Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 42:"Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause—"    ““DRIVING OR BEING IN CHARGE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT (1)   The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52 ) is amended as follows. (2)   For section 5 substitute—    ““5 DRIVING OR BEING IN CHARGE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. (1)   If a person— (a)   drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or (b)   is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit as defined under subsection (2) he is guilty of an offence. (2)   The ““prescribed limit”” means, as the case may require— (a)   22 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, (b)   50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, or (c)   67 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine. (3)   The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (2). (4)   It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection 1(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the precribed limit. (5)   The court may, in determining whether there was any likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (4) above disregard any injury to him or any damage to the vehicle.”” (3)   In section 8(2) for ““50”” substitute ““35””. (4)   In section 11(2)— (a)   for ““35”” substitute ““22”” (b)   for ““80”” substitute ““50””, and (c)   for ““107”” substitute ““67””.”” The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 42 seeks to introduce a lower drink-drive limit, while Amendments Nos. 44 and 43 support targeted breath testing and random breath testing respectively. Amendment No. 42 would lower the alcohol content for drinking and driving from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. The current alcohol limit is 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, or approximately four units, depending on factors such as age, sex and body weight. However, alcohol can impair driving at levels much lower than that. Ideally, drivers should not have any alcohol in their bloodstream at all. A lower limit would help reinforce the message of ““none for the road””. In 1997, a study commissioned by the Government indicated that a lower drink-drive limit could prevent 50 fatalities per year. Earlier this year, a study by University College London revisited these figures and estimated that 65 lives could be saved per year through a lower limit. The current blood alcohol limit is among the highest in Europe. Only Ireland and the United Kingdom retain a limit of 80; in the majority of other countries, the limit is 50. In several other European countries, the limit has been lowered to 20, or even zero. A recent Home Office survey indicated that a majority of drivers would support a lower limit, with 62 per cent in favour. Action is of course necessary to deal with drivers who are well over the limit as well as those who currently drive with a BAC of between 50   and 80. However, as a spokesman for the recent inquiry commented:"““When you’re thinking about keeping burglars out of your home, you don’t say ‘I won’t bother to fit locks to the windows, because they’ll do nothing to prevent burglars coming in through the doors’— you fit locks both to the doors and to the windows””." So while reducing the limit from 80 to 50 may well do little to save the 400 and more lives lost each year from driving way over the 80 limit, there is no reason for not acting to save around 65 of the 130 or so other lives that are lost each year from driving at around the limit of 80 by reducing the limit to 50—acting to save those lives by reducing the limit to 50. Amendment No. 44 would allow police to undertake targeted breath testing for a maximum period of 24   hours where an inspector believes that drinking and driving may be taking place. After more than two decades of significant advances in combating drink-driving, casualties from drinking and driving have again begun to rise. In 2002, there were 560 fatalities and 2,820 serious injuries from crashes involving illegal alcohol levels. This compares to a low point of 460   fatalities and 2,470 serious injuries from drink-driving in 1998. The failure to continue the reduction in drink-drive casualties is of significant concern. Action to prevent drink-driving needs to be incorporated as a key element in the Government’s alcohol harm reduction strategy. However, despite this, the number of roadside screening tests for alcohol has been declining, while the percentage of positive tests has been rising. In 2001, there were 624,000 tests, of which 16 per cent were positive. That compares to a peak of 815,000 roadside screening tests in 1998, in which 13 per cent were positive. This percentage rise in positive tests may be due in part to more selective testing by police, but the rise in the percentage of drivers and riders killed while over the blood alcohol limit—from 15 per cent in 1998 to 19 per cent in 2002—suggests that the prevalence of drink-driving is rising. Effective enforcement is central to reducing drinking and driving. A number of studies have shown that enforcement and the perceived likelihood of getting caught can have a major deterrent effect on the levels of drink-driving. One recent study suggested that, if the level of breath testing were to be increased ninefold in Great Britain, the proportion of drivers who died with BAC in excess of 100 milligrams to 100 millilitres of blood would fall from 20 per cent to 12 per cent. It would also significantly reduce drink-drive casualties. However, current testing levels are among the lowest in Europe. In terms of tests per head of population, only Ireland and Austria have a lower rate of testing than the United Kingdom. In 2000, the United Kingdom conducted one screening test for every 67 people. In the Netherlands the figure is one in 16; in Spain, one in 30; and in Finland one in four. The European average probability of being breath-tested is one in 16 inhabitants. In a recent survey, 91 per cent of United Kingdom drivers reported never having been checked for alcohol in the past three years. There are no express police powers to permit targeted or intelligence-led breath testing. As stated in the Government’s road safety strategy, Tomorrow’s Roads—Safer for Everyone:"““At present, the police can stop any driver but can carry out a breath test only if there has been a road traffic offence, an accident or if they suspect that the driver has been drinking. We are looking at rationalising the law because the current practice is too restrictive. We want the police to have powers to breath-test people driving at locations where it is reasonable to assume an amount of drinking has taken place””." A consultation document on combating drink-driving published in 1998 also proposed introducing targeted breath testing. However, no action has yet occurred and the Government have reversed their position. While some police officers at an operational level believe that the current position allows them adequate manoeuvre for stopping drivers, the extension of the powers to allow more widespread and targeted breath testing would send a clear message to all road users that the chances of being stopped by the police had increased significantly. Amendment No. 43 would give police the power to undertake random breath testing, which is also not allowed as yet. Random breath testing would permit police to stop vehicles at random for the purpose of conducting breath tests. It is wider than targeted breath testing, but the two strategies are not mutually exclusive. In most European Union countries, the police are entitled to use random breath testing, the only exceptions being Denmark, the UK and Ireland. A Swiss study in 1998 found that random breath testing was one of the most cost-effective safety measures that can be implemented, and minimum levels of random breath testing is one of the main elements of the European Commission’s recommendation on enforcement in the field of road safety. Increasing drivers’ perception of the probability of detection is key to reducing alcohol-related casualties. That may be best done when enforcement is unpredictable in terms of time and place and deployed in a widespread manner to ensure broad coverage of the road network. A recent Home Office survey found widespread support for random breath testing, with 86   per cent of drivers in favour, including 70 per cent of those drivers who had admitted to driving while over the limit. I beg to move.