Angela Watkinson

Conservative Party | Upminster

Workplace and Roadside Drug Testing

Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): I shall confine my remarks to roadside fitness testing. It is important to call it fitness testing because if the job of the police is to deem someone unfit to drive and they are not in a position at the time to know what the reason might be, there need to be specified circumstances under which the testing should take place. There is no doubt that there has been an alarming increase in drug use, so we must assume that there has also been an alarming increase in the number of people who drive under the influence of drugs.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister- I have said it on many occasions- that I believe that the government's policy on drugs, which is based on harm reduction, minimization and the provision of huge quantities of information about drugs, is wrong in principle, because it acquiesces in drug taