Road Safety Bill [Lords] |
|
Dr. Ladyman: I do not have any information to hand on that particular issue. To be fair, successive Governments and police forces have made strenuous efforts over the years to remind drivers that they might think that they are sober when they wake up in the morning but if they have had a real skinful the night before often they might still be over the limit, although they might not still be feeling all the effects. I have no information as to whether such situations are occurring increasingly, but I will look into it, to see what I can find out. The clause simply closes a loophole where certain people who were convicted of drink-driving were able to retain their licences before the Secretary of State had made the determination that they were fit to get their licence back. It was never the intention of the Road Traffic Act 1988 that they should be able to do that. It was simply a loophole created by a drafting error, which the clause fixes. Question put and agreed to. Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 Period of endorsement for failure to allow specimen to be tested Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 1—Alcohol—prescribed limits—
New clause 2—Breath testing— Column Number: 124
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Thank you, Mrs. Anderson. It is a pleasure to be serving on a Committee so ably chaired by yourself and Sir Nicholas. I thank you both for selecting new clauses 1 and 2 with this stand part debate in order for such an important subject to be properly and fully debated in Committee. On drink-driving, it is worth pointing out that other measures in the Bill are welcome: increased use of retraining courses; mandatory retesting of drivers disqualified for 24 months or more; and, as we have just heard, the closure of the loophole regarding high-risk offenders driving again before they have been medically assessed as safe to do so. Column Number: 125 It is also worth remembering that in the Road Safety Bill that did not make it on to the statute book last year was a measure that subsequently found a home in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005: the ability for the police to carry out evidential road-side breath testing so that they need not take people back to police stations to ascertain that they are definitely over the limit and committing an offence. All those things are welcome, but new clauses 1 and 2 suggest that the Bill does not go far enough in tackling drink-driving. It is worth at the outset assessing the scale of the problem. Is there a problem that we, as politicians, should be tackling? I suggest that there is. In 2004, 590 people were killed on our roads because of someone drinking and driving. That figure is almost 20 per cent.—it is exactly 18 per cent.—of all that year’s road fatalities. Some of those people were drink-driving, and they crashed and killed themselves. In that sense, they brought it on themselves, but some took with them their passengers or completely innocent people in other vehicles who did not know that a drink-driver was approaching. Some of the drink-drivers survived their crash and just left other families to pick up the consequences of family bereavements. Any of us who have met the relatives of someone who has been killed on the road knows how deeply distressing it is for grieving families. Mr. Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that he is talking about drivers who are already in breach of our law and are therefore committing an existing offence and will lose their licence for at least 12 months? Mr. Kidney: Yes, these are people who are over the present limit. I am happy to make that clarification for the right hon. Gentleman. As I said, in 2004, 590 people were killed on our roads. If that figure is multiplied by 20, it still does not come to the total who were injured due to people driving while over the legal drink-drive limit: in 2003, 15,000 people were injured; in 2004, 17,000 people were injured. Therefore, although the Government are making good progress to meet the targets in the 2000 road safety strategy, “Tomorrow’s Roads—Safer for Everyone”, which by 2010 are to
drink-driving fatalities are a stubborn exception to the overall downward trend. Since 1998, the number of deaths caused by drink-driving has stopped falling. In fact, it is going in the opposite direction. The figure of 590 is a rise from the year before, which was a rise from the year before that. There is evidence, therefore, that the situation is getting worse instead of better, and that is why there is a need for action. What can be done, and what does new clause 1 seek to do? The present drink-driving limit was set in section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the following information can be found on page 19 of House of Commons research paper— Column Number: 126 Mr. Bellingham: Before the hon. Gentleman goes into technical detail and talks about millilitres per whatever, will he consider this more general point? About 20 years ago, many people exerted a great deal of pressure to make it clear to young drivers that drinking and driving is extremely serious and antisocial. In recent years, that peer pressure seems to have become less intense. Do a small minority of drivers believe that they can get away with drinking and driving? Can the hon. Gentleman explain that worrying