans. Those are the difficulties that we encountered in the early formative years of the legislation.

I have been breathalysed twice when driving from my surgery. The first time was some time ago, because I have now learnt my lesson. On that occasion, one of the councillors with whom I shared my surgery wanted to take me to the nearest pub to have a chat. He bought me a double whisky, which I do not normally drink, but as he was paying, I accepted it with open arms. Down the road we went, and I was pulled in near Southall police station. The policeman did not know me, but I do not think that he would have acted any differently if he had recognised me.

Fortunately, I was not over the top, but the experience frightened me. I did not want to be a companion of those other hon. Members who have been done under the breathalyser test and have then had to issue a public apology. Because I do not want to be put in that position and because that experience frightened me so much, I do not drink and drive nowadays. If any action to which the House can agree will push people in that direction, so much the better.

Column 858

On the other occasion when I was breathalysed, I had had only a couple of cups of tea at a local Indian social, but I was pulled up in Hayes. I served in Committee on the Bill that introduced the existing regulations on deterrents. Of course, policemen always call one "Sir", and this young man said to me, "Well, sir, you were driving erratically." That was what had given him the suspicion that I might be drunk. I said, "I do not remember us including suspicion of driving erratically' in the legislation. I always drive erratically." That shows that breath testing used to happen on the basis of suspicion, but that we are now moving to the new idea of random breath testing.

I am sorry that the Government are not allowing their Members to vote according to their consciences. I do not agree with the suggestion that the new clause is an attempt by teetotallers to take it out on drinkers. I agree entirely that the new clause would be a step forward in the fight against drunken driving, and I wish it all success. I hope that Conservative Members who agree with my attitude to the new clause will join us in the Lobby and will say, "Throw this three-line Whip out of the window."

Mr. Conal Gregory (York) : There cannot be any right hon. or hon. Member who at some stage has not lost a constituent or a constituent's child as a result of a drink-driving case. Alcohol contributes to an estimated one in 10 of all road traffic accidents in the United Kingdom. As we have heard, it causes over 800 deaths and a staggering 22,000 casualties each year. However, more than a quarter of male drivers and one in five female drivers believe that their blood alcohol concentration has exceeded the legal limit at some time in the previous year. It is true that inroads have been made into the problem of drink-driving during the past decade. I welcome the detailed speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) as part of that statistical debate, although that is about the point where my hon. Friend and I diverge.

Further deterrents are needed, of which the random breath testing that is proposed in the all-party new clause would be one, but only one, way forward. However, based on evidence from other countries, that deterrent should work. We should not dismiss such evidence out of hand.

In a recent survey, 42 per cent. of people who admitted to drinking and driving thought that they ran little risk of detection. As long as people think that they can get away with it, the penalties will not work. Stopping the offence is clearly better than punishment--and the police agree. Mr. Peter Joslin, the chairman of the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, has said : "A deterrence-based enforcement system is far more effective in reducing drink-drive fatalities than the traditional enforcement model."

At present, the police can require a breath test in three circumstances. As there seems to be a little confusion in the House about this matter, I shall reiterate those three circumstances clearly. First, the police can require a breath test when the driver is suspected of having alcohol in his or her body ; secondly, when a moving traffic offence has been committed ; and thirdly, when the driver has been involved in an accident. The police also have the general power to stop a vehicle at any time.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood) : I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because he has made precisely the point that the police have the general power to stop vehicles. Like the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), I too have been stopped and

Column 859

breathalysed. It happened just before Christmas. When I stepped out of the car, the policeman said, "This is a routine check, sir." If that is not random stopping and effectively random breath testing, I do not know what is, because the policeman then asked me whether I had been drinking. I confirmed that I had, but thankfully I did not even register on the machine.

My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) owes it to the House to make a much better case than he and the hon. Members supporting the new clause have done so far, because there are already sufficient powers. Indeed, when I told the policeman that the House was debating the point that very evening, he said, "Sir, we have enough powers as it is, but if you want to give us some more, that's fine by us."

Mr. Gregory : With respect, my hon. Friend jumped into the argument a little prematurely. The next time that he is stopped, he can refer to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. With respect, the correlation between that section and random breath testing seems to have escaped him. I did not go on to make that analogy ; I merely referred to the occasions when a police officer in uniform can stop any person driving a vehicle. I have not yet gone on to extrapolate that argument in terms of random breath testing, but if my hon. Friend will bear with me for a little longer, I shall do so. According to case law, the three circumstances to which I have referred may be combined. A police officer may stop any vehicle to establish suspicion that the driver has been drinking, after which the breath test may be required. The police argue that establishing grounds for suspicion before testing should be unnecessary and that they should have unrestricted powers to require a breath test. The new clause provides for random breath testing at roadside checkpoints, and the regulations included in the new clause would permit roadside checks at which either all vehicles or a sample of vehicles could be stopped by a constable in uniform for the administration of breath tests. Roadside checkpoints would be authorised in writing and clearly signposted.

