§ Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn)I am pleased that we are having this debate, albeit at this time of the morning. It is therefore incumbent upon me immediately to say to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who sits behind her so loyally, that I apologise for giving them such an early start. I hope that they will feel at the end of the debate that it has been fruitful and, indeed, necessary.
There is a ritual about raising the subject of drinking and driving just before Christmas. I make no apology for having sought to do so again, although we had a debate about the same time last year on the same subject. With Mr. Speaker's indulgence, I intend to continue to seek to raise the matter before Christmas every year, just as the Government feel that it is necessary to launch a campaign every year. It is sad and it should not be necessary to have a campaign every year or for an hon. Member to have to seek to raise the matter to give it greater prominence, but it is necessary because the weak, foolish, unwise and unwary and the ignorant still drink and drive.
One clear message that should go from the Chamber is, "If you drive, don't drink, and if you drink, don't drive." There can be no fetter on that simple message.
The number of drink drive offences over the past decade has gone up dramatically. In 1975 there were 65,000 cases, but by 1980 the number had risen to 78,000. By 1983 the figure was 98,000 and by 1984 it had gone over the 100,000 mark, to 101,000. Nearly half of all injuries to and deaths of drivers, passengers and pedestrians are attributable in part to alcohol, and drink is involved in 45 per cent. of fatal road accidents to young people. Nearly 100,000 people are convicted for drink drive offences each year in England and Wales alone, and the numbers are rising rapidly.
Many people think that there is a legal limit. There is no such thing. It is true that there are offences under section 6(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972, amended by the Transport Act 1981—offences of driving or attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. Currently that limit is 35 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of breath, 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood or 107 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of urine. That should not be regarded as the entire law on the matter. That point will be well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury.
There is still the old offence of driving or attempting to drive while unfit to drive through drink or drugs, or to be in charge while unfit. Any amount of alcohol impairs driving ability, and ability definitely deteriorates with more than 50 mg of alcohol. Unfit to drive in law means that the ability to drive is impaired for the time being. It does not mean incapable of driving. People concentrate far too often on the idea of a legal limit below which they are safe and not subject to any prosecution. That is wrong. It should be clear that people with alcohol concentrations far less than the prescribed limit can be prosecuted and convicted of being unfit to drive.
The impairment depends on the concentration of alcohol in the body, not on the amount taken. A person with high natural alcohol concentration is vulnerable. An 11-stone male is put over the 50 mg limit by one and a half pints of ordinary beer or three single whiskies. Driving 509 ability will be impaired. Even at the so-called legal limit under section 6, a person is five times as likely to have an accident than if he had not had a drink. A person could be arrested, charged and convicted under section 5, which is concerned with unfitness to drive, when well below the limit set out in section 6.
It is no good trying to do calculations. Indeed, it is extremely dangerous, because there are so many variables. The 1965 report of the British Medical Association's special committee said:
It takes between 15 and 90 minutes for the peak concentration in blood to be reached following a drink of alcohol, and in most cases little more than 30 minutes … In fact, the rate of elimination of alcohol both between different individuals and in the same individuals at different times varies to some extent and an exercise of this kind cannot, in our opinion, be justified.The mean elimination rate appears to be between 11 and 21 mg per hour, but numerous recent studies have confirmed the extreme variability of the blood clearance rate. Significant numbers of clearance rates exceed or trail the average by factors of two or four and, in extreme cases, eight.The law is much tougher after the Transport Act 1981. There is an automatic refusal to issue a driving licence to high-risk offenders or problem drinkers—that means drivers who are convicted twice in 10 years of drink driving offences when, in both cases, the blood alcohol level has been more than two and a half times the prescribed limit or a specimen has been refused, or a combination of the two.
It must be concluded that the public can feel safe only if such people are never allowed to drive again. That might be a hard judgment, especially if driving is necessary for employment or if employment depends on the ability to drive, but we must protect the innocent people who lose their lives or suffer terrible injuries as a result of others taking the risk of drinking and driving.
