Drinking and Driving (Hansard, 20 June 1990)

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, we have just launched the summer phase of our year-round publicity campaign against drinking and driving. The involvement of brewers and other private bodies is a continuing feature of the campaign. Earlier this month we extended the high risk offenders scheme for drivers whose alcohol dependency presents a road safety risk. More offenders will now need to prove that they are medically fit to drive before their licences are returned. We also aim to introduce at the earliest opportunity the law reforms outlined in our White Paper The Road User and the Law.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, I appreciate what the Government are doing about this serious problem. However, is the noble Viscount aware that there will only be a significant reduction in the number of deaths and injuries caused by drink-driving with the introduction of random breath testing at specially authorised and sign-posted checkpoints? Such a form of random testing should not trouble the sensibilities of those people who think that civil liberties are threatened. Is he further aware that if 1,000 people were killed in air crashes every year, as there are with drink-driving, there would be uproar and that very soon solutions would be found?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I fully appreciate the feelings of the noble Lord. He has raised this matter before over the past year. It is estimated that the number of people killed in drink related accidents last year was below 900 compared with over 1,100 two years ago. Considered in the light of the increase in traffic, that shows the success of the continuing campaign against driving and drinking. As to random testing, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently announced the Government's view that present police powers are wide enough and strike the right balance between effective enforcement of the law and freedom of the individual.

The Viscount of Falkland
My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that at the moment those who re-offend during a 10-year period after being convicted of driving while two and a half times over the limit have to present themselves to a doctor before they can reapply for a licence? If that is the 918 case, is he satisfied —I mean no disrespect to doctors in your Lordships' House—that doctors are the right people to see the offender rather than a specialised alcohol centre? Does he not think it desirable that people should be assessed after one offence of being two and a half times over the limit?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I do not think I can give an opinion as to whether doctors are the right people to carry out an assessment. I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my right honourable friend. As from 1st June this year, on the recommendation of the Blennerhassett Committee, regulations came into force so that those drivers who are disqualified once for driving while two and a half times or more over the legal limit are included in the categories of those disqualified twice within a 10-year period for any drink-driving offences and those disqualified for failing without reasonable cause to supply a specimen for analysis. Those drivers will have to pay the full cost of renewing a licence as well as the cost of the medical examination. The regulations came into force on 1st June.

§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that prevention is better than cure? On that basis have the Government considered taking steps to see that advertisements in relation to drink should not be so attractive as they are, particularly to the young?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, the Government are spending £2 million in the current year on advertising the dangers of drinking and driving. Paid advertising is not the only way to capture attention. The same audience can be reached by other publicity. The media have a key role to play in getting messages across, for example, through feature articles and programmes. That is taking place at the moment.

§ The Earl of Kimberley
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people are very pleased that his right honourable friend has announced that there will not be random breath tests? Does he agree that there is enough trouble regarding public relations between the police and public without exacerbating the issue?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, but I must point out that it is lawful for the police to stop vehicles at random for the purpose of investigating whether or not a driver has alcohol in his body. The police are making full use of their powers. Over half a million tests were conducted in 1989.

§ Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove
My Lords, there is also the argument that if the police conducted random breath tests at controlled centres, the public would probably appreciate the job that they were doing. I congratulate the Government on the work that they are doing; it is a continuous and difficult job. Will the Government give serious consideration to the European limit? In most other countries in Europe it is below our limit. I believe that the Commission wishes us to set a limit below the 35 millimetre level.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, the European Commission tabled a proposal to harmonise maximum blood alcohol levels of 0.5 milligrams per millilitre. However, the proposal was shelved at the Council meeting in December 1989 since there was no majority support for the Community's competence to legislate in the area.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it appears to be becoming easier for pubs to obtain planning permission to extend car parks and for new pubs to build bigger car parks? Is that in the best interests of the country?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I do not believe that that will have the opposite effect to what the brewers are trying to achieve. The Government are delighted that the Brewers' Society is relaunching its Wheelwatch scheme. We know that it will do its best to encourage landlords to take responsibility for their clientele.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, will the Minister accept that I knew the figures he gave me about the reduction and I welcomed them? Unusually for me I said that I appreciated what the Government were doing. However, I say in all seriousness that the fact that 950 people were killed on the roads through drink-driving last year is an utter disgrace. Does the Minister agree that we have to achieve a balance between deterrence and detection? The random testing that I have described —which was different from that described by his noble friend; there seems a misunderstanding on that —is being carried out successfully in other countries. Why do the Government not try it on an experimental basis?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord says. I can go no further than that. However, I agree, as I am sure all noble Lords agree, that one death caused by driving and drinking is one too many.