§ 3.0 p.m.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to achieve a higher standard of accuracy in breath-testing devices, in view of the false positive indications recorded in 8 out of 33 cases during the recent tests at the Home Office Central Research Establishment, Aldermaston.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)My Lords, breath-testing devices are not precisely accurate analytical instruments, and will be used only for preliminary checks. There is also the safeguard that an arrested driver must be offered a breath test at the police station in addition to the roadside test. The 8 false positive results obtained during testing of the device which has been approved comprised one in the range 50–60 milligrams per 100 millilitres, one in the range 60–70, and six in the range 70–80. My right honourable friend considers that these are tolerable results for the purposes to be served by the devices.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer to my Question. May I ask him whether he realises that this will not give much comfort, as the consequences of a positive test are that the driver concerned is arrested and taken to the police 286 station for a further breath test? Is the noble Lord aware that such a high percentage of failure as this, resulting in innocent men being treated in this way, would, as he himself said on Second Reading, be intolerable?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, my right honourable friend fully appreciates the points which the noble Lord has made, but the figures I quoted did not tell the whole story. At the time the 33 results were taken from people with a breath alcohol content of less than 80 mg per 100 ml, tests were taken of 44 other persons with a breath alcohol count of over 80, and in each of those 44 cases the test proved accurate. So, taken as a whole, eight false positive results out of 77 cases shows an error of about 10 per cent., which was the error I mentioned during the passage of the Bill. Precisely the same results were obtained in Austria and Germany.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, does the noble Lord think it is possible that the reading of these devices in the lower ranges may be less accurate than in the higher ranges? Would he ask his right honourable friend to have further investigations done on this particular point, to ensure that a higher degree of accuracy is obtained in the lower ranges? This is a most important point from the point of view of innocent drivers.
§ LORD STONHAMI agree with the noble Lord that this is an important point, but I have no reason to believe that the breathalyser is less accurate in the lower ranges than in the higher ranges, although the consequences are more severe. Of the 1,000 cases tested in Austria where false negative results were given, I understand that 8 per cent. were in cases where the blood alcohol level was above 80 mg per 100 ml and only 2 per cent. where it was below the 80 mg mark.
With regard to further investigations of this matter, the approved device, as the noble Lord is aware, is the "Alcotest". Four other devices have been submitted, not one of which has been found to satisfy the conditions so far of the 1967 Act. Certainly, if better devices are submitted and found on test to be more accurate, then they will be approved and undoubtedly adopted.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his evident care in this important matter? Is he aware that this is something we shall necessarily watch very closely, because it would be intolerable if many innocent people were arrested and taken to a police station?
§ LORD STONHAMYes, my Lords; but I would make two points. One is that obviously if a breath test is taken at a police station, as it must be after the breath test on the spot, and it shows a slight degree less than 80 mg., that does not mean that the breathalyser has been wrong. The second and more important point is that while it is right that people with a breath alcohol content of less than 80 mg. should not have to suffer this inconvenience, it is infinitely more serious if millions of people on the roads are subjected to injury to their lives or bodies.