My hon. Friend has now launched a new campaign. We can but hope that it will be more successful than the disastrous "stay low" campaign last Christmas. Statistics to which I shall refer show it to have been disastrous. I believe that in retrospect, and I say "in retrospect" because my hon. Friend the Minister could say that I welcomed the campaign in the debate on 21 December 1984, as, indeed, I did. She will recall, however, that I also entered some caveats then. "Stay low" was a dangerous slogan which was taken out of context. As I said in that debate, it was wrong to consider the slogan without considering the whole press release of the Department of Transport. I read it in full then and I shall do so again. It stated:
Don't drink any alcohol at all if you are going to drive. That's the only way to be sure you won't be affected by drink and liable to be convicted of a drink-drive offence.And it's the best safeguard you can give yourself that you won't be involved in an accident.Although the 'breathalyser law' puts a limit of 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres on drivers' breath, you can still be prosecuted below that limit if a policeman thinks your driving ability is impaired by alcohol.So the only way to be certain is not to drink. That's what the Department of Transport means by its advice to drivers this Christmas to stay low—very low.If that press release had been reiterated, the campaign would not have been misunderstood. My hon. Friend the Minister, who is an experienced politician, knows only too well that politics is about slogans, and that many 510 comments made by hon. Members are often taken out of context. Indeed, our political history is riddled with slogans and statements taken out of context, which achieve a mythology of reality all of their own. I am thinking of cutting prices at a stroke and getting on bicycles. Many of them are entirely inaccurate as a representation of what was said, and are taken entirely out of context.My hon. Friend and the Department must realise that with such a campaign people will pick out one aspect as theslogan and refer to it. That is why the slogan "stay low" was dangerous. It conveyed the impression that people could drink and drive, notwithstanding the full press release which said clearly that people should not drink and drive.
Why were there no consultations with the alcohol agencies before this present campaign was launched? Many organisations, particularly Alcohol Concern, feel that they can contribute to the formulation of these campaigns. Why was it felt inappropriate for those agencies to be consulted?
I hope that my hon. Friend will again say unequivocally that there is no legal limit below which a person can be regarded as safe to drive. Under section 5, the test of impairment of driving ability is not linked to any limit. The "stay low" campaign created a misunderstanding of the law because of the slogan rather than the full explanation. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that the only message that must be fully comprehended is that if one drives, one must not drink. That must be stated unequivocally.
The "stay low" campaign cost 1.5 million. How much will this year's campaign cost? The cost to the nation of drink-drive accidents is estimated to be £100 million a year, so £1.5 million is a small contribution to make to a campaign to try to overcome that tremendous cost. Will my hon. Friend explain to whom the campaign is directed? She said when the campaign was launched that it was especially directed towards the young, but perhaps she would use this opportunity to amplify that statement.
I greatly appreciate the excellent initiative that is taken by some organisations to try to increase public awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving. I am especially mindful of the new campaign by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, aimed at the licensed trade, employers, employees, young people, voluntary groups and operators of coaches, minibuses and taxis. I commend to the House and to the general public the excellent booklets that have been produced to increase public awareness, and especially to the various groups, to each of which is directed a separate booklet produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which is a comprehensive and useful guide.
I am also especially impressed with the society's pamphlet, which is easily read and very short. It is entitled, "How to beat the Breath Test." It is one of the interesting leaflets which invites someone to read more, just as the leaflet that was produced by Conservative central office, which stated that "Conservatives admit to cuts", invited people to read more. That is shrewd advertising material, because it invites people to look more into the contents.
