Drink and drug driving law - Transport Committee Contents


Formal Minutes


Wednesday 24 November 2010

Members present:

Mrs Louise Ellman, in the Chair
Steve Baker

Mr Tom Harris

Julie Hilling

Kelvin Hopkins

Kwasi Kwarteng

Mr John Leech

Paul Maynard

Gavin Shuker

Iain Stewart

Julian Sturdy

The following declaration of interest relating to the inquiry was made:

14 September 2010

The Chair declared a non-pecuniary interest in that her son owns a retail business which sells drug testing equipment, amongst other things; and declared that she intended to take no part in those parts of the inquiry relating to drug driving.

Draft Report (Drink driving law), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 2 read and agreed to.

Paragraphs—(Mr Tom Harris)—brought up, read the first and second time, and inserted (now paragraphs 3 and 4).

Paragraphs 3 to 6 (now paragraphs 5 to 7) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 7 read, as follows:

Amendment proposed, at the end, to add "Nevertheless, we note that other witnesses alluded to the greater likely uncertainty in the public's mind about what could constitute a 'legal drink' within a 50mg/100ml limit."—(Iain Stewart.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.
Ayes, 7

Steve Baker

Mr Tom Harris

Julie Hilling

Kwasi Kwarteng

Paul Maynard

Iain Stewart

Julian Sturdy

Noes, 3

Kelvin Hopkins

Mr John Leech

Gavin Shuker

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to (now paragraph 9).

Paragraphs 8 to 32 (now paragraphs 10 to 34) read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 33 to 41 read, as follows:

"We have considered the evidence for and against a reduction in the drink-drive limit from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg per 100ml of blood, as recommended by the North Review. The medical and statistical evidence to support a lower limit is strong. The risk of an accident, or death, increases substantially when one is driving with a blood alcohol content level between 50mg/100ml and 80mg/100ml compared to a driver who has not consumed alcohol. Reducing the drink-drive limit to 50mg/100ml would save potentially tens of deaths and hundreds of serious injuries per year. More broadly, a 50mg/100ml limit would help to create a "social norm" and culture against drink driving. It is likely that many more people would no longer risk drinking alcohol at all if driving. A 50mg/100ml limit is also consistent with the approach adopted by a large majority of countries in the EU and the general trend worldwide to reduce the legal blood alcohol limit.

We are not convinced by the evidence against a reduction in the blood alcohol limit, although two criticisms in particular require examination. The first relates to the potential resource implications for the police. In the current economic climate police forces are under increased pressure to use their limited resources in the most effective and appropriate way possible, and it is reasonable to explore whether such a legal change might place unmanageable pressures on their resources. But we found the evidence given by police representatives persuasive. Operationally, a 50mg/100ml BAC limit in itself would not change the procedures used by police officers to enforce drink driving law. And, whilst the number of arrests may increase, fewer drink drive accidents on our roads would ease the burden on police resources considerably. We discuss police enforcement later in this chapter (paragraphs 44-54).

The second criticism comes from pub, restaurant and hospitality representatives, who argued that the effects of a 50mg/100ml BAC limit would put hundreds of outlets out of business. Whilst we accept that some individual businesses might be affected, we are not convinced that there would be widespread closures of the kind feared by the pub and hospitality sector. Drink drive legislation had its most significant impact on the industry with the introduction of the legal blood alcohol limit in 1967 and the industry has diversified since then. A reduction to 50mg/100ml BAC would not, in our view, have a significant economic effect on the sector. As such, we are doubtful whether the economic impacts outweigh the importance of significantly reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries on our roads.

In view of the evidence received, we believe that the North Review is correct to recommend a reduction in the drink drive limit to 50mg of blood per 100ml of alcohol. The arguments to do so are compelling. We recommend that the Government reduce the drink driving limit from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg per 100ml of blood.