As a deterrent to drinking before driving, the great virtues of the new clause are its visibility and the fact that roadside testing could be encountered anywhere at any time, although there is no reason why testing should not be targeted. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety favours the new clause, as do many other experts and members of the public. In due course, I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic summon all the agencies and organisations at his command which oppose the view of PACTS. In an intervention, he referred to the Royal Automobile Club. The view of the RAC is ambiguous, as my hon. Friend should know from its press notice. I am sure that he has many other organisations at his command which support his argument.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gregory : I am conscious of the time, but I will give way.

Mr. Bottomley : My hon. Friend has done a great deal of research into the matter. Will he confirm that all that PACTS and other organisations wish to achieve is legal

Column 860

under the present law? It is possible to have marked road checks and to test everyone except a driver who, after being stopped, is found not to have taken a drink, who has not been involved in an accident and who has not driven badly.

Mr. Gregory : Rather than considering exceptions, I am concerned to deter people. When enshrined in statute law, the new clause should be used not only to deter but to catch people. My hon. Friend constantly looks at the exceptions and perhaps introduces an element of the civil liberties argument, which I shall come to in a moment. Experience abroad, notably in Scandinavia and in most of Australia, supports the case for the new clause. New South Wales has been referred to frequently tonight. Many in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association must have visited New South Wales, judging by the number of hon. Members who seem to be aware of that fine state. In the first four years of random breath testing there, the average number of fatal or serious accidents related to alcohol fell by one third. That is a telling and practical argument which my hon. Friend the Minister should bear in mind.

One aspect has been referred to only obliquely. If there were ever any doubt about the new clause, it should be dispelled by this aspect. We are debating the measure as a motoring matter. If Department of Health Ministers and those responsible for budgeting for the health service were present tonight--they are not--they would be in favour of the amendment. The hospital and social security savings in New South Wales were over 20 times the initial cost of implementing the scheme. If the new clause does not find favour tonight--I hope that it will--such a measure might be included in the Finance Bill after the Budget on 19 March. The measure would certainly appeal to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health.

An argument which is sometimes used against random breath testing is that the rate of detection is low. Up to a point, that was the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. However, no one suggests that random breath testing should be a substitute for existing procedures. It would be an additional weapon in the armoury of the police. Only in the completely impartial context of roadside checkpoints would the requirement for establishing suspicion be waived. The impartiality of random breath testing is a crucial aspect.

Mr. Michael Irvine (Ipswich) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gregory : I must make progress. I am mindful of the time and the admonitions of the Chief Whip.

Over 77 per cent. of people interviewed in a Government survey last September praised the impartial aspect of random breath testing. New clause 2 provides for the introduction of random breath testing. By that I mean that the police will be able to breath-test randomly selected samples of drivers without reasonable cause for suspicion at specially designated roadside checkpoints authorised by a senior police officer.

I stress that it would not give the police unfettered discretion to breath- test any driver anywhere at any time. It is an additional power, which provides an element of deterrence which is difficult to achieve under current procedures and which is so important for reducing road

Column 861

deaths. I am convinced that there is substantial support among professional, public and parliamentary opinion for this change in the drink-driving law.

It is essential that the message from the House tonight is that drinking and driving do not mix. The power to deter that lethal concoction is with right hon. and hon. Members, and I urge them to accept this straightforward new clause.

7.45 pm

Sir Ian Lloyd : I wish to detain the House for a few minutes to discuss some important aspects of the new clause. The first is the matter of definitions. The definition of the word "random" is important. It is clear that some hon. Members are under the impression that the new clause asks for a power that would virtually give the police permission to stop anyone they chose at any time and any place. That is not my understanding of the term "random". A random number generator, as any statistician would agree, produces random numbers by choice, by means of a computer or, more simply, by taking numbers out of a bag, as in a lottery. For example, if 150,000 establishments which sell alcohol, such as hotels, pubs, clubs and so on, were chosen by a random number generator and one was the House of Commons, the police would be obliged to carry out checks at the exit of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : They would have a field day.