The booklet from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents states:
Why shouldn't I drive after I've been drinking"?The reply is: 511Alcohol affects your own judgment of whether you are fit to drive or not—you may genuinely believe yourself to be driving better than you are. Alcohol is a depressant, not a stimulant. It lessens the co-ordination, lengthens reaction time, blurs vision and affects ability to judge speed and distance: all vital skills when it comes to driving. The ability to judge distance between moving objects is lessened when you are only one quarter of the way to the legal limit.Another question asked is:How quickly does it wear off?The answer given is this:Rates of absorption vary so much, the only sure way is to allow one hour per half pint of beer (or equivalent)—this can take several hours. Someone who has had a heavy drinking session the night before may still be over the limit going to work at 7 am the next morning!All of us in the House know the sort of feeling of going to work at that time. Indeed, we have gone to work half an hour earlier than that this morning. The pamphlet continues:There are no tricks for sobering up more quickly—coffee and fresh air may help you feel better, but they don't reduce the alcohol level.Another section asks,But I won't be stopped if I drive carefully, will I?To that, the answer is:The police can ask you to take a breath test if they suspect you of committing a moving traffic offence, or if you're involved in an accident, but they can also stop you if they suspect you of having alcohol in your blood. If you're stopped for any reason, like a broken rear light, and they think you've been drinking, they can ask you to take a breath test then as well. You might even be prosecuted if you're not over the limit if you're clearly unfit to drive. The 'legal limit' just means prosecution is automatic.I welcome the hon. Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg). It is especially commendable that hon. Members should come to the House at this time of the morning, and it manifests their belief in the importance of this debate, especially before Christmas. I appreciate that the new campaign that has been launched by my hon. Friend is much tougher and that the get-tough policy of the police will be supported, as I understand it, strongly by my hon. Friend and her Department.I also appreciate the steps that my hon. Friend's Department has taken over another matter that I have raised during the year—the sale of alcohol through petrol stations. The steps that my hon. Friend has taken in the past year have been welcome. The fact that her Department is collecting statistics to establish the number of petrol station licences in existence is a positive step. This has been reinforced by the fact that the Home Office will, from next year, record such licences as a separate entry on the official statistics. I thank my Friend for what she is doing.
Stopping people from drinking and driving is not just a question of informing the public; there has to be an element of deterrence as well. I feel that still the message has not got across to people that if they drink and drive and are prosecuted and convicted for having an alcohol level beyond what is prescribed, they will lose their licence automatically. However persuasive, even as persuasive as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, an advocate can do nothing in those circumstances to save a person's licence. It does not matter whether his job depends on being able to drive—the licence will be lost for 12 months as a minimum. I hope and pray that that message gets across, because it is all part of the concept of deterrence.
512 I believe, and I suspect and hope that all agree, that the only real deterrence is the certainty of being caught, and at the moment the likelihood of being caught in the United Kingdom is low. The Home Office has stated that only one in 250 drinking drivers has a risk of being caught. That is an appalling statistic, and it must be changed. I accept that I should not be addressing my remarks principally to my hon. Friend the Minister, but I hope that she will convey them to the appropriate quarters, because that needs to be looked at carefully.
I know that my hon. Friend has heard this question before, not least from Mr. Don Steele, of Action on Alcohol Abuse, but I ask her to look again at this suggestion. Bearing in mind that those with provisional driving licences or those who have received their driving licences within the past two years are those most frequently involved in accidents, should there not be an even stronger requirement imposed on those drivers that come within those categories. Perhaps she will say something about that.
I have already referred in parenthesis to the fact that on 21 December last year I initiated a debate similar to this one about drinking and driving. I shall remind the House of what I said on that occasion. Every year 1,200 people die as a result of road traffic accidents in which drink is a contributory factor. During that debate, I asked whether something could be done to include a statement to that effect in the highway code so that at least we could be satisfied that at one point in a driver's lifetime the message would be brought home clearly in a manner in which he had to learn it before passing the driving test. I appreciate that that is not the answer, but to bring it home to somebody who is learning to drive and having to learn what drink and drive involves, as a matter of its being included in the highway code, would be a useful addition to that document.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister keeps several copies of the code at home, because she told me so in last year's debate. She said:
My Department is reviewing the highway code, as it does from time to time and I shall see what entry in that might he useful in persuading people to do the sensible thing.Perhaps she could give me an answer this year to the statement that she made so helpfully in replying to the debate that I initiated last year.My hon. Friend the Minister of State said something else that I should like her to look at again. At the beginning of her reply to me last year she said:
In due course my Department is planning to give even wider information than has already been given out in the facts leaflet on drinking and driving from the road research laboratory because it needs to be much more widely available and influential.When she replies, I hope that my hon. Friend will say what has been done about that.I referred also in that debate to a fruit drink called "Alcaway." It purports to speed up the absorption of alcohol by the body—in simple terms, an antidote. But it cannot be said strongly enough that there is no such thing as an antidote. I pointed out that on 19 November 1984 my hon. Friend, in answer to an inquiry from me, had said:
'The rate at which alcohol is absorbed into the blood stream is affected by a variety of factors. While some products can slow down this process, I am not aware of any evidence which suggests that the elimination of alcohol from the body can be significantly speeded up. My general policy is to warn drivers of 513 the risk involved in driving after drinking under any circumstances.—[Official Report, 21 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 713, 716 and 717.]It is grossly irresponsible, morally indefensible and commercial exploitation of the most obscene kind, resulting in death, injury and misery, to market any such substance. Those who do so should remember that the Christmas present that they will give to families is the death of a father, the mutilation of a mother and the bereavement of loved ones. It was therefore very distressing to me to learn, when listening a few days ago to that excellent radio programme "You and Yours", of a new substance called "Stay Low". It is the usual kind of unpleasant tasting, high calorific fruit drink that contains a large amount of glucose syrup.I learnt yesterday that 500 dozen bottles have been produced by a company in Nottingham. I spoke to a representative of that company on the telephone. I was given the name of the principal company, Stay Low Ltd., which has the manufacturing rights of this substance. I was given the name of a Mr. Hurley. Stay Low Ltd. is registered in Jersey. However, when I telephoned him I was told that he was busy. Furthermore, I was told that he would telephone me, but I received no call from him. The registered office is, I believe, a solicitors' office. It is merely an address for the registration of that company.
The trail of that company is interesting. Yesterday I tried to track down what this product purports to achieve. I understand that the first reference to it appeared in The Morning Advertiser on 18 December. The claim on behalf of this substance was that
anyone who drinks 10 whiskies can pass the breathalyser test after drinking two 85p bottles of 'Stay Low.,That claim cannot be attributed to anybody and it may be inaccurate, but it appeared in The Morning Advertiser.The office is registered in Jersey and is just a holding office, but I was able to contact a company called Crane Barnden that had been engaged by Stay Low Ltd. to produce promotional material. It is a firm of printers. I do not want any opprobrium that might attach to this product in general to attach to this company. It was very helpful to me over the telephone and explained what had been done.
Crane Barnden had received instructions to produce promotional material, but it had been unable to secure detailed information about certain aspects of the product. The firm was told that it was not entitled to disclose the name of the client. It received its original instructions from an individual rather than from a company. The result was that the firm felt obliged to do no more than produce the initial amount of promotional material. That was interesting because the firm clearly believed that insufficient information was available for it to carry on doing any more work for that client.
The firm produced only information. The bottling and mixing was done by a Nottingham company which confirmed to me over the telephone the constituent elements of the drink. It is lime-flavoured with large amounts of glucose and fructose syrups. The initial run was 500 dozen bottles which were marketed by a company called Innserve, a wholesaler to public houses in the south Devon area. The bottlers have no instructions to bottle any more.
I hope that the Minister will use her Department's resources to look into the product if it is anything like 514 Alcaway. It is extremely dangerous for such a product to be marketed if it purports even indirectly to enable people to drink and drive. That is a cruel deception.
I make it clear now, as I did a year ago in respect of the other product which fortunately we stopped in its tracks, first, that no tests substantiate any claims for the new product. Secondly, increasing the rate at which alcohol is broken down by the body can cause poor judgment. Thirdly, fructose can cause painful side effects.
I do not propose to go into the details of those side effects, but I have a sheet of papers containing medical opinions from learned journals which describe the inadequacy of fructose in speeding up the dissipation of alcohol in the blood, the side effects and the danger of the intake of fructose in such large quantities. Such a product might require a licence under the Medicines Act if it were designed to interfere with the normal operation of a physiological function.
I understand that the label on the product states "Don't drink and drive." That is a small concession to it being marketed just before Christmas with the name "Stay Low". Why is it being marketed now? It has all the hallmarks of a cynical, unprincipled exploitation of people's fond but foolish desire to find a magic potion which will enable them to drink and drive. There is no such potion, nor can there be. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to investigate the product fully.