trend? Mr. Kidney: I agree that over the past couple of decades, this country has achieved dramatic success in making it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. In fact, on any normal day, if we were to test everyone on the roads, we would find that 97 per cent. of drivers would have a blood-alcohol level of either zero or fewer than 50 mg per 100 ml of blood. Our campaigns have been successful, but the hon. Gentleman is right, a worrying trend has developed recently, and some people—often younger people—are driving with more alcohol in their blood. The trend among younger people is perhaps because the pressure to make drink-driving socially unacceptable was not sustained and younger drivers do not understand how unacceptable it is. There are, however, other pressures. The hon. Member for North Shropshire referred to the Licensing Act 2003, and we must consider also trends in the licensing trade, such as the strength of drinks and the size of glasses. Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has just said that 97 per cent. of people on the roads are found to be driving with no alcohol in their blood— Mr. Kidney: Or fewer than 50 mg per 100 ml. Stephen Hammond: That probably exemplifies the problem. The police superintendent with whom I did a tour of duty for one afternoon last year told me that the problem with drink-driving is not the people just under the limit, or even the need to lower the limits. The problem—and the reason why deaths are increasing—is the number of people who are continually, persistently a long way over the limit. I am interested to hear where the hon. Gentleman is going to lead us, but I am not sure that his proposal will attack that problem. Mr. Kidney: I will happily deal with that in a moment, because I want to persuade the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench team and my own Front Benchers that, although it is important to tackle the 1 per cent. of drivers who are always massively over the limit—the answer to that is of course increased detection and punishment and taking them off the roads, with which new clause 2 would help—I am at the moment concerned with the other 2 per cent. who, as the hon. Gentleman said, are somewhere near the legal limit. Those are the people who are causing some of the 590 deaths a year and whom new clause 1 would tackle. Column Number: 127 Stephen Hammond: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s first point. My party wants to be much tougher on serial drink-driving offenders, and I hope that he will support our later amendments to that effect. Mr. Kidney: We will look at that when we get to it. I was just setting out the present legal limit: 35 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of breath; 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood; or 107 mg in 100 ml of urine. Obviously, they are all intended to be roughly the same limit, but the one on which I shall concentrate, so that I can consistently refer to the same thing, is the limit of 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. The new clause would reduce those limits. For our roads, I say that the limit should be 50 mg instead of 80 mg. What does that mean to motorists? Some bodies—I may pick out the British Medical Association, alcohol awareness charities such as Alcohol Concern, and the industry-funded Portman Group—point out that modern developments in the licensing trade have undermined some comfortable assumptions that were often made in the past. They were assumptions, of which we were all guilty, about how much it is safe to drink while still being able to get into a car and drive without breaking the law. I remember that in my youth we all used to think that we were safely under the limit after two pints of bitter. However, stronger alcohol concentrations have developed, not just in beers and wines but in the whole range of drinks. People’s assumptions about how much they have consumed, and how safe it is to drive, have been undermined by larger measures, such as the larger wine glasses in some pubs and wine bars these days, and by subtle developments such as alcopops, which people thought were non-alcoholic, but which in fact contain some alcohol. Those considerations are important in assessing a safe level of drinking for people getting behind a driving wheel today. I think that I am right in saying that it is still the Minister’s official position that it is best for a vehicle driver not to drink at all. The law says something different in its tolerance of what we can consume. The practical situation in the bar room has changed, however, and drivers ought to be more cautious about how much they drink. I want to address the safety issue in a different way and consider the effect of alcohol on competence to drive a vehicle. Between 50 mg and 80 mg, the average driver is about two to two and a half times more likely to be involved in a road crash. That is because of the effect of alcohol on their judgment and reactions, and their ability to react to situations in front of them. For young and inexperienced drivers the risk is as much as five times greater. That is why in 1998 the Government said in a consultation paper called “Combating Drink Driving: the Next Steps” that they were minded to lower the alcohol limits for drinking and driving. In the White Paper on transport in 2000, the Government said that the reduction would be made in the European context, and everybody awaited the pronouncement of the European Union Commission with baited breath. In fact, the Commission’s pronouncement in 2001 was slightly disappointing. It