Sir Ian Lloyd : They might, but there might be other places, in the country where they would have an equally good field day. If it was established that every 10th, 20th or 50th car should be checked, and the 50th car going out of the gate was that of the Prime Minister, his car would have to be stopped under genuine random testing. The second definition with which I wish to deal is the difference between drink- driving and drunken driving. For perfectly understandable reasons, many hon. Members use the two terms as if they were entirely interchangeable. Sometimes, they take the absolutist view that there should be no drink- driving when, effectively, they mean that there should be no drunken driving. The scale of the problem clearly defines the difference. I have already given all the figures to the House, and I shall not detain it by doing so again tonight, but a clear distinction must be made between a system with the legitimate objective, of catching the incompetent, dangerous, drunken driver--someone who is over the limit--and a system directed with vast resources at the rest of the driving community. I state once again with all the force at my command that, in a free society, we cannot attempt to use motor vehicles--22 million of them--to enforce prohibition, which is what a zero limit would be. Even if there were no legal zero limit, the social idea expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)--that whether or not it is a legal offence, it is a moral offence to take any drink and get into a motor car and drive--is an absolutist view. We could never achieve that objective in a free society.

As one gets nearer to the limit, so the processes of enforcement become more rigorous. I have argued before on the Floor of the House that, even if the death penalty were attached to drunken driving, in a free society there would still be those who would take the risk.

Column 862

My main argument is based on an entirely different set of premises. The House--and, in a sense, the Government-- continues to adhere to an old technology or set of institutions. I find that difficult to understand. We are always reluctant to say, "Here is a solution which we know could work and which, if it worked, would work perfectly." As I have shown in more ways than one, the technology is clear and is being applied elsewhere. One Opposition Member said that people should lose their jobs if convicted of drunken driving. I believe that in certain circumstances they should not lose their jobs. In California, where there is considerable experience in the matter, the use of the breathalyser ignition lock enables a person who has been involved in a case of drink- driving which was not serious to be given a lesser sentence. It is not necessary for a driver to lose his or her job.

Some hon. Members may have seen an excellent programme some time ago on television ; I think it was "Horizon". It dealt with traffic problems in Los Angeles and showed some of the ways being developed all over the world to deal with the problem of the motor car. One thing which struck me forcibly was that we saw eight or nine vehicles going along a motorway, completely under computer control, some with the driver in the back seat. We are not there yet. It may be 10 to 15 years before it will be illegal for anyone who is over the legal limit of alcohol consumption to take a car on to a motorway. The technology will exist to prevent accidents, and it will be safer and better than human judgment.

If we are serious, we may say that, by the year 2000, every motor vehicle shall be fitted with a breathalyser ignition lock. If that takes place, it will be impossible for anyone to drink and drive unless the driver cuts the wires, and that would be a serious offence. The technology might exist for a central register to show that he had done so.

Do we want to eliminate drunken driving, or do we not? If we want to bring it down to zero, that is the way to do it. If it is not the way to do it, I should like to see a better way. If that is the target that we must achieve, will we do so by using deterrence, which will involve vast police forces trying to achieve by random breath testing the final eliminator test? Do we do it in that way, or do we say, "Here is a technology which enables the human being to reconcile his wish to drive his motor car and also to drink up to the point where, if he is in the least dangerous, he cannot physically do so"? If the limit of 80 mg is too high, we can bring it down to 50 mg. If 50 mg is too high, we can bring it down to30 mg. If 30 mg is too high, we can bring it down to zero. But at every stage of the reduction, I believe that the case that I have made in my proposed new clauses for self-breathalysing and subsequently for the use of a breathalyser ignition lock becomes stronger and stronger. I ask the Minister to give us the Government's view on my proposals.

Mr. Allason : I should like to share with the House my experience of the breathalyser, both as a police officer who has administered it and as a motorist who has been breathalysed. During the period that I spent in the police, I was satisfied that I had the equivalent of the power proposed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). When I was breathalysed shortly before Christmas two years ago, I had not been drinking. When asked by the police officer who stopped me on the Embankment whether I had had a drink, I denied it. He

Column 863

nevertheless administered the breath test, which was negative. But examples surely show that we already have the power.

The hon. Lady gave two platforms for the new clause. The first was public pressure. I am reluctant ever to criticise the Labour party for adopting Conservative policies, but I urge it not to adopt the policy of proposing amendments like the new clause in order to be seen to be doing something, or to be responding to what is termed public pressure. The Government have made a habit of doing that. I point to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and to the Football Spectators Act 1989 as two classic examples of the Government misconceiving legislation and bringing it before the House. The second plank of the hon. Lady's platform was the deterrent value--the likelihood of being caught. I entirely agree with her that the likelihood of being caught is indeed the principal element in deterring criminal activity. If we analyse what she is suggesting, it means greater police deployment in that sphere of activity. I interpret that as meaning greater interference with the operational decision-making which is the responsibility of chief police officers.

There is a hard core of persistent offenders, and the only way to change their behaviour is to change the culture and make it unacceptable to buy rounds for people who will later be driving. It has been said that organisations such as the Consumers Association and the National Council for Civil Liberties support random testing. There is a belief that random testing is a panacea, but it is not. The police do not want such a power. They already have the powers that they need. I therefore urge the House to oppose the new clause.

