|
Mr. Chope: I shall initially address my remarks to new clause 2, which is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It deals with a gap in the law that has been highlighted by the soaring increase in the use of illegal drugs and the large number of people who drive with such drugs in their bodies. Often, the drugs are mixed with alcohol, creating an even more dangerous condition in the driver.
It may be helpful if I quote briefly from a British Medical Association briefing, which states:
''The negative influence of alcohol on the ability to drive safely is proven. National campaigns educating the public of the risks posed by drink driving are generally accepted as being successful. The BMA recognises that a similar problem now exists in relation to drug driving . . .
The use of illegal drugs by the younger generation has been found to be frequent and increasing. Nearly half of 16 to 24 year olds in England and Wales are reported as using cannabis . . . Furthermore, 39 per cent. reported having taken hallucinogens, with other drugs being taken by fewer 16 to 24 year olds.''
Most stunningly, a report headed ''Recreational drugs and driving: a qualitative study'', which was published in 2000 by the Scottish Executive central research unit, stated that 69 per cent. of club goers in Scotland had taken cannabis and 85 per cent. had at some time driven after using illegal drugs. Those statistics are staggering.
The wider implications of such behaviour are now beginning to emerge. Recent research indicates an increasing incidence of road traffic accidents in which people have tested positive for drugs; that is, drugs may have been a contributory factor to the cause of the crash. The Transport Research Laboratory carried out tests to detect alcohol and drug levels in people involved in fatal collisions between 1985 and 1987 and then again between 1996 and 1999. The results show a sixfold increase in the percentage of people testing positive for illegal drugs, with detection of cannabis increasing from 2.6 per cent. to 11.9 per cent. Over the same period, the incidence of use of medicinal drugs and alcohol had not changed much at all. Overall, it meant that drug taking increased by a factor of three, and the proportion of those testing positive for multiple drugs increased dramatically.
Column Number: 286
I do not need to point out the concerns that Conservative Members have about the Government's downgrading of the offence of using cannabis. The BMA briefing states:
''The known effects of cannabis are that it can impair co-ordination, visual perception, tracking and vigilance. Impairment is also shown when subjects are tested under simulated driving conditions. Studies report that the majority of fatal cases with detected levels of cannabis are compounded by alcohol. Alcohol alone or in combination with cannabis, increases impairment, accident rate and accident responsibility. Therefore, the consequences of mixing alcohol with drugs must also be explored as the side effects of each substance are often exaggerated.''
The BMA realises that there is a serious problem.
The Government have introduced roadside testing to ascertain whether there is evidence of impairment of driving caused by drugs , but those tests are far from easy to administer. Bearing it in mind that we are dealing with illegal substances, the use of which is criminal, we do not need to have tests similar to those for alcohol, because alcohol is a lawful substance, although it is unlawful to have it in one's body beyond a particular extent when driving. It is unlawful to have unlawful drugs in one's body at any time, and it should be a specific offence to have those drugs in the body while driving, because there is substantial evidence that people who are driving with drugs in their body, with or without alcohol in addition, are a menace to themselves and others.
Regrettably, an increasing number of fatalities are being recorded as a result of the unlawful use of drugs. There was a tragic case in my constituency where a person on his first day at Bournemouth university was killed by a driver who fell asleep at the wheel as a result of taking amphetamines. We know that people use amphetamines to keep themselves awake and to stimulate themselves, but once the effect wears off, the result can be an almost immediate lapse into sleep. That is what happened in this tragic case, and it resulted in the waste of a young life and an able student.
We must send out a strong message to people. They should not be taking illegal drugs in the first instance, but if they do take an illegal substance, get behind the wheel of a car and are then found to have that substance in their body, they should, irrespective of the level, make themselves liable to a substantial penalty. In new clause 2, I have not spelled out what the penalty should be, because I want to see whether the Government will accept the principle of the new clause, and I thought it would be easier to accept if it did not specify a penalty. However, mandatory penalty points would be needed. There is a question mark over mandatory disqualification, but it should be subject to discussion by those involved. I hope that the Government will accept the principle enunciated in the new clause.
In so far as new clause 1 is concerned, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has answered his own question. The problem is that 1 per cent. of people are over the existing limit, and they are causing 400 deaths a year. The reason the number of people over the limit is rising is lack of enforcement. We should be reducing that percentage to nil, rather than complicating the matter by trying to introduce into the
Column Number: 287
realms of criminality a group of people who are at the moment driving lawfully. It may well be that those people are unwise to drive with as much alcohol in their blood as they have, and I do not dispute that some fatalities result from it. However, the Government have reduced by about 30 per cent. the number of traffic police on the roads; surely we should bring them back and carry out much stronger enforcement of the existing law. If we did that, we would be able to reduce significantly the figure of 400 deaths a year caused by those driving with excess alcohol in their blood.