If this debate has publicised the criminal negligence of drinking and driving; if it has brought home to people that the only safe way to drive is not to drink, or if one is drinking not to drive, however short the distance: if it has the effect of saving lives this Christmas, children will still have fathers and mothers and parents will still have children at the end of the festive season and we can say to the people whom we have the privilege to represent—as I say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Minister and my colleagues have a very happy Christmas, and a safe one, and we shall all meet again in the new year.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) for reopening this issue just a week or so after we launched the 1985 campaign. I have done everything I know to get home to people the message that there is no safe way to be on the roads except never to drink and drive.
I thank the police, particularly this year, for their co-operation throughout the planning of the campaign, for it will be through their enforcement that we shall remain safe on the roads. Their intention is that we shall have a safe and happy Christmas. Their intention is not to go after every motorist, as some newspapers might have us believe; I shall return to that point later.
To indulge in the sort of statistical analysis with which my hon. Friend began his remarks might be considered at this hour rather grave, although I shall join him in giving a few figures. Within the whole context of the matters that my hon. Friend has raised are many issues that we must put clearly and squarely before the motoring public and pedestrians, for a large number of accidents at party time—not just at Christmas—involve drunken pedestrians. We are dealing not only with drivers, although they have a lethal machine in their hands.
515 Drinking and driving is at the front of our minds just now, but please let us not forget that this problem is not confined to Christmas and the new year. It is true that alcohol consumption is at its peak at this time, but the stark truth is that the threat posed by the drinking driver exists on the roads every day of every year, and we must ensure that all our policies take account of that.
I detect a growing indignation, in Britain and elsewhere, by people who are against the irresponsibility and culpable negligence of the few, those drinking drivers. Many people are so concerned that this is a topic of conversation not just at Christmas time but generally. I am frequently asked, "What more can we do to make people behave responsibly with respect to drinking and driving?" Normally sensible people seem to adopt a thoughtless mode of behaviour, and they then easily slip into aggressive and selfish habits. Indeed, once the drinking has begun, that whole process seems to accelerate.
That is what we must stop. I have detected—I have seen it with my own eyes in country pubs and elsewhere—that many more people are seeing the sense of the campaigns. They enjoy their drinking and they enjoy their driving, but they enjoy them by keeping them well apart and by never mixing them.
As we continue to see more than 1,000 people killed each year in road accidents as a direct result of drinking and driving, we realise that we have a long way to go before we have got the message through to a wider number of people. I assure the House that there will be no letting up in the Government's attempts to tackle what is regrettably still our most serious single road safety problem. There are others, but this, like many accidents, is avoidable.
My hon. Friend was right to say that the number of convictions had risen, but he may not have read the small print, as it were, on one statistical matter. In the last year for which we have figures, 1984, about 93,000 people were convicted of drunk driving, out of a total of 101,000 involved in drug and drink-related driving offences.
The increases in convictions are the result of the new law which came into force on 6 May 1983. With the intoximeter now being used at all times throughout Britain I have no doubt that this year we shall have a larger number of convictions than last year. I have no doubt of that because everyone is determined to try to stop this awful savage fatality level on our roads.
§ Mr. BestI am grateful to hear that, because it will put the figures in context. When I referred to last year's "stay low" campaign, I said that it had been a disaster. I said that because of the statistics of problems that had arisen. Perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm that the number killed last year was up by 8 per cent. compared with 1983; the failure rate of breath tests increased from 24 to 30 per cent., an increase of 25 per cent.; the failure rate among 16 to 19-year-olds increased by 23 per cent.; and 50 per cent. of all fatalities are in the 20 to 24 age group; casualties in accidents where at least one driver failed the breath test increased by 27 per cent. and casualties during drinking and driving hours—10 pm to 4 am—increased by 22 per cent. The number killed in that period is up by 13 per cent. even though the police conducted 21 per cent. fewer tests than the previous year due to the problems of the miners' strike.
§ Mrs. ChalkerThe whole problem is whether people will police themselves responsibly, as well as the enforcement by the police.
My hon. Friend has given a number of statistics. I shall not counter with others, but if he looks in "Road accidents Great Britain 1984" he will find the latest statistics.
