Road Traffic (Random Breath Testing)

HC Deb 22 January 1991 vol 184 cc169-75 3.41 pm

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1972 to provide for additional powers for the police to carry out random breath tests at the road side. My purpose this afternoon is to highlight the need for further action aimed at deterring the drinking driver, to draw attention to the need for additional police powers to breath-test drivers and to present the case for random breath testing within the prescribed context of a roadside checkpoint.

Public demand for action to reduce drinking and driving has never been greater. A survey by the Harris research centre last March revealed that drinking and driving was among the three offences which people rated as deserving priority attention by the police. That concern is borne out by the facts. Drink-drive deaths are more frequent than deaths arising from violent crime. Around 10 per cent. of all accidents are caused by drinking and driving. The most recent figures show that over 22,000 casualties result from alcohol-related accidents each year, and half of these will not have been drinking drivers but the innocent victims of the selfishness of drinking drivers. At an economic cost to the community of over £600 million, the cost is great. The human cost is impossible to calculate.

As we become increasingly aware of these grim facts and the terrible and unnecessary waste of life, of youth and of childhood our duty to identify and vigorously implement effective counter-measures becomes that much more pressing. While publicity programmes and appropriate penalties have a part to play, there is agreement worldwide that increasing driver perception of the risk of being caught is the real key to any successful programme aimed at reducing alcohol-related accidents.

The most recent figures show that around 500,000 breath tests are conducted each year. Surveys have shown that the chances of detection are quite low, ranging from one in 250 trips in some areas to one in 4,000 trips in others. Drivers' perception of the chances of being caught is also low. A recent study by the Government's transport and road research laboratory showed that 42 per cent. of people who admitted to drinking and driving believed that their chances of being stopped if over the limit were very small. Drivers will only believe the chances of being caught are high if they have evidence that those chances are high. That means being tested themselves, seeing others being tested, or hearing reports from friends or contacts that they have been tested recently. In any event, it means high-profile breath testing activity.

Caution must be exercised in interpreting the mixed results of the Christmas campaign, but it is clear that the police effort is visibly shifting from detection to deterrent. There must be a balance between the two. There is more awareness among the police that the function of the breath test is not merely to detect but to deter drinking and driving. That means more breath tests, fewer positive breath tests and more negative breath tests.

Many people believe that the current debate is not about the principle of carrying out more breath tests or stopping at random but about the best method of conducting more breath tests to achieve a reduction in road accidents. It is about the best methods of policing the best deterrent effect.

There is widespread opinion that the best way of achieving that is a highly visible police presence at roadside checkpoints, selecting a series of vehicles at random and carrying out breath tests on those passing through. Countries that have introduced that procedure believe that it has been most effective. In New South Wales, Australia, it has brought about a reduction of 35 per cent. in alcohol-related deaths and serious injuries, with cost savings to the health service of 20 times the cost of implementation. It is therefore a cost-effective method.

The police recognise the deterrent effect of those procedures. Mr. Peter Joslin, who is chairman of the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said in a recent address to a road safety conference: The New South Wales experience had demonstrated that a deterrent based enforcement system was far more effective in reducing drink drive fatalities than was the traditional enforcement model. Some argue that, more or less, that can be achieved under the present legislation, but it is clear that existing law is not well designed for deterrence. The current powers on random stopping and breath testing, following reasonable cause or suspicion, are more suitable to apprehension than deterrent. If used for high-profile breath testing at a roadside checkpoint, the procedure is a poor man's random breath testing.

Having first stopped a driver at random, the police officer must make up his mind, within the first minute of contact with the driver, whether he can justify requesting a breath test. Immediately there is potential for conflict between the police officer and the driver. That may contribute to a driver's suspicion, however misplaced, that he is being treated differently from the next man. It is a clumsy procedure and, although one or two police forces have proceeded valiantly with that approach, it is questionable whether all police officers would feel confident or comfortable using it widely. If we are to ask the police to do more, let us not ask them to use what many perceive to be a sideways approach.