Mr. John Browne (Winchester) : I wish briefly to support the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has spoken ably on it, and I agree with almost every word that he said. Of course, to have legislation on random breath testing is a curb on individual freedom, but we already accept curbs on individual freedom. We have to drive on the left of the road, we have to wear safety belts, and we have to obey the highway code. Those are all curbs on individual freedom, but they are all designed for safety and that is the purpose of the new clause.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who made a persuasive argument, but as a layman I still believe that the new clause would have a deterrent value, although the powers already exist. That value is enormous in relation to the human suffering of those involved, in relation to the human anguish of the relatives of those involved, and in relation to money for the national health service and the taxpayer. I believe that about £600 million per year is involved.

As a deterrent, the new clause would help to save lives. I support it, and I urge the House to do likewise. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider his opposition to the new clause and to remember that we demand these standards of airline pilots, bus drivers and train drivers. I believe that we should bring in the new clause as a deterrent to drink-driving.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : I support random breath testing, but not the nonsense of the new clause. I cannot

Column 864

think of any single way in which the police could more infuriate ordinary drivers than to have such a roadside test. Whenever I am stopped at a roadside checkpoint, I get infuriated. If we want to improve relations between the public and the police, the new clause is not the way to do it.

The kind of random breath testing that I favour is the kind that we already enjoy. I do not say that with any great pleasure. The fact is that police officers can stop the driver of a car and, whether they pretend or whether they have real justification for doing so, they can inflict a breath test upon anyone. The trouble is not that that is being done, but that the public do not perceive that there is a power of random breath testing.

We could fulfil a useful purpose if we made it clear to the public that there is random breath testing already, that it is already legal and that they had better watch out when they drink and drive, because they may be stopped and disqualified. That is the random breath testing which it is within my bounds to support as one who believes in the freedom of the individual.

8 pm

Mr. Chope : We have had a three-hour debate and I doubt whether anything that I could say would have much influence on the way in which hon. Members will vote. This has been a debate about random breath testing, although the better expression might be untargeted breath testing, because that is what the proponents of the new clause are arguing for. The House is united in its condemnation of those who drive with excess alcohol. Where there have been differences in the debate, they have been about the means to the end--of reducing the numbers who drink and drive and thereby the numbers who are killed and maimed as a result.

It is unworthy of those who support the new clause to accuse those who do not of being complacent or uncaring about road safety. The Government are proud of their record on road safety and, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) pointed out, we have the best road safety record in the European Community.

Government policy on this issue has been arrived at after the most careful and rational analysis of the evidence and arguments. On 1 February 1989, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), when Home Secretary, initiated the debate, in response to a request from the police, for more powers. References to the background to that were made during the debate, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).

As a result, there was public consultation. It emerged from that that there was much public ignorance about the extent of the powers that the police have. To clarify the position, on Tuesday 5 November 1989 the Attorney- General, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), set out the legal position. It is not necessary for me to recite that again tonight.

That position ensures that the police have power to stop motorists whom they wish to stop and then to ask for a breath test of motorists whom they suspect of drinking, of being involved in accidents or of moving road traffic offences. The Government view is that the existing powers strike the right balance between the need for effective enforcement of the law and the freedom of the individual.

Column 865

The arguments on the other side have been largely concerned with the issue of deterrence. I think that, in the end, perception and reality over time have a tendency to coincide. We saw in the examples from New South Wales, and earlier from France, that, as soon as there was a change in the law, people thought that a random test was just around the corner, and as a result there was a reduction in the incidence of drink driving. But that was only a temporary phenomenon. It is more important that there should be a change of attitude. One can see the difference in connection with speeding. I do not think there has been a change yet in attitude towards speeding, and that is why, when one observes police vehicles going along a motorway, most people, if they are sensible, reduce their speed while in the vicinity of those police vehicles. But as soon as they have gone past, they increase their speed.

In connection with drink driving, we do not think that the incidence of a large number of road checkpoints would add significantly to deterrence. Indeed, Government policy is to use public progaganda advertising for the purposes and to try to create a public atmosphere in which drink driving is not tolerated. The Legal and General Insurance Company, following a recent Gallup survey, found that 84 per cent. of people said that, as a result of Government advertising, they had been made to think twice about drinking and driving. That is a more cost-effective way of proceeding than spending £12 million a year in police time setting up road blocks at which probably fewer than one in 100 of the people tested would be found to have been a drink-driver.

Mr. Day : My hon. Friend seems to have overlooked the fact that, as a number of hon. Members pointed out, the exercise in New South Wales proved to be cost-effective.

Next Section

Home Page