|
Mr. Chope: What happens if somebody changes their address and moves from an area where courses are available to one where they are not? They may have to travel quite a long distance to have their ignition lock tested. It may not be impossible for them to do that, but their ability to do so instantly would be limited. They may need a bit more notice than ''Next Wednesday morning''. Will the system be sufficiently flexible to accommodate people who move outside the area where the experiment is running?
Mr. Jamieson: A person in such circumstances would have a number of choices. First, they could negotiate with the provider of the course and ask to move to a course in another part of the country. Secondly, they could come off the programme and face a resumption of their ban. They would have to decide which course of action they wanted to take. There could be difficulty in some circumstances, but as the system is rolled out throughout the country, the number of such cases would decline.
Nevertheless, the course is not an easy option. Those on the course have to comply with its terms; it is not there for their convenience. If it does not suit, they will find themselves banned again. They have to fit the course, rather than the other way round.
As for amendment No. 58, new section 34D(9) defines an alcohol ignition interlock for the purposes of legislation. Subsection (10) states that the level beyond which the proportion of alcohol in the breath will cause the alco-lock to prevent the engine from being started is 9 micrograms of alcohol per 100 ml of breath. The amendment would change the figure of 9 to 30. That is just below the legal limit for alcohol in the breath, which the Committee will know is 35 micrograms per 100 ml of breath.
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the alco-lock should only operate when a person has drunk so much that they are approaching the limit of being able to drive legally? Is he saying that people should be able to say to themselves, ''I can have a pint or two before I go, then test the machine to see if I am somewhere near the limit''? That is not the point of the provisions. We are telling people that it is not just a question of driving below the limit, but driving when they have not drunk alcohol.
The figure of nine micrograms amounts to virtually zero for all intents and purposes. Some people, due to medical conditions, have a background amount of alcohol in their breath all the time that may be a little
Column Number: 137
more than nought, so the amount of 9 micrograms is treated as zero. We are saying that people on the programme should be sober. They should not drink up to the limit and hope that they can get away with it. If someone is drinking just up the limit of 30 micrograms—just below the legal limit—they have not learned their lesson, should not be on the road and certainly should not get remission of some of their ban.
Mr. Knight: I wonder if the Minister can answer a scientific question. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised the rather alarming thought that the human body might ingest alcohol through the air. I think my hon. Friend referred to this in his opening remarks. If one were in a pub but not drinking, a person might find that they had ingested 9 micrograms. I have heard of passive smoking; I have never heard of passive drinking. I wonder if the Minister will confirm that that is a scientific impossibility. Will he also explain what 9 micrograms would constitute? If a person consumed one glass of wine and waited 20 minutes, where that would put them on the range before us?
I accept much of what the Minister is saying, but the law is the law and if a person is within the law, surely they are entitled to drive. If someone has under 30 micrograms in their body, he is not breaking the law, so why should he be prevented from driving?
Mr. Jamieson: Very simply, because that person has had some remission of their ban for drink-driving and has been allowed back on the road. The law gives them a small remission and allows them back on the road, but they must demonstrate that they are sober and that they have mended their ways. If they do not want to do that and want to carry on drinking, they just have to accept that they will not be able to drive. This Bill, when enacted, as I hope it will be, will not allow them to do that. Anybody who says that they can go into a pub, breathe deeply and get drunk is in a fantasy world. I have been into a few pubs in my time; oh that we could! It would save a lot of money.
Human bodies are different, and a large person who is used to drinking alcohol and has eaten food when they absorb alcohol is in a very different position from a very slight person who has not eaten and is not used to drinking alcohol. For some reason, women absorb alcohol into the blood quicker than men, and different racial groups have different rates for absorbing alcohol. Northern Europeans are more resistant to alcohol absorption in the blood than, for example, some of the Asian races. They are just physiological facts, so there is no answer to the question of how much one must drink to reach the drink-driving limit. The answer is that a person who receives a remission of their sentence must demonstrate that they are nowhere near the limit for drink-driving.
Mr. Knight: I think that the Minister is telling us that he is rather wedded to the figure of 9 micrograms. If that is the case, why does subsection (10) end with
''or such other proportion of alcohol to breath as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe''?
Why does he envisage making that change?
