Government rejects calls for random testing and a lower drink drive limit

Improved testing equipment to detect drink and drug drivers will be given the green light and key changes made to streamline enforcement of both offences. However, in an announcement that will cause dismay in the police, road safety and medical communities, the Government has turned its face against the two policies they have consistently advocated as the most effective measures against drink driving – random breath testing and lowering the current drink drive limit.

The Government’s policies were set out in its response to the North Report on Drink and Drug Driving. This was commissioned by the previous Labour Government but published in 2010 after the Coalition Government had come into office. The Coalition’s response extends also to the report of the Transport Select Committee, Drink and Drug Driving Law, which was published in December 2010 following an inquiry by the Committee into Sir Peter North’s main recommendations.

The Government rejects random testing as not being cost effective. On this it states:

“An EC recommendation that such procedures should aim to test all drivers once in three years would require more than ten million tests per year in this country – less than one million are conducted now. This would not be cost-effective, or a justified diversion of police resource. It would be better to develop smarter ways of using the existing power so that drinkdrivers – rather than drivers in general – become at higher risk of testing and detection.”

However, this argument is unlikely to be regarded as convincing, especially as the police themselves have been part of the campaign for the introduction of random testing.

In a memo to the MP’s investigating the issue, the Association of Chief Police Officers stated:

“ACPO wholeheartedly supports the introduction of a power to randomly check any driver. Putting conditions on when a breath test can be required simply supports the view that you can drink, drive and avoid prosecution by playing within the ‘rules’, police have unrestricted powers to stop vehicles to check tyres, condition and the documents of a driver but are restricted when they can check for drink or drugs.

“A random power would support targeted checkpoint testing of drink drivers carried out now in some areas but requiring an element of consent.

“Random powers are supported, not necessarily because we believe that the existing powers are inadequate; rather, we believe that this simple measure, widely publicised, would increase the perception in the minds of drivers that if they do drink and drive they are likely to be caught and brought to justice at any time, anywhere.”

The same applies to the Coalition Government’s rejection of a lower alcohol limit for drivers, which has also been almost universally supported by the entire road safety community, as well as having the support of the large majority of the public.

On this, the Coalition’s response states:

‘Our strategy is to help the police to focus on the most dangerous people – those who feature most prominently in the drinkdrive offence and casualty statistics; as well as the drug-drivers who at present escape detection. We do not believe that widening the scope of the drink-drive offence by lowering the limit is consistent with this approach. It has various operational and practical difficulties; and imposes social and economic costs which we do not consider, on the present evidence, to be matched by potential benefits.

‘For all these reasons, the priority on drinkdriving must be to make the present regime work better. We do not propose to lower the prescribed alcohol limit for driving as well.’

Announcing the Government’s response, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said:

“Drink and drug driving are serious offences and we are determined to ensure they are detected and punished effectively. It is just as dangerous to drive impaired by drugs as alcohol so we need to send a clear message that drug drivers are as likely to be caught as drink drivers and that drug driving is as socially unacceptable as drink driving has become. That is why we will approve drug-testing devices and change the law to speed up the testing process, ensuring the police can bring drug drivers to justice.

“The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979. But drink driving still kills hundreds of people so we need to take tough action against the small minority of drivers who flagrantly ignore the limit. Their behaviour is entrenched and after careful consideration we have concluded that improving enforcement is likely to have more impact on these dangerous people than lowering the limit.

“We are, therefore, taking forward a package of measures which will streamline enforcement, helping the police to target these most dangerous offenders and protect lawabiding road users.”

On drink driving the Government will:

• revoke the right for people whose evidential breath test result is less than 40% over the limit to opt for a blood test (the ‘statutory option’). The breath testing equipment used in police stations is now very accurate and technically sophisticated so a blood sample is not needed to confirm the breath test. The need to organise a blood sample can mean that drivers who were over the limit when breath tested have fallen below the limit by the time their blood sample is taken – removing the statutory option will eliminate this loophole

• introduce a more robust drink drive rehabilitation scheme, so that we can require those drink drivers who are substantially in excess of the limit to take remedial training and a linked driving assessment before recovering their licence

• approve portable evidential breath testing equipment for the police – this will speed up the testing process and free up police time

• close a loophole used by high risk offenders to delay their medical examinations

• streamline the procedure for testing drink drivers in hospital.