Written evidence from the Department for
Transport (DDD 41)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This evidence is submitted for the Transport
Committee inquiry into drink and drug driving law, following the
independent report submitted by Sir Peter North CBE QC.
1.2 As suggested by the Committee, this
Memorandum addresses five issues identified in the invitation
to submit evidence—
a. Should the permitted blood alcohol limit be
reduced as proposed?
b. If so, is the mandatory one year driving ban
appropriate for less severe offenders, at the new (lower) level?
c. How severe is the problem of drug driving
and what should be done to address it?
d. What wider costs and benefits are likely to
result from changes to drink and drug driving law?
e. What would be the implications of such changes
for enforcement?
1.3 Sir Peter North's review was commissioned
by the then Secretary of State in December 2009. His report covers
a wide range of issues. The Government is considering carefully
the 51 detailed recommendations. In doing so, it is important
that we fully investigate the economic and public service resource
impact of any suggested changes to the law, taking account of
the current financial and economic situation.
1.4 The Government will follow with interest
the evidence which is given to the Committee, and will take account
of the Committee's report before a response to Sir Peter's report
is finalised and published. The Secretary of State has indicated
to the Committee (in oral evidence on 26 July) that he expects
this to be achieved by the end of the year.
1.5 The Department will be pleased to assist
the Committee in any way it can, and to give oral evidence if
that would be helpful. However, this Memorandum does not offer
substantive comment on the individual recommendations; and we
will not be in a position to do so until a formal response is
ready at the end of year, when we will be in a position to draw
on the Committee's recommendations.
2. BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
2.1 The Department publishes National Statistics
on reported road casualties in Great Britain. The annual report
routinely includes an article on drink-driving. The most recent
in this series was published in September 2009;[56]
and the next one is scheduled for publication on 23 September.
2.2 In the meantime, on 5 August 2010, the
Department published provisional statistics on road accidents
reported to police involving drinking and driving in Great Britain
in 2009.[57]
Figures show that fatalities resulting from drink and drive accidents
fell by 5% from 400 in 2008 to 380 in 2009, whilst seriously injured
casualties fell by 9% from 1, 620 to 1,480. Slight casualties
resulting from drink drive accidents fell by 8% from 10,960 to
10,130. Total casualties fell by 8% from 12,990 to 11,990. Fatal
accidents remained unchanged from 2008, remaining at 350 for the
second year in a row. Overall drink and drive casualty accidents
fell by 7% from 8,620 to 8,050.
2.3 The Department's statistics do not include
equivalent figures for casualties or offenders related to drug-driving.
However, the Ministry of Justice publish statistics which cover
proceedings, convictions and disposals for drink driving as well
as drug driving.[58]
3. SHOULD THE
PERMITTED BLOOD
ALCOHOL LIMIT
BE REDUCED
AS PROPOSED?
3.1 The Government will announce a conclusion
on this question in due course in its response to Sir Peter's
report. His terms of reference required an examination of the
evidence not only on the involvement of alcohol in road fatalities/accidents;
but also the impacts of any change in the blood-alcohol limit
on health outcomes, businesses and on the economy more widely.
The report has only limited coverage of these latter questions,
and does not include an impact assessment, or consideration of
the public sector resource and enforcement implications of his
proposals.
3.2 It is important that the Department
should fully investigate the economic and public service resource
impact of any suggested changes to the law, taking account of
the current financial and economic situation. A related issue
is the extent to which the estimates of casualty reductions are
attributable to a lower drink drive limits per se or to increased
enforcement and related measures. Much of the evidence comes from
countries where there were effects from changes in the enforcement
regime and publicity at the same time as they changed the limit.
We are undertaking further work to this end, which will inform
the Government's decision.
3.3 The Department will consider any evidence
the Committee is able to identify on these matters.
4. IF SO,
IS THE
MANDATORY ONE
YEAR DRIVING
BAN APPROPRIATE
FOR LESS
SEVERE OFFENDERS,
AT THE
NEW (LOWER)
LEVEL?