The Bill does not go as far as providing unfettered discretion for the police to breath-test at any time, anywhere or in any place. It will provide for additional police power to conduct random breath tests at well signposted roadside checkpoints that have been authorised by a senior police officer. That will provide the element of deterrence, which is difficult to achieve under current procedures, and will allow the police to bring about a significant reduction in accidents. I cannot think of a better use of police time. Removal of police discretion will also remove the potential for conflict and ensure that even the most experienced drinker cannot rely on his driving performance to escape detection.

It necessarily follows, therefore, that random screening impinges numerically more on the innocent rather than on the guilty, but as the purpose of screening is to deter the guilty from committing the offence, it functions to safeguard the interests of the innocent majority. The principle is practised everywhere—in security checks in this House and baggage checks at airports. The need for random breath testing is well understood by the public and has received consistently high support. They appreciate that there will be a minor inconvenience.

In the past three years, six surveys of public opinion have resulted in more than 70 per cent. support for the introduction of random breath testing in Britain. Only last November, a poll carried out by NOP for the transport and road research laboratory and a further poll carried out by the Consumers Association, which was published in December, indicated 77 per cent. support. Some 3,000 out of 3,400 responses to the latest Government consultation on breath-testing powers argued for additional powers.

The list of organisations in support of random breath testing is long and impressive. It includes the Association of Police Surgeons, Action on Drinking and Driving, Alcohol Concern, the British Medical Association, the Consumers Association, the County Road Safety Officers Association, the Guild of Experienced Motorists, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—of which I am a member—and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Like the amendments to the Road Traffic Bill which will be discussed soon, my Bill will put deterrent policing on a proper footing. In so doing, it will allow a significant contribution to be made to reducing road accidents and casualties.

3.50 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Bottomley

Yes, Sir. I seek to oppose the Bill. I hope that, having heard my speech, the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) will not push the matter to a Division.

First, we all agree that we are dealing with a serious problem. Every year, 800 to 900 people die because a driver or motor cycle rider drives above the legal limit. That is a serious issue. I shall not draw a comparison with the present conflict in the Gulf, because the position is different there. Deaths on the road caused by alcohol are wholly unnecessary. There is agreement across the House on that issue.

The second question to be addressed is whether countries can learn from each other. The answer is that clearly each can. What happens in New South Wales matters. What happens in Sweden matters. I shall argue that what happens in Britain matters too. My third point is that the test is what works best in this country.

We should re-emphasise what a ghastlly business drink-related crashes are. Only when people understand how terrible such crashes are can they realise that what matters is not necessarily what is popular but what will work and will continue to work. By tradition, I quote the words of Auberon Waugh in The Spectator of 15 February 1986, in an article which affected me when I took over responsibility for a time for cutting road casualties. He wrote: Every day people lose husbands, wives, parents, children and friends they have loved, whose loss reduces every perspective to dullness, misery and pain. In many cases they carry the pain around with them for the rest of their lives. At moments like this one realises that under the surface of polite society there is a great well of sadness and bereavement, an aspect of the human condition which is as inescapable as it is seldom remarked, yet looming larger in many people's lives than any of the things they pretend to think important. That was written after the death of his sister. He continued: The only excuse for allowing my own howl of anguish to be heard is to give those as yet unbereaved a glimpse into the hellish blackness lying under the surface". Those words help to emphasise that we must consider whether the procedure offered by the hon. Gentleman is likely to be more effective than the present procedure.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in considering the comparison with New South Wales and the figures that he presented. It is an occasional habit in this country to say that, if something is invented here, it cannot be as good as what we can learn from research overseas. There is a British tradition of saying, "What shall we do?" and then asking, "I wonder whether it will achieve anything?" Instead, people should focus on what we want to achieve and how to do so.

