| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I hope that the issue can be examined, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I agree that it should not be included in this Bill. I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. We are concerned at the increased incidence of drugs use in fatal road accidents. The evidence shows increased use of illegal substances, contributing to a greater proportion of deaths. It is therefore important that the Government take seriously the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I do not know whether a saliva test is the best method. Like Lord Dixon-Smith, I am not sufficiently expert. However, the question of the effect of drugs on driving performance is important and should be further examined.
Lord Bradshaw: I too do not know whether a saliva test is effective. Additional to drug use is the question of impairment through illness. In September I had the misfortune to have a slight stroke, from which I recovered fully. However, the first thing the medical practitioner told me was that I was not to drive for at least four weeks. The practitioner has no statutory backing; he simply told me that. We should have regard to the many drivers whose faculties are
probably impaired. I hope that the Minister will respond by saying that the Home Office is behind the idea of education, that a person should not drive with drugs in his body, or while otherwise impaired, and that research is needed to find out which drugs impair people's ability to drive safely.We are inclined to support the amendment, but, as I said, we cannot say for certain whether the saliva test is practical. However, we shall be most interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Monson: The noble Earl's amendment is an excellent one in principle. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that this is not the right Bill for it. What better occasion can there be? If we have to wait for primary legislation, then we may have to wait for months or years.
As has been said, aspirin and paracetamol are surely drugs yet they do not adversely affect driving ability. In fact, in so far as they reduce somebody's headache they may improve driving ability. Similarly, illegal drugs such as amphetamines, if taken in small doses, would actually improve somebody's reaction time and would not adversely affect their driving ability. Nevertheless, in principle, Amendment No. 271 is an excellent one and I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration.
Lord Elton: The papers are full of suggestions that the Government are now going to be more tolerant of certain drugs. That means that there will be many more of them inside drivers and it makes me think that this is a very good time to introduce this legislation.
Lord Rooker: In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, it is true that there is a good deal of ignorance as to what people can do in terms of driving. Some people think that, once they have obtained their licence and can drive, they can get on with it. I have experience in the past couple of years of having to go to the Post Office and of seeing a form there—DV100 or something. That form contains a list of medical conditions. Anyone who has suffered from or had treatment for any of those conditions is committing a criminal offence if he continues driving.
I was utterly ignorant of that fact until I saw it in writing. It ought to be more commonly known. It is not just a question of a doctor saying, "I do not think you should drive". In some cases they have to point out, "By the way, it is a criminal offence for you to drive. You need to tell Swansea what has happened and they may want your licence back for a period". So a good deal of ignorance exists in that regard.
We recognise the excellent intentions behind this amendment. The noble Earl rightly identified the need for the police to deal with the problem of drug driving. The Association of Chief Police Officers, the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Home Office have been working on the best methods of addressing this issue. This is not a situation where I am saying that everything is okay and we are satisfied. We are on the case.
The main objection to this amendment is that simply showing that a driver has drugs in his body is often not sufficient to achieve a conviction for drug driving. To do that it is necessary to show the court that the ability to drive is impaired by the drugs. The presence of a drug, as identified by a saliva test, does not do that.
I am almost reluctant to use this example after what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, but I just put it on the record. I am not an expert and therefore must take advice on these matters. The most prevalent drug abused—cannabis, which I am sure the noble Lord is not on at the moment—is traceable in the body for four weeks or more, long after it can cause impairment. So there is a major issue which needs to be addressed in that regard. We agree with the police that, at the present time, the best way of detecting impairment is with the drug recognition techniques and the field impairment testing. The drug recognition techniques allow the officers to assess more easily a driver's impairment by the physical signs—dilated or constricted pupils, facial itching or slurred speech. The field impairment tests are divided attention tests which allow the police to assess a driver's concentration and ability to perform simple tasks, which an unimpaired driver should have no difficulty performing.
I fully accept that these are low-tech tests. But they have been validated in the detection of impairment. At the present time the police can only request a driver to perform a series of impairment tests before deciding whether or not to arrest. We are currently considering giving the police powers to make that a requirement. I cannot say whether that will be at the next stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House. But we are in the early stages of this Bill and I cannot be more precise.
We are also looking at provisions which will allow for the future development of an approved type of roadside drug screening device. So work is continuing in that respect. Amendment No. 271 does not require the device used by the police to carry out the drug test to be prescribed and to be of a type approved by the Secretary of State. That may be a nit-picking point but the noble Earl will understand that it would be necessary to have that on the face of the Bill. The approval process would give an assurance to the courts and the public that the device in question is accurate, robust and reliable.
We are sympathetic to some of the intentions behind the amendment but we cannot accept it. Some practical issues need to be addressed before we can move forward on certain points. I hope I have indicated to the Committee that on those points we are moving forward with the police and the other government departments involved.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's response to this amendment. I was suggesting an objective test for the police officer to be able to decide whether or not he could arrest the motorist and take him to the police station in order to take a blood sample. The blood sample could then be analysed and the police could obtain an expert witness to say whether or not the motorist's driving would be impaired.
The Minister referred to the difficulties with cannabis in that it can stay in the body for quite a long time though the driving of the motorist is not impaired. However, saliva does not easily show cannabis. So if cannabis is detected, it is probably detected from the smoke in the mouth which would indicate that the motorist had recently been taking cannabis. It is a small point. But the other point to remember is that cannabis is not the only problem. I refer to drugs which can affect a motorist's anger control; in other words, his propensity to engage in road rage.
However, I am encouraged by what the Minister said in relation to other approaches to this problem. I hope we can do something before we send the Bill to the other place. If we fail in that, perhaps the other place will see fit to introduce something. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Specimens taken from persons incapable of consenting]:
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 272:
- Page 41, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 272 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 278. These amendments refer to one of the conditions under which a constable may make a request to a medical practitioner for him to take a specimen of blood from a person incapable of consenting; that is, if it appears to that constable that that person's incapacity is attributable to medical reasons.
We contend that this clause, as presently drafted, is obscure. The constable would seem to be entitled under the new power to commit what would otherwise be an assault on a suspect on the basis of what might be a wholly unjustified belief in incapacity for medical reasons. The new clause requires the officer to have reasonable grounds for the belief that the incapacity is indeed due to medical reasons and not to some other cause. I beg to move.
"(d) the constable has reasonable grounds to believe that the incapacity of the person is attributable to medical reasons."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page