4.1 The present penalty regime for drink
and drug drive offenders includes a minimum one year disqualification
for the main offences. This simple, tough and unambiguous disqualification
has been regarded as an important element of the deterrent against
these offences. As Sir Peter's report notes this might be lost
if offenders perceived a chance of less severe penalties.
4.2 Most other European countries that have
a lower prescribed alcohol limit have adopted graduated penalties.
In some cases, it is considered to be a criminal offence only
to exceed a limit at—or, in some cases, above—the
prescribed limit applied in this country.
4.3 The EC 6th Framework Programme supported
a project, Police Enforcement Policy and Programmes on European
Roads (PEPPER), which included, as Deliverable 6, a report produced
in 2008 entitled "Comparison and analysis of traffic enforcement
chains across EU Member States and in relation to EU policies".[59]
This report has a table comparing the prescribed limits in various
EC countries, and the associated penalties. This shows a number
of examples where penalty points and modest fines are used for
offences below the UK prescribed limit. In some cases—for
example, Spain and Portugal, the limit above which a criminal
offence is committed is reported to be higher than the UK limit.
In Canada, the federal limit is the same as in the UK, although
the Provinces impose short-term licence suspensions for exceeding
a lower limit.
4.4 The Department has not researched the
reasons for these graduated regimes; nor is it aware of research
into the impact of reducing penalties in this way. It may be intended
among other things to reduce the burden on criminal justice systems
of processing additional offenders. The UK's current record on
drink drive casualties compares very well with other EU countries
which do have graduated penalties and, in many cases, there is
no correlation between casualty figures and a lower blood alcohol
limit.
4.5 We are not aware of similar evidence
of graduated penalties for drug-driving.
5. HOW SEVERE
IS THE
PROBLEM OF
DRUG DRIVING
AND WHAT
SHOULD BE
DONE TO
ADDRESS IT?
5.1 The Government is committed to introducing
preliminary testing devices to assess suspected drug driving.
The next step is for the Home Office to publish a final draft
specification for the type-approval of such devices, which they
aim to achieve in September 2010. It will then be for manufacturers
to submit devices for assessment and trialling. We expect that
these devices will be available initially for use in police stations,
in place of assessments by forensic medical examiners.
5.2 Sir Peter North has reviewed the available
evidence on the prevalence of drug-driving in some detail. It
is widely acknowledged that this is a difficult exercise, and
the Department will welcome any additional information the Committee
is able to identify. Much of the detailed information on drink-driving
is obtained from routine testing not only of offenders, but also
from post mortems. The Department's published statistics on drink-driving
are drawn from a combination of police accident reports and post
mortem information, and there is at present no equivalent for
drug-driving.
5.3 Sir Peter has made proposals for increasing
the available data, and we are considering what is practical with
other Departments. We have a research project almost completed,
which has looked at available information about the prevalence
of driving impaired by drugs. This has considered in particular
information that might be obtainable from investigations by Coroners.
We will take this work into account in finalising a response to
Sir Peter's report.
6. WHAT WIDER
COSTS AND
BENEFITS ARE
LIKELY TO
RESULT FROM
CHANGES TO
DRINK AND
DRUG DRIVING
LAW?
6.1 As explained in paragraph 3.2 above,
it is important to investigate as fully as possible the economic
and public service resource impact of any suggested changes to
the prescribed alcohol limit for driving to the law, taking account
of the current financial and economic situation. We are undertaking
further detailed work on these impacts before responding to the
report.
6.2 It is very difficult to assess the benefits
of changes in the law on drug-driving when so little is known
about the present scale of the problem, and how much it might
be abated by any given measure.