We accept that a 50mg/100ml limit would not solve the problem of mixed messages communicated to the public, given that the official Government advice is not to drink and drive at all. This is the argument made by supporters of a 20mg/100ml limit, effectively "zero tolerance". However, we share the concerns of many of our witnesses that a 20mg/100ml limit would be a step too far at this time. There is little evidence to suggest the public would support such a drastic change in the law and we doubt whether it is proportionate.

The weight of the evidence supports retaining the current minimum penalty of 12-month mandatory disqualification for somebody driving with a BAC level in excess of 50mg/100ml. The success of Great Britain's drink driving policy has been largely attributable to the deterrent effect of this penalty. Given that there is considerable public support for strong action on drink driving and in view of the evidence about the level of impairment at 50mg/100ml, we do not consider that a 12-month ban for somebody driving with a BAC between 50mg/100ml and 80mg/100ml is excessive, nor would it be considered so by the public. A 12-month disqualification at this level would be considered a strong penalty compared to other countries but it would also be more simple and consistent with our existing system of penalties.

The Government should retain the current minimum penalty of 12-month mandatory disqualification for a lower legal blood alcohol limit of 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood."

Motion made, to leave out paragraphs 33 to 41 and insert the following new paragraphs:

"We have considered the evidence for and against a reduction in the drink-drive limit from the current 80mg per 100ml of blood. We note the medical and statistical evidence that the risk of accident, or death, increases substantially when blood alcohol levels exceed 20mg/100ml of blood. Such evidence makes a strong case for reducing the legal blood alcohol limit.

However, we also accept that there are valid criticisms against such an immediate and unilateral reduction, which warrant further examination. The first relates to the potential resource implications for the police. In the current economic climate police forces are under increased pressure to use their limited resources in the most effective and appropriate way possible, and it is reasonable to explore whether such a legal change might place unmanageable pressures on their resources. We recommend that individual police forces should be consulted to assess the respective cost-benefit implications of more effectively enforcing the current drink drive limit against any proposed reduction. We further note that this is an area of policy which may fall within the remit of the Government's proposed directly-elected Police Commissioners.

The second concern relates to public awareness and acceptance of the legal alcohol limit. We note the evidence that suggests a lack of public understanding about the current BAC limit and what it means in terms of drinks that may be "legally" consumed before driving. The introduction of a 50mg/100ml limit is likely to increase such public confusion, given that the amounts and measurements in which drinks are served and consumed are not easily converted by the average drinker into units of alcohol, let alone into microgrammes of alcohol in blood. It is also complicated by the fact that a person's ability to absorb alcohol into the bloodstream can be affected by many different variables such as the physical build of the drinker, the strength of the drink and when it is consumed. We agree with the Government's official advice that a driver should not drink at all and are concerned that a reduction to 50mg/100ml risks sending out a mixed message.

In the long term, the Government should aim for an "effectively zero" limit of 20mg/100ml but we acknowledge that this is too great a step at this stage. There is little evidence to suggest the public would support such a drastic, immediate, change in the law.

We believe that any reduction in the legal drink-drive limit should only occur after an extensive Government education campaign, run in conjunction with the pub, restaurant and hospitality industries, about drink strengths and their effect on the body. In doing so, the Government should look to learn from experiences in other countries which have successfully implemented a reduction in the drink drive limit to either 50mg/100ml or 20mg/100ml.

We also considered concerns expressed by pub, restaurant and hospitality representatives, who argued that the effects of a 50mg/100ml BAC limit would put hundreds of outlets out of business. Whilst we accept that some individual businesses might be affected, we are not convinced that there would be widespread closures of the kind feared by the pub and hospitality sector. Drink-drive legislation had its most significant impact on the industry with the introduction of the legal blood alcohol limit in 1967 and the industry has diversified since then. A reduction to 50mg/100ml BAC would not, in our view, have a significant economic effect on the sector.

The weight of the evidence supports retaining the current minimum penalty of 12-month mandatory disqualification for somebody driving with a BAC level in excess of 80mg/100ml. The success of Great Britain's drink driving policy has been largely attributable to the deterrent effect of the current 12-month mandatory disqualification penalty and we believe that it should remain even after a reduction in the legal BAC limit."—(Iain Stewart.)

