§ 5. Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Transport what further proposals he has to deal with drink-drive offences.
§ Mr. MooreWe must go on working to change public attitudes so that drinking and driving comes to be seen by everyone as something that is simply wrong. I am heartened by the support that we are getting from outside bodies and the public.
§ Mr. DormandAs more than a thousand people are killed every year as a result of drinking and driving, when will the Government realise that publicity campaigns and existing penalties are simply inadequate to deter drivers from drinking? In addition to introducing heavier penalties, will the Secretary of State bring in measures that will substanitally increase the possibility of detection? Does he agree that such measures would represent improved deterrents?
§ Mr. MooreThe hon. Gentleman has long supported this issue and I respect his comments. We share the same commitment to reduce the awful slaughter that we witness. the question is how to do so.
The police and most of those who seek to enforce the law regard the key as being compliance with the existing law rather than additional and higher penalties. The road traffic law review is studying the matter and considering whether tougher penalties for drinking and driving would be effective. I would not deny for one moment the importance of publicity. Such publicity has helped to change attitudes, and such attitudes are critical when 95 per cent. of accidents in this country involve drinking and driving. I hope that I have the hon. Gentleman's support for such publicity as well as considering tougher penalties.
§ Mr. HickmetMy right hon. Friend will know that different chief constables instruct their forces to enforce the law more or less rigidly. Is he aware that it is not satisfactory for different chief constables to adopt different standards in different parts of the country? May I particularly draw his attention to the behaviour of the chief constable of Nottinghamshire over the Christmas period? It seems from press reports that he considered himself to be a law unto himself.
§ Mr. MooreI know that my hon. Friend will bring his remarks about particular chief constables to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I was addressing myself to the powers that the police have, as opposed to the enforcement that we would all seek. The police and the Government regard the powers as adequate, but we require compliance with the law and a change in people's attitudes towards that law.
§ Mr. BoyesDoes the Minister agree that as 100,000 people lose their licences every year through drinking and one quarter of all road deaths are drink-related. that means that there are 100,000 potential killers on the road each year? I agree with the Minister that we need to change attitudes, as the Under-Secretary said on 26 September, but the introduction of stiffer sentences and a reduction in the permitted blood-alcohol level would make a positive contribution to ending the drink-drive problem.
§ Mr. MooreWe all have the same attitude to the problem: the only question is how we can achieve success. I said to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) that the North review will examine whether we should tighten penalties, but the clear view of those who seek to enforce the law is that they have adequate powers. We need to ensure compliance with the law and a change in the attitudes of those who break the law.
§ Mr. Peter BruinvelsMy right hon. Friend and his Department, together with the Association of Chief Police Officers, are to be congratulated on a hard-hitting campaign, but does my right hon. Friend agree that too many drivers are still drinking? I notice from a written answer that 4,280 positive breath tests were taken during the Christmas period from 19 December 1986 to 1 January this year. Should not my right hon. Friend be encouraging the police to introduce random breath testing to ensure that people are not tempted to drink and then go out driving and kill someone?
§ Mr. MooreI readily respect and understand the: emotions that most of us bring to this subject, but I remind the House again that the police regard their existing powers as adequate. They have power to test if they have reasonable cause to suspect a motorist of driving, attempting to drive or having driven with alcohol in his body. They have powers to test if a moving traffic offence has been committed and if a driver has been involved in an accident. The police, who seek to enforce the law for us, regard those powers as adequate.
§ Mr. Robert HughesThere is undoubtedly unanimity in the House that we should have the strongest possible enforcement of the drink-driving laws in view of the tremendous damage caused by people who drink and drive, but do not drivers believe that they cannot be tested merely because drink can be smelt on their breath when they are stopped because, say, an indicator is not working? That view adds to the belief of a number of motorists that 677 they can get away with drinking and driving. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to examine more carefully the possibility of random testing?
§ Mr. MooreI said that we were reviewing the law, and obviously that is important. The hon. Gentleman is saying that people are not aware of the degree of testing that is currently available to the police. If possible, I shall seek to get that point across, because the Government are not arguing for random breath tests.