6.3 Estimates of the casualty reduction
potential of changes in the law on drink-driving depend upon assumptions
about the way offenders—and drivers in general—may
change their behaviour, and what if any changes are made to the
enforcement regime. Since they account for the bulk of the numbers,
any major reduction in drink-drive related casualties is likely
to depend upon significant changes by a large proportion of those
prepared to drive after drinking well above the current legal
limit, whose offending behaviour is entrenched. The wider impacts
of any new measures are not confined to those whose present behaviour
is dangerous and illegal; casualty savings among other drivers
might prove to be modest, but an assessment has also to be made
of the wider potential effect of changes in behaviour by the driving
population at large. Those with blood alcohol between 50
and 80 mg/100ml make up only 2% of driver and rider fatalities.
6.4 The key potential benefit from lowering
the drink drive limit would be any reduction in fatalities and
injuries, assuming that it resulted in a positive change in driver
behaviour, and there were not perverse effects such as an increased
willingness to flout a lower limit. This benefit includes avoiding
the loss in economic output; and the health and other emergency
service costs, and the very high social and human costs from the
suffering caused by deaths and injuries. There would be further
economic benefits from the reduction in damage only collisions;
and congestion benefits from the reduction in collisions. The
latter could be significant for trunk roads and non-urban roads,
though less so for urban areas—as traffic can more easily
divert to other roads.
6.5 The key economic costs from lowering
the blood alcohol limit would include any additional enforcement
costs, court costs and prison costs, although this depends on
how the police enforce any new limit and how drivers react. There
would be economic costs arising from any increase in drink-driving
offences—for example, if more people lose their licence
this potentially means more people are out of work. There would
be an impact on the drinks, rural pubs and restaurants and wider
services industries from any reduction in alcohol consumption.
There might potentially be a more significant reduction in custom
if people decided no longer to go to a pub or restaurant if they
are worried about any curtailment of drinking alcohol beverages.
Money not spent in say rural pubs might theoretically be spent
on other activity not involving alcohol consumption, which could
mitigate some of the economic impacts; but there would still be
adverse consequences for those sectors which were affected.
6.6 The benefits described in paragraph
6.3 will continue to accrue from reductions in drink-driving over
the years; and will do as a result of any further measures which
have that effect, not all of which incur the range of costs discussed
in paragraph 6.4.
6.7 The Department will consider any evidence
the Committee is able to identify on these matters.
7. WHAT WOULD
BE THE
IMPLICATIONS OF
SUCH CHANGES
FOR ENFORCEMENT?
7.1 Sir Peter's report does not answer this
question, except to say that drink and drug driving should have
more priority. This necessarily raises questions about the deployment
of police resource, and demands on the criminal justice system.
We have to assume that changes to the law have potential to increase
the number of offenders apprehended, and there is potential for
a significant impact to the criminal justice system. The assessment
described in paragraph 3.3 has to look at this issue; and similar
work is also needed in relation to changes relating to drug-driving.
7.2 Sir Peter has discussed a range of measures
to make the apprehension and processing of offenders more efficient.
These include -
— removing the "statutory option"
which allows certain drivers apprehended for drink-driving to
replace evidential breath samples with a blood sample;
— commencing a provision in the Road Safety
Act 2006 which closes a loophole in the High Risk Offender regime;
— introducing portable evidential breath-testing
equipment, which would remove the need for drink drivers to be
taken to the police station for further tests;
— introducing preliminary drug-testing
devices;
— delegating to custody nurses the role
of forensic medical examiners in relation to the processing of
suspected drug-drivers.
7.3 Some of these measures have potential
to reduce administrative burdens significantly, and to improve
the efficiency with which the current law can be enforced. The
Department is considering each of these proposals, and will welcome
the Committee's assessment of them.
7.4 The Government has a commitment to issue
a specification for preliminary drug testing devices—so
that manufacturers can submit devices for the necessary type approval.
It will then be for police forces to purchase devices and introduce
them to operational use. The Home Office aims to issue a final
draft specification by the end of September.
September 2010
56 http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2008articles.pdf Back
57
http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/399405/rcgb09drinkdrive.pdf Back
58
Available on-line at-http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/motoringoffences.htm Back
59
http://www.pepper-eu.org/docs/pepper_documents/PEPPER_D6_WP1_20080821.pdf Back
| 
