I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1972 to provide for additional powers for the police to carry out random breath tests at the road side. My purpose this afternoon is to highlight the need for further action aimed at deterring the drinking driver, to draw attention to the need for additional police powers to breath-test drivers and to present the case for random breath testing within the prescribed context of a roadside checkpoint.

Public demand for action to reduce drinking and driving has never been greater. A survey by the Harris research centre last March revealed that drinking and driving was among the three offences which people rated as deserving priority attention by the police. That concern is borne out by the facts. Drink-drive deaths are more frequent than deaths arising from violent crime. Around 10 per cent. of all accidents are caused by drinking and driving. The most recent figures show that over 22,000 casualties result from alcohol-related accidents each year, and half of these will not have been drinking drivers but the innocent victims of the selfishness of drinking drivers. At an economic cost to the community of over £600 million, the cost is great. The human cost is impossible to calculate.

As we become increasingly aware of these grim facts and the terrible and unnecessary waste of life, of youth and of childhood our duty to identify and vigorously implement effective counter-measures becomes that much more pressing. While publicity programmes and appropriate penalties have a part to play, there is agreement worldwide that increasing driver perception of the risk of being caught is the real key to any successful programme aimed at reducing alcohol-related accidents.

The most recent figures show that around 500,000 breath tests are conducted each year. Surveys have shown that the chances of detection are quite low, ranging from one in 250 trips in some areas to one in 4,000 trips in others. Drivers' perception of the chances of being caught is also low. A recent study by the Government's transport and road research laboratory showed that 42 per cent. of people who admitted to drinking and driving believed that their chances of being stopped if over the limit were very small. Drivers will only believe the chances of being caught are high if they have evidence that those chances are high. That means being tested themselves, seeing others being tested, or hearing reports from friends or contacts that they have been tested recently. In any event, it means high-profile breath testing activity.

Caution must be exercised in interpreting the mixed results of the Christmas campaign, but it is clear that the police effort is visibly shifting from detection to deterrent. There must be a balance between the two. There is more awareness among the police that the function of the breath test is not merely to detect but to deter drinking and driving. That means more breath tests, fewer positive breath tests and more negative breath tests.

Many people believe that the current debate is not about the principle of carrying out more breath tests or stopping at random but about the best method of conducting more breath tests to achieve a reduction in road accidents. It is about the best methods of policing the best deterrent effect.

There is widespread opinion that the best way of achieving that is a highly visible police presence at roadside checkpoints, selecting a series of vehicles at random and carrying out breath tests on those passing through. Countries that have introduced that procedure believe that it has been most effective. In New South Wales, Australia, it has brought about a reduction of 35 per cent. in alcohol-related deaths and serious injuries, with cost savings to the health service of 20 times the cost of implementation. It is therefore a cost-effective method.

The police recognise the deterrent effect of those procedures. Mr. Peter Joslin, who is chairman of the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said in a recent address to a road safety conference: The New South Wales experience had demonstrated that a deterrent based enforcement system was far more effective in reducing drink drive fatalities than was the traditional enforcement model. Some argue that, more or less, that can be achieved under the present legislation, but it is clear that existing law is not well designed for deterrence. The current powers on random stopping and breath testing, following reasonable cause or suspicion, are more suitable to apprehension than deterrent. If used for high-profile breath testing at a roadside checkpoint, the procedure is a poor man's random breath testing.

Having first stopped a driver at random, the police officer must make up his mind, within the first minute of contact with the driver, whether he can justify requesting a breath test. Immediately there is potential for conflict between the police officer and the driver. That may contribute to a driver's suspicion, however misplaced, that he is being treated differently from the next man. It is a clumsy procedure and, although one or two police forces have proceeded valiantly with that approach, it is questionable whether all police officers would feel confident or comfortable using it widely. If we are to ask the police to do more, let us not ask them to use what many perceive to be a sideways approach.

The Bill does not go as far as providing unfettered discretion for the police to breath-test at any time, anywhere or in any place. It will provide for additional police power to conduct random breath tests at well signposted roadside checkpoints that have been authorised by a senior police officer. That will provide the element of deterrence, which is difficult to achieve under current procedures, and will allow the police to bring about a significant reduction in accidents. I cannot think of a better use of police time. Removal of police discretion will also remove the potential for conflict and ensure that even the most experienced drinker cannot rely on his driving performance to escape detection.

It necessarily follows, therefore, that random screening impinges numerically more on the innocent rather than on the guilty, but as the purpose of screening is to deter the guilty from committing the offence, it functions to safeguard the interests of the innocent Majority. The principle is practised everywhere—in security checks in this House and baggage checks at airports. The need for random breath testing is well understood by the public and has received consistently high support. They appreciate that there will be a minor inconvenience.

In the past three years, six surveys of public opinion have resulted in more than 70 per cent. support for the introduction of random breath testing in Britain. Only last November, a poll carried out by NOP for the transport and road research laboratory and a further poll carried out by the Consumers Association, which was published in December, indicated 77 per cent. support. Some 3,000 out of 3,400 responses to the latest Government consultation on breath-testing powers argued for additional powers.

The list of organisations in support of random breath testing is long and impressive. It includes the Association of Police Surgeons, Action on Drinking and Driving, Alcohol Concern, the British Medical Association, the Consumers Association, the County Road Safety Officers Association, the Guild of Experienced Motorists, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—of which I am a member—and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Like the amendments to the Road Traffic Bill which will be discussed soon, my Bill will put deterrent policing on a proper footing. In so doing, it will allow a significant contribution to be made to reducing road accidents and casualties.