As a result, most states followed the recommendation and adopted a lower limit of 50 mg. Not all of them did. One country among the present 25 EU member states has a higher level than Britain—Cyprus, which has a limit of 90 mg. Two others have stuck with us at 80 mg—Luxembourg and Ireland. A few went past the 50 mg. Sweden, Poland and Estonia have limits of 20 mg. Some have gone the whole hog and have said that the limit should be zero. They include the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. Members may be relieved to hear that I do not think that we should set the limit at zero. There are situations in which we naturally produce some alcohol in our blood, perhaps as a result of a medical condition or a treatment that we are undergoing. 1.45 pmDr. Ladyman: I think that it is appropriate to point out that when the Commission reviewed the levels across Europe, it also pointed out that the UK was one of the two best performing countries on blood alcohol and driving, alongside Sweden. Our higher limit is not preventing us from having good performance. Mr. Kidney: I think that the number of deaths when the Commission expressed those views, using the figure for 1999, was about 520 a year. I am reminding the Minister and the Committee that in 2004, there were 590 deaths. If we were to go back to the Commission and ask it how it thinks we are performing today, it might gently suggest that we should look again at its recommendation of a lower limit. Dr. Ladyman: What my hon. Friend says is true, but the number of serious injuries related to drink has gone down in the same period. Mr. Kidney: I do not deny that, but the statistics that I gave include serious injuries caused by drinking and driving on British roads. In 2003, there were 17,000 serious injuries, and in 2004 there were 19,000. I do not know whether the Minister is disagreeing with me, but I am saying that an alarm bell is ringing. If we ignore the issue, it will be very sad both for us and for the people who will die on the roads in accidents that, if we had acted, we could have averted. After having said that they were minded to lower the limit and that they would do so in the European context, the Government walked away from that decision in 2002. They announced that the limit would stay as it was and that they would rely on existing enforcement and penalties to crack down on drink-driving. I hesitate to say that, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire reminded us in our last sitting, since 2002 the number of road traffic police to enforce the drink-driving laws has fallen. I question whether the Government have done the things that they said they would do instead of reducing the limit, which is one
In terms of public confidence, now is a good time to make the proposed change because of people’s concern, driven by the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, about binge drinking and its consequences. The Minister referred to people who drink later at night, wake up the next morning and get in the car when they are still above the legal limit. People are concerned about such issues. Lowering the limit now would be a good antidote to people’s concerns about the 2003 Act. I know that people will be worried that fewer customers would drive to rural pubs if the limit were lowered. I think that that is wrong. Pubs are widening the range of services that they offer to attract a wider clientele. There are meals, coffees and non-alcoholic drinks instead of alcohol, and there are some very good schemes about nominated drivers that we should all do our utmost to support. We can make a success of lowering the legal limit without harming people’s businesses. I shall move on to some arguments that the Minister might rehearse when he responds to the debate. If lowering the alcohol limit is not the best way to lower the death toll from drinking and driving, what is? That has not been done through more road policing, because the number of traffic police has fallen. I welcome, as I did on Second Reading, the road policing commitment that the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers signed in January 2005. It would be nice to see that commitment backed more firmly across government and by police forces. The problem has certainly not been addressed with more roadside breath tests. I shall come to that point in more detail when we discuss new clause 2, which I think the Government also oppose. We carry out fewer breath tests than most European police services. We require a balanced package of additional measures, because the number of deaths is going in the wrong direction. Lowering the limit is just one among the package of measures needed. How many lives would that measure alone save? There is regular research that is constantly updated, and in the House of Commons research paper, the most common quoted figures suggest that 50 fatalities, 250 serious injuries and 1,200 slight injuries per year would be avoided. I want to mention the work of Professor Richard Allsop of University college London, who updated his own calculation last year and came to a slightly higher figure, saying that 65 lives a year could be saved if we lowered the