In New South Wales, the proportion of dead drivers above the legal limit in the year before the introduction of random breath testing was 40 per cent. Within two years, with the help of the most enormous publicity campaign and intensive general policing, the figure was reduced from 40 per cent. to 33 per cent. That was a significant and welcome improvement.

The comparative figures for Great Britain from 1982 to 1984—the same years—show that we reduced our proportion of dead drivers above the legal limit from 33 per cent. to 26 per cent.

We have achieved a reduction by the same number of percentage points with no change in the law, no change in sentencing and no change in enforcement. I could argue that changes in the law or in enforcement could make a difference, but the figures show that what was claimed for New South Wales in the years bridging the introduction of random breath testing, happened here anyway.

We want a strategy that continues to reduce the avoidable deaths and anguish caused by drink driving. The figures tend not to be quoted. The figures in New South Wales show that, in 1984, 33 per cent. of dead drivers had alcohol levels above the legal limit, while in 1989, 33 per cent. of the drivers were above the legal limit.

In Great Britain, the figures for the last year a re provisional, the others are not. In 1984, 26 per cent. of our dead drivers were above the legal limit. The figure is now down to 19 per cent. We have had the same degree of improvement since 1984 as New South Wales had when it brought in random breath testing up to 1984.

I cannot use a range of statistics in this debate, because it is too short. Any objective observer commenting on what has worked most effectively would agree that we have seen the greatest improvement here whereas, sadly, in New South Wales, a lower plateau was reached in 1984 and the figure has not changed significantly since then.

The country often quoted when discussing drink driving and random breath testing is Sweden, where 40 per cent. of those caught above the legal limit have no licence. In this country, that figure is 20 per cent. Therefore, the level of habitual drink drivers—those who continue to drink and drive even after they have been disqualified—is running at twice the level in Sweden that it is here. That, together with other evidence—[Interruption.] There is no point in Opposition Members shaking their heads: those are the facts from Sweden.

The figures show that, if we want to find a strategy that reduces drink-driving among those who are most likely to do so heavily, we may do best to continue and increase what we are doing, rather than switch to a different system.

In the past seven years in this country, we have reduced heavy drink-driving by as much as we have reduced the lighter, but still objectionable, drink-driving. Our approach has been working all the way across the board, from the alcoholic, the habitual reoffender who is caught, to those who might be called the sick and social, who are still part of the problem.

I make two recommendations to the House. First, if we were ever to introduce random breath testing, we should not do it in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—by telling chief police officers precisely how to do part of their job—

Mr. David Bellotti (Eastbourne)

The law is confused, and chief constables want to know what they can do.

Mr. Bottomley

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) says that the police are confused, which shows why we should have a bigger debate rather than simply piling in about what appears to be fashionable.

At present, the police are not using their existing powers consistently across the country. In Merseyside, half the drivers stopped and tested are above the legal limit—clearly, there is not enough testing in Merseyside. We can make the same argument for parts of London. Police chiefs should decide that, unless it is impossible, drivers involved in traffic crashes—they are not accidents, but crashes—especially where injuries are involved, should have their breath or blood alcohol concentrations tested. That would detect and deter more people.

The argument against random breath testing is that it produces only one in four of the people who are caught in New South Wales or Sweden—three out of four are caught in targeted testing. Before people get carried away with the fashion, they should look at the figures, because the reduction in deaths matters more than anything else.

Some people can explain what it is like to receive a phone call in the middle of the night, rush to the hospital not knowing whether loved ones are still alive. They know what it is like to explain a death to younger siblings and children left behind, and what it is like to raise children, nurture them with love and care, and have them taken away before they have lived a full life. Such suffering demands that we do not go for fashion or partial research, but continue what we have been doing in this country—reduce our drink-driving rate to a lower level than in any other country where research has been done.

I ask the House to resist the ten-Minute Bill and join in continuing to tackle this immensely serious problem in ways that will continue to be effective.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 49.