Column Number: 138
Mr. Jamieson: It gives us that bit of flexibility. If from time to time there needs to be a change, we will be able to make it. If the figure of 9 micrograms was not appropriate or we received medical advice that it was not appropriate, we could make the change.
Amendment No. 59 concerns new section 34E, and deals with the issue of not fully participating with the requirements of an alcohol ignition interlock programme. Subsection (2) specifies circumstances in which the offender would be regarded as ''not fully participating''. Paragraph (c) specifies the condition
''to attend at a place specified by the programme provider for the monitoring and maintenance of the alcohol ignition interlock, at a time specified by the programme provider or a person with whom the programme provider has made arrangements for the monitoring and maintenance''.
Amendment No. 59 would insert at the beginning of that condition:
''without reasonable excuse to comply with a reasonable requirement.''
Although I understand the safeguard intended by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch, it is superfluous. Reasonableness must be read throughout the provisions, and any law has to be imposed reasonably. In those circumstances, the provisions would not work. That is the reason why there is an appeal process; it can test whether the police or the providers of the course have acted reasonably.
Mr. Chope: In that case, why does the proposed new subsection include references to the ''provider's reasonable instructions'' in paragraph (b) and a ''reasonable requirement'' of the programme provider in paragraph (d)? There is no reference to reasonableness at all in paragraph (c).
Mr. Jamieson: I shall deal with amendment No. 60 and return to that point.
Clause 15 (1) provides that no order shall be made under section 34D—that is a court order referring an offender to a programme—after the end of 2010 or
''such later time as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.''
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was generally in favour of sunset clauses.
4 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
On resuming—
4.14 pm
Mr. Jamieson: I was dealing with amendment No. 60 and I dare say that, in the fullness of time, the hon. Member for Christchurch will reappear so that he can hear my answer. He asked about reasonableness. I am told that reasonableness is inherent in the overall requirement of subsection (2) and hence the reference to it in paragraph (d). The difference between (b) and (c) is that (c) spells out more clearly what is required of the offender. I hope that is a perfectly reasonable answer to a reasonable question. Perhaps the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire can convey it to the hon. Gentleman when he reappears.
Column Number: 139
Amendment No. 60 deals with clause 15, which provides for a experimental period for the ''alcohol ignition interlock programme''. The amendment would omit the references in paragraph (a) to 2010, in sub-paragraph (b) to ''such time later'', etc. The intended effect is, I assume, to remove provision for a date by which a decision should be taken as to whether or not to move from an experimental period to a full scheme. The provision we have is worthwhile, and I would resist its removal. We want to get the scheme underway as soon as possible, but there is no guarantee of an early start. As the hon. Member for Christchurch, who I am pleased to see back in his place in the Committee, knows, the rehab course experimental period lasted for some seven years. We might want at least three of four years before we decide, therefore, and this would take us beyond the year 2010.
I hope that has been a helpful reply to some of the points made. I urge the Committee to resist the amendments before us.
Mr. Chope: First, I apologise for not being back in time. I was on the telephone with a lawyer in Munich, where one of my erstwhile constituents is currently in jail. I am sorry that my telephone conversation overran slightly. I will not go into the details of the case, but I might share them with the Minister afterwards; he might have a wry smile.
As far as the substance of these amendments is concerned, I am grateful to the Minister for responding in the way that he has. I was disappointed, however, that he ignored that I said that amendment No. 58 was a probing amendment, and sought to take it literally, as a sort of policy option. I am also sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire took the view that I was scientifically inaccurate about this matter. I am sure that what I intended to say was what the Minister effectively said in response; that up to the limit of 9 micrograms—one can give a puff here, or a puff there—anybody may well be at that limit.
The Minister has not really addressed the issue of people who are not teetotal, who have drinks in the evening and then get in their car the following morning. We know that if they get in the car in the morning and are over a level of 35, they have obviously had a skinful the night before. But there is a question mark over whether somebody might have a level of 15, having had drinks the night before; nobody would suggest they were anything other than sober. It is that area of doubt that I wanted to identify and draw attention to in my in my probing amendment. The Minister has given rather an absolutist response, saying, more or less, that this programme is only going to be suitable for people who are absolute teetotallers. I certainly did not think that was the original purpose.
| 