limit. Again, we are talking about people who drive somewhere near—just below or above—the current legal limit of 80 mg. Professor Allsop makes an assumption about how many of those people would adjust their behaviour because the law had changed and obey the new rule. That is how he came to the figure of 65 lives a year saved as a result of this one measure. Column Number: 130 The supporters of the proposal are many and wide ranging. I should like to mention PACTS—the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—and, in doing so, declare an interest. I chaired PACTS for six years, until last year, and this year I remain a member, although I am no longer an officer. PACTS strongly supports this measure, as does the BMA, for an obvious reason. Doctors see the results of drink-driving in their surgeries and accident and emergency departments; they provide the treatment to try to save lives, and they strongly support lowering the limit. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents also supports this measure. In a press release on 11 January, it urged the Government to ditch the current drink-drive limit in favour of a lower one, because too many motorists think that it is safe to try to drink up to what is clearly not a safe limit. That document contains a quote from Kevin Clinton, ROSPA’s head of road safety, in the context of releasing figures for Christmas and new year breath tests by police forces:
ROSPA is a strong supporter. I contacted the Association of Chief Police Officers about today’s debate and asked for its view. Hugh Alford e-mailed me:
Other supporters include the charity and pressure group, Brake—although it wants a lower limit of 20 mg, so I disappoint it by arguing for 50 mg—the Safer Streets Coalition, a coalition of many organisations with a keen interest in road safety, and AA members. Having put my arguments why we ought to consider making that reduction, I want to deal new clause 2 and with a question about increasing the ability of the police to test people who are driving for the level of alcohol in their blood. The current law is that a police constable can stop any vehicle at any time for any reason, but not specifically for the purpose of administering a breath test. A landmark case said that if the police officer stopped a vehicle for one reason and, in conversation with the driver, smelled alcohol and suspected that they were breaking the law, that was a good enough reason to administer the test. The usual three grounds on which a police officer can ask for a test are as follows: first, reasonable cause to suspect alcohol in a driver’s body; secondly, the commission of a moving traffic offence; and thirdly, the driver having been involved in a crash. The current testing levels in the UK are among the lowest in the European Union. Again, the House of Commons research paper sets out the statistics.
I suggest an intermediate position between the existing law, which is very restrictive, as I have explained, and random testing, which is too broad. That intermediate position is called targeted testing. The police would be able to test in an area or on a particular road if they had reasonable cause to suspect that it was a place where a lot of drink-driving was going on. I suggest that such reasonable cause would usually arise from intelligence received by the police; for example, it might be known that a local pub was staying open late into the night and that the same people seemed to be there for long periods. That would allow the police to set up a testing place on the road and to test lots of people. New clause 2 also proposes safeguards. The police would be able to exercise that right only if they had information that proved that they had reasonable cause, and it would last only for a short period. This measure, which could be used to address the rising tide of fatalities from drink-driving, also appeared in a Government document of 1998, “Combating drink-driving—next steps”, and it has been drafted similarly to the police stop-and-search power in the Knives Act 1997. There are some welcome measures in the Bill, and I wish to add two more to make a balanced approach to tackling what is a serious problem. Some of the measures I propose will hit more on one group than another, but taken as a whole, we should be able to hit on all the groups in this country that are likely to drink and drive. To those who say that some people completely ignore the limit and drink miles more alcohol than is safe and legal and that they are the ones on whom we should concentrate, I say that I listen to Professor Allsop. In a news release last year, he brought his evidence up to date in respect of the 65 lives a year that we could save. In response to a similar point, he said that when he received advice on making his home safe against crime, he was told that he should put window locks on the windows and extra locks on the door, and that he did not ignore the advice about window locks because fewer people could get through the window than through the door. Instead, he thought it was sensible to put both sets of locks on so that nobody got into his house by either means. The situation is the same in respect of new clause 1 and new clause 2. They are both necessary—not just one or the other. That is why I wanted to have this debate. Column Number: 132 |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 24 March 2006 |