Division No. 42]	[3.59 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Alton, David
Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)	Amos, Alan
Adley, Robert	Anderson, Donald
Allen, Graham	Armstrong, Hilary

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Barron, Kevin	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Battle, John	Kennedy, Charles
Beggs, Roy	Kilfedder, James
Beith, A. J.	Kirkwood, Archy
Bell, Stuart	Lamond, James
Bellotti, David	Lawrence, Ivan
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Lewis, Terry
Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn & R'dish)	Livingstone, Ken
Benton, Joseph	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Blair, Tony	Loyden, Eddie
Blunkett, David	McAllion, John
Boyes, Roland	McAvoy, Thomas
Caborn, Richard	Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	McKelvey, William
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	McMaster, Gordon
Cohen, Harry	McNamara, Kevin
Corbett, Robin	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Corbyn, Jeremy	Marek, Dr John
Cousins, Jim	Marland, Paul
Cryer, Bob	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dalyell, Tam	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Darling, Alistair	Martlew, Eric
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Maxton, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Day, Stephen	Michael, Alun
Dewar, Donald	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Dixon, Don	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Doran, Frank	Morgan, Rhodri
Douglas, Dick	Morley, Elliot
Dover, Den	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Dunn, Bob	Mowlam, Marjorie
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Mudd, David
Dun woody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Mullin, Chris
Dykes, Hugh	Murphy, Paul
Eadie, Alexander	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Eastham, Ken	O'Neill, Martin
Fatchett, Derek	Pawsey, James
Faulds, Andrew	Pike, Peter L.
Fearn, Ronald	Prescott, John
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Primarolo, Dawn
Fisher, Mark	Quin, Ms Joyce
Flynn, Paul	Radice, Giles
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Redmond, Martin
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Foster, Derek	Richardson, Jo
Foulkes, George	Robertson, George
Fyfe, Maria	Rooker, Jeff
Galloway, George	Rooney, Terence
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)	Ruddock, Joan
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Salmond, Alex
Golding, Mrs Llin	Sedgemore, Brian
Gordon, Mildred	Sheerman, Barry
Graham, Thomas	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal	Short, Clare
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Sillars, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Grocott, Bruce	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Hardy, Peter	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Harman, Ms Harriet	Snape, Peter
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Spearing, Nigel
Haynes, Frank	Steinberg, Gerry
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Straw, Jack
Henderson, Doug	Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Hinchliffe, David	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Hood, Jimmy	Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Hordern, Sir Peter	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Howells, Geraint	Walley, Joan
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)	Wareing, Robert N.
Hoyle, Doug	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Wigley, Dafydd
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Winnick, David
Illsley, Eric	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Ingram, Adam	Wolfson, Mark

Worthington, Tony	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wray, Jimmy	Mr. Ian McCartney and
Young, David (Bolton SE)	Mr. George J. Buckley.
NOES
Alexander, Richard	Hunter, Andrew
Ashton, Joe	Janman, Tim
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Miller, Sir Hal
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Mitchell, Sir David
Bottomley, Peter	Nelson, Anthony
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Patchett, Terry
Canavan, Dennis	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir W. (Croydon S)	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
	Skinner, Dennis
Colvin, Michael	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Conway, Derek	Speed, Keith
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Steen, Anthony
Crowther, Stan	Summerson, Hugo
Dickens, Geoffrey	Waller, Gary
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Wells, Bowen
French, Douglas	Wheeler, Sir John
Fry, Peter	Whitney, Ray
Gale, Roger	Wilkinson, John
Gardiner, Sir George
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan	Tellers for the Noes:
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Mr. Colin Shepherd and
Grylls, Michael	Mr. Peter Thurnham.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Stephen Day, Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Michael Martin, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. David Bellotti and Mr. Terry Lewis.

c175
1. ROAD TRAFFIC (RANDOM BREATH TESTING) 259 words