Rather than bemusing the House with statistics at this time of the morning, we should remember that the number of road users killed in accidents where alcohol was a factor in 1984 was equivalent to over three jumbo planeloads of people. If three jumbo planeloads of people had been killed in the air, there would have been a public outcry, yet the public seem ready to stand back when so many people are killed, avoidably, on the roads. That is the point that we have to get home to people who may not like statistics as much as my hon. Friend.
The other thing that hits home particularly hard when one looks at what happened last year and other years—is that, of the 1,400 road users killed in those road accidents where alcohol was a factor, over 350 were innocent victims of drinking and driving. In other words, they were killed in an accident where one driver at least failed a breath test.
One road death in four last year occurred in accidents where one person had breath alcohol over the legal limit. The driver's impairment by alcohol is a major factor in about one tenth of all injury accidents. We know that it is related to the time of day and drinking. There is no question of that. We also know that the risk goes up the more alcohol is drunk. But, as my hon. Friend said, the point still remains that to have any impairment by alcohol of one's ability to drive means that there is a greater risk than necessary. It is at the point of 35 microgrammes of alcohol per hundred millilitres of breath that the risk of being involved in an accident increases sharply.
The point of a legal limit is to provide a guidance figure. As I said last year, and, as I have said every year in these campaigns while I have been in this job, it is perfectly true that if one's driving is impaired even with no alcohol in one's bloodstream, one is perfectly properly stopped by the police if they think that one's driving is so impaired. Therefore, it does not matter so much what the level is, except with those who drink so much to excess and are then so culpably negligent as to get behind the wheel of a vehicle or on to a motorbike or even a bicycle and who may cause the most terrible disasters perhaps to their own family, friends or workmates—and maiming and fatality are processes that can never be reversed.
With regard to high risk offenders, I know that the procedures that I introduced a couple of years ago to identify motorists with a possible drink problem are not thought sufficient in some quarters. I certainly believe that the concept of screening high risk offenders first—educating them and making them have medical treatment—is the right way to begin, but it is not a total solution. As we said in our response to the road safety report produced by the Select Committee on Transport, there may well be changes in the future. We shall at an early stage examine the threshold blood alcohol level and we shall then consider the case for extending the scheme to take in a wider category of offender. I think that that will go some way to meet the continuing concern about the very high risk levels and those just below.
My hon. Friend has referred to the campaign at Christmas last year. A full assessment of what happened over the Christmas period 1984 appears in "Road 517 Accidents Great Britain 1984." In brief, that assessment shows, that, compared with 1983, there was an increase in the number of drivers failing the roadside breath test and an increase in casualties during so-called drinking hours. I agree that the figures are disappointing but that was not simply because of the "stay low" message. As my hon. Friend knows, with as many thousand policemen on picket line duties as there were throughout the whole Christmas period last year, the campaign could not possibly have been enforced.
I am sure that the whole House will agree that nothing influences the public so much as the possibility of a flashing blue light. As those who have studied the campaign material this year will know, one poster has the heading "A sobering thought", a photograph of a police vehicle appearing in the rear driving mirror and a slogan at the bottom:
Think you can drink and drive—think again.Some people will always say that the campaign is no good, that it should have been stronger or weaker. We had a great deal of publicity about last year's campaign, probably even more because of the controversial slogan, but I wish now to concentrate on this year's campaign.
§ Mr. BestThe Government promised to take account of the evaluation of the "stay low" campaign before planning this year's campaign, but I understand that the evaluation was published after plans for this year's campaign were well under way.
§ Mrs. ChalkerThere is a problem in getting the statistics through fast enough and linking hospital statistics, conviction statistics and all the rest. Statistics covering the previous Christmas period cannot be published before November, but the knowledge that we were beginning to gather statistics, although it was not complete, was made available to the chiefs of police and myself when we started to plan this year's campaign. It would, however, have been wrong to publish that information, because, as my hon. Friend knows, interim results can be very much affected by later results, as some of the results this year have shown. There is no question of our not releasing figures for last year's campaign. The information that we need comes from a wide variety of sources and we must do the job properly. The final casualty data often come in as late as October.