Question put, That the Motion be made.

The Committee divided.
Ayes, 7

Steve Baker

Mr Tom Harris

Julie Hilling

Kwasi Kwarteng

Paul Maynard

Iain Stewart

Julian Sturdy

Noes, 3

Kelvin Hopkins

Mr John Leech

Gavin Shuker

Paragraphs 33 to 41 disagreed to and new paragraphs inserted (now paragraphs 35 to 41).

Paragraphs 42 to 54 read and agreed to.

Paragraphs—(Mr Tom Harris)—brought up, read the first and second time, and added (now paragraphs 55 to 99).

Summary, line 6 to end, read as follows:

"We agree with North that the drink drive limit should be reduced from 80mg alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg per 100ml. The medical and statistical evidence to support a lower limit is strong. It is estimated that reducing the drink drive limit to 50mg/100ml will save tens of lives and prevent hundreds of serious injuries from occurring each year. There is considerable public support for a lower limit. Furthermore, it would help to create a "social norm" and culture against drink driving and be consistent with the approach adopted by a large majority of countries in the EU and the general trend worldwide to reduce the legal blood alcohol limit.

We were not persuaded by the arguments in favour of retaining the current 80mg/100ml limit. We doubt whether the economic impact on the licensed trade would outweigh the importance of significantly reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries on our roads and we were persuaded by evidence from police representatives that a lower limit could be effectively enforced within existing resources, despite forthcoming budget cuts. We recommend that the police should have an additional power to enable preliminary breath tests to be required and administered in the course of a designated drink drive enforcement operation. Enforcement of drink driving legislation must be more visible, frequent, sustained and well-publicised.

We noted arguments to reduce the drink drive limit to 20mg/100ml—effectively zero tolerance—but consider this to be a step too far at this time.

We support the retention of the current minimum penalty of 12-month mandatory disqualification for a lower legal blood alcohol limit."

Amendment proposed, to leave out line 6 to end of the Summary and insert the following:

"While we agree that medical and statistical evidence supports a reduction in the current drink drive limit of 80mg alcohol per 100ml blood, we note that currently 2% of drivers killed in road accidents have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) between 50mg/100ml and 80mg/100ml, while 18% have a BAC greater than 80mg. We recommend that the police should have an additional power to enable preliminary breath tests to be required and administered in the course of a designated drink drive enforcement operation.

We are concerned that a reduction in the limit to 50mg/100ml would send out a mixed message with the Government's official advice to not drink and drive at all, particularly in light of the strong evidence of public uncertainty about what constitutes a "legal drink". In the long term, we believe that the Government should aim for an "effectively zero" limit of 20mg/100ml but we acknowledge that is too great a step at this stage. Instead of an "interim" reduction to 50mg/100ml, the Government should concentrate on working with individual police forces to achieve a stricter enforcement of the current limit and beginning a public education campaign to help achieve public acceptance of a 20mg/100ml limit.

We support the retention of the current minimum penalty of 12-month mandatory disqualification."—(Iain Stewart.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.
Ayes, 6

Steve Baker

Mr Tom Harris

Kwasi Kwarteng

Paul Maynard

Iain Stewart

Julian Sturdy

Noes, 3

Kelvin Hopkins

Mr John Leech

Gavin Shuker

Another amendment made.

Summary, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved, That the title of the Report be changed to the following: Drink and drug driving law.—(Mr Tom Harris.)

Motion made, and Question put, That the Report, as amended, be the First Report of the Committee to the House.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6

Steve Baker

Mr Tom Harris

Kwasi Kwarteng

Paul Maynard

Iain Stewart

Julian Sturdy

Noes, 3

Kelvin Hopkins

Mr John Leech

Gavin Shuker

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report, together with written evidence reported and ordered to be published on 12 October.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

[Adjourned till Tuesday 30 November at 10.00 a.m.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 2 December 2010