Mr. Kidney: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but does it really need to be a question of one or the other action being taken? We should have both: better enforcement and a law that makes sense in today's world.
Mr. Chope: I am not saying that it has to be one or the other; the issue is one of priorities. We know that a large proportion, almost half, of those who are driving over the 80 mg limit are not just over the limit but twice over it. There are some real menaces out there on the roads, and I would prefer the Government and the police to concentrate on bringing those people to justice—getting them disqualified from driving and being deterred from driving with excess alcohol—rather than complicating the matter by criminalising many others who are not yet criminalised, so this is an issue of priorities. I certainly believe we should be increasing the number of road traffic police, and trying to deter and detect those who are substantially over the existing limits.
John Thurso: I support new clause 1 and congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford on speaking to it in an extremely serious and important debate. It certainly deserves to be discussed. My party's position is straightforward; it is in total agreement with him and would like to see the relevant limit brought down to 50 mg. I recall how my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pushed the matter to a vote in the House. I must tell the Committee that in that vote I was not in the Lobby with him; I was in the other Lobby, as I hold a different, personal, view, which I would like to express this morning. I am, however, open to persuasion on the arguments. My decisions at present are finely balanced.
What the hon. Member for Stafford said is absolutely right; there is a problem, and it is a growing one. There is a trend of greater drink-driving. I make it my business, as I am sure other hon. Members do, to talk to various area commanders in my half of Scotland. During the summer I had an interesting discussion with the area commander for Ross-shire, where, as I may have mentioned on Second Reading, the concern was the rise in the number of people drink-driving and the fact that many were middle-aged men, not young people. These were not people who were a little bit over the limit, having thought that they could have three drinks but then miscalculated, but people
Column Number: 288
who were seriously over the limit and had clearly set out to drink and drive. There is absolutely no excuse for that, and as the hon. Member for Stafford said, the best advice to anybody is simply, ''Don't''.
There is a great deal of common ground between us. A further point made by the hon. Gentleman with which I would concur concerns the lack of understanding. I made a great mistake on Second Reading, in response to an invitation, in describing a conversation between my mother and myself. She had clearly not quite taken on board the fact that three drinks was a rough approximation, not something that was allowed—and that people should aim to have nothing if they are going out. That was duly reported in the diary section of The Press and Journal, and I have to say it caused me some problems when I went home that weekend.
The point that I was trying to make is that there are many people out there who wish to be law-abiding and think they are law-abiding, yet they have this mythological understanding that they can have three drinks. However, they have no understanding of the differences of percentage by volume of alcohol, of the rate at which different metabolisms absorb it into the body, or of the fact that a regular drinker who is around six foot tall and a bit overweight can probably take on a bit more than an extremely slim and good-looking lady who is 5 ft 2 in. There are also considerable differences in the rate at which alcohol metabolises out of the body.
Any false formula that people might like to adopt is damaging and unhelpful. We need to discourage the idea that there is some level of drinking that can be done. However, I am not yet persuaded of the case for an actual reduction in the legal limit, partly because I am not sure that I would want to see an automatic ban of 12 months for a level of 50 mg. It is important that there be a relationship between the severity of the punishment and the level at which the punishment is imposed.
10 am
The hon. Gentleman helpfully pointed out the table drawn from his research on European countries. I do not know—perhaps he can help me—whether he has researched the corresponding punishments that are offered. If someone in a zero-rate country is caught with an alcohol level of 15 mg, are they banned for 12 months or is there a gradated system? My opinion would swing towards that of the hon. Gentleman were there a lesser punishment for 50 to 80 mg while the strict ban at 80 mg was maintained. I might well be persuaded in that direction, but my principal concern is that simply to lower our very strong penalties and bring the level down to 50 mg would not necessarily address the target that we ought to aim at, which is people who set out on the roads with an alcohol level in excess of 80 mg, often well in excess of that, who are absolutely lethal. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments and I hope that he understands from my remarks that I am open to persuasion, but I am not yet persuaded.
Column Number: 289
On new clause 2, I have a lot of sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Clearly, there is no excuse for drug-driving any more than there is for drink-driving, particularly as drugs are illegal. However, my understanding from the briefing that we both have is that the Government have measures to deal with that matter, so I shall await the Minister's response before deciding how to proceed on that new clause.
|
