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/100mleffectively zero tolerancebut 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.
|