BREATHALYSER TESTS (Hansard, 11 December 1967)

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, during the period October 9 to October 31, the police in England and Wales required breath tests under Section 2 of the Road Safety Act 1967 in 2,724 cases. In 811 cases the person concerned was suspected of having been driving or attempting to drive at the time a vehicle was involved in an accident; in 1,049 of having committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion; and in 864 of having alcohol in his body. These categories are not mutually exclusive, however. Thus, chief officers of police believe that nearly all the drivers recorded as having been required to take the test because of a moving traffic offence were also suspected of having been drinking.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information, which is interesting and worthy of study. It seems to me, on first impression, to indicate that the police have been operating this rather strict law with their usual discretion.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether all the 2,724 cases were cases where people were suspected of committing a moving traffic offence?—for cases are being brought to my notice where people are being subjected to a breathalyser test where it would not seem possible that they could have been guilty of a moving traffic offence.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, when the noble and learned Viscount again studies the figures I gave he will see that, 857 of the 2,724 cases, 1,860 concerned people who were pulled up because of a moving traffic offence and 864 because they were suspected of having alcohol in the body. There is no evidence whatever that the police have been conducting what some people describe as random tests for alcohol.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I will give the noble Lord notice of a case of that sort that has been brought to my attention.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, during the period October 9 to October 31 the police in England and Wales required breath tests under Section 2 of the Road Safety Act 1967 in 2,724 cases. In 927 of these the driver was required to provide a blood or urine specimen for a laboratory test. Of 729 blood specimens analysed, the forensic science laboratories reported 157 as being below the prescribed limit. Of 96 urine specimens analysed, 11 were reported as below the equivalent level.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that information, and ask him whether he does not think that 157 out of 927 is a rather high proportion of breathalyser tests which showed a positive reaction yet on blood test or urine test showed that the accused person was innocent?

§ LORD STONHAM
No, my Lords, I do not agree. There always must be a time lag between a person's taking a breath test which shows a content above the level and his then going to a police station, taking a second breath test, having a doctor summoned and having 858 a blood test sample taken. During the passage of an hour there can be a fall of from 10 to 20 mgs. of alcohol content per 100 mls. of the blood. Then, when the samples of capillary blood are taken there is the chance of some evaporation. Containers may not be firmly fixed down, and there may be some further evaporation. And finally, with the extremely accurate tests taken at the laboratory—several are taken and the results averaged—in cases where the blood content is less than 100 mgs. per 100 mls., 6 mgs. are deducted, which is three times the normal margin of error, and where it is over 100 mgs. per 100 mls. 6 per cent. is deducted. So there is a great bias in favour of the person who is being tested. Indeed, after the second test, when it still shows evidence of being above the equivalent level, there is in many cases no prosecution by the police.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that further information and ask him whether he is aware that I feel somewhat reassured by the machinery and the margin of 6 per cent. or 6 mg. which is allowed? But in view of the very unpleasant experience involved to a motorist, man or woman, who is arrested after an adverse breathalyser test and taken by the policeman to the police station, where he is kept for some time while his blood test is being taken, does not the noble Lord think that the breathalyser testing should be set at a greater margin of tolerance, in order to ensure that not such a high proportion as 1 in 6 of those taken should be incorrect?

§ LORD STONHAM
No, my Lords. I do not agree that the amount of tolerance allowed is not sufficient. And, however shocking it may be to a person to be stopped, and then, as a result of a test showing alcohol content above the prescribed level, be taken to a police station for a sample of blood, it is even more of a shock to be knocked down by a drunken motorist. I would remind the noble Lord that the figures for the Metropolitan Police District show that there was a reduction of 1 in 8 in the number of accidents in October, and a reduction in accidents occurring between ten o'clock at night to one in the morning of more than 2 in 5. In Birmingham 859 the drop is even more marked. I would ask noble Lords to consider that because of breath tests there are hundreds of people walking about unscathed who otherwise would be lying in hospital or in their graves.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am entirely with him, as is everybody else, in wishing to see a reduction in the number of accidents? But is he aware, also, that the period has been far too short to reach conclusions of the kind that he has just been putting to the House? Is he aware, further, that while we all wish to see a reduction in the number of accidents, we also wish to see that basic justice is maintained?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, the noble Lord's desire for basic justice is no more than that of my right honourable friend, my Department and everybody in the Government. It is with the element of justice in mind that these tests have been introduced. They have been debated in this House, and the noble Lord is aware that I have gone to the greatest extent in my power to give him the maximum amount of information. I do not think anyone can say that the police are not exercising this power with the greatest discretion, or that, when a driver has to be taken to the police station, there is not a very considerable bias—indeed every bias—in his favour, so that in no case is action taken unless there are strong grounds for believing that action is necessary.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, is there not a simple answer to this; namely, that one should not drive if one has been drinking?

§ LORD STONHAM
Yes, my Lords, and that is what a great many people have voluntarily been doing, because in the opinion of chief officers of police there is a substantial reduction in the numbers of people driving at night.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that, in view of the considerable decrease in the numbers of deaths on the road, most people regard the inconvenience to the few individuals, such as has been described to us to-day, as of little importance, in view of the great benefit the breathalyser has given to the country?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I believe that what my noble friend has said represents the general opinion of the public.