There is absolutely no doubt that this year's drinking and driving publicity has had more planning than ever before. It has enabled me to do something that I have wanted to do since taking up my job more than three and a half years ago—to plan it in close consultation with the police. Unless we can enforce the campaign, I do not believe that we shall get people to police their own drinking and driving, and that is what we are after.
The police have every intention of enforcing the law firmly throughout the year. The campaign reminds drivers of the serious penalties they face on conviction, including automatic disqualification for at least a year, a fine of up to £2,000 and even the possibility of a prison sentence.
After only 10 days of the campaign, my initial impression is that the message is coming over well, helped by the strong support from local police campaigns and other local campaigns. It is much more the sort of campaign that I am happy to run to try to prevent people from injuring themselves and others.
518 I was asked why we did not consult users, local road safety officers and Alcohol Concern. I am well known for consulting as widely as time and opportunities allow, but publicity campaigns have to be kept private until the very last moment. My hon. Friend may recall—I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Snape) does—that in the road safety debate on 15 November, I declined to be drawn on this year's drink-driving campaign because I wanted the slogan "Think you can drink and drive—think again" to have the full force of the launch on 9 December.
If one consulted very widely, that impact would not be achieved, and it is necessary to have it to get off to a good start. But we listen carefully to all the outside views that are put to us, and we are well aware of the views of bodies such as Alcohol Concern and Mr. Don Steele.
The position with the police is different, and I know that my hon. Friend will understand. We have sought to take the views of local authorities informally, without revealing the publicity campaign during the planning period.
My hon. Friend's comments about the cost of drinking and driving and the cost of this campaign were relevant. The cost to the community is about £150 million, whereas the cost of this campaign is £1.4 million. Nevertheless, this campaign will roll on throughout the year and it will be reinforced during the light evenings in 1986, because we know from experience that there will then be an upsurge in the number of those convicted for drinking and driving.
My hon. Friend said that there must be stiff deterrents. I have already referred to the penalties available to magistrates. Magistrates make up their own minds, and it is not for me to tell them what to do, but I hope that they will not hesitate to hand out severe penalties where they are warranted. That applies to all periods of the year, not just to Christmas and the new year.
We shall look at the suggestion in the road traffic law review that driving licences should be confiscated immediately, but the effect would be to penalise a driver before trial—in other words, before any finding of guilt. I accept that the result of the breath test would be positive, but under present law that would be a real departure from the general principle of the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.
§ Mrs. ChalkerI am glad that my hon. Friend does not wish to see that, although that has been suggested as a stiffer penalty.
Of all the efforts that we are making with this year's campaign, I believe that it will be the physical presence of police cars—and the help that is being given from a large number of quarters such as the Brewers Society and many publicans themselves—that will make people more and more aware of what is happening, and why it is crazy to drink and drive. We have to keep the two activities apart.
The latter part of my hon. Friend's speech was about the sale of products that are said—I say that positively—to clear away alcohol from or reduce alcohol in the bloodstream.
§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)Would the hon. Lady like to comment on the current Daily Express campaign, which seems to be waged largely against her 519 personally, that this year the police are not enforcing the law but making it as they go along by insisting on random breath tests in various parts of the country? Secondly, would not a sensible alternative to drinking and driving be better public transport? Are not some of her Department's policies leading to worse public transport, particularly in the running of late night buses and trains?
§ Mrs. ChalkerI shall be dealing, at the end of my speech, with the campaigns that are being run by some newspapers.
Many efforts are being made, particularly on special nights during the Christmas period, by public transport authorities to run good public transport. But the message must still be within people's own minds that they cannot drink and drive and that they must think about what they are doing. If people think that they are going to have a few drinks, they should also think beforehand about how they will get home. If local authorities put on public transport, or private companies do so in the future, nobody will be more delighted than I.
There is a need for moderation in all things, and it is the responsibility of the individual, if he has to get home under his own steam, to ensure that he is capable of doing so. One can also be summoned for being a drunken pedestrian; one does not have to be in charge of a motor vehicle. The point about public transport is not lost on me. I am well aware of what the hon. Gentleman says. The campaign is intended to get people to think about their driving and their drinking separately. In that way there may be fewer people who are unable to get themselves home.
My hon. Friend spoke of the fructose-based drink which claims to reduce blood alcohol levels. While the rate at which alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream is affected by many factors—the type of drink, the rate at which it is consumed, whether the person has eaten before drinking, the person's weight, and so on—there is no evidence, as far as I am aware, that its elimination from the bloodstream can be artificially speeded up by any means whatever. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the research that he has done into this misnamed product and the claims that it is making. I shall be grateful if he will make available to my office any papers that he has.
As I said in the debate on 21 December last year, we need to look with some care at any products which could mislead the public into thinking that they could get protection by using them. I fear that this may not be the end of the story. Alkaway, thank goodness, went away last year. Perhaps Staylow will go very dead very quickly. It is a cruel deception, as my hon. Friend rightly said. I hope that anybody who sees the product will tell us where it is being marketed, because it would be helpful to see the extent of it. If production is limited to 500 dozen bottles, I hope that they will go down the drain quickly, because that is all they are worth.
§ Mrs. ChalkerIf it does, a drunken driver probably would not drink it anyway. We shall do all we can in my Department through all our links and the information of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn will help us.
I said that we would again consider the Highway Code, and we are doing so. This is a long and complicated job. It is even more important to get better education at an early age on drinking and driving. We shall use the Transport 520 and Road Research Laboratory's information to produce a factual leaflet. In the next phase of the drinking and driving campaign, we shall put greater emphasis on understanding the facts. That has been needed for some time. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn in his campaign to make people wiser.
As I said at the launch of the campaign and subsequently, there has been no change in the law on random breath testing. The police have a duty, if they see a defect, to stop the vehicle. If a policeman notes that the driver smells of alcohol and acts strangely, he is within his rights to ask the driver to take a breathalyser test. I speak for the chief constable of Sussex, the chairman of the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, when I say that there is no random breath testing and that no chief constable has authorised it.
§ Mrs. ChalkerI know that, and my point is that no one has authorised it.
The police campaign seeks to keep drivers safe on the road. If the police see a faulty mechanism on a car, they will often warn the driver to put it right. If, in so warning, the police come across a person who should not be at the wheel of the car, for obvious reasons, they must carry out the law as agreed by the House. That is what the police will be doing this Christmas and during the campaign on into the new year.
§ Mr. SnapeWhy is there an enormous discrepancy between the number of motorists breathalysed in a certain police area and the number of motorists breathalysed in an adjacent police area? The hon. Lady has made the point, which we all accept, that chief constables are not authorised to institute random breath testing in their area. She should say something about the Daily Express campaign, which is attempting to produce evidence that random breath testing is occurring, in certain parts of the country.
§ Mrs. ChalkerI have known many newspapers attempt to produce all sorts of campaigns.
§ Mrs. ChalkerThis is not a matter of party politics, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
Last year, police officers could not, because they had to police picket lines, enforce the law as they wished, so the fact that they are now enforcing the law properly has come as a surprise to people in certain parts of the country. I have no evidence that there is any variation between areas. I shall ask the chief constables about this.
At present, it is far better to have a campaign that is strictly enforced and warns people, and therefore may prevent loss of life in the future, than to go about this matter in the way in which some Opposition Members have. The Opposition seem to be divided in their opinion. We have asked for a tough campaign, and we have one, but it will be useful only if it is properly enforced. It can be properly enforced only if police officers are present to carry out the law. They are doing that, but that is not random breath testing. I shall take up the matter, but I can say no more than that.
The campaign spells out that a driver can be safe on the roads only if he or she does not drink and drive. As the campaign states, alongside a photograph of a driving licence and a glass of beer,
You can't hold on to both.521 That may seem a truism to some, but it is a sobering thought that we may lose many people this Christmas, and that if the drivers concerned had had more care for other road users they could have saved lives and injuries. I ask the House and everyone concerned to take home the message to everyone they meet that, if they have driven a car and they find that they cannot drive, or should not be driving, they should leave the car and collect it the next day, or arrange for someone else to drive. If someone thinks that he can drink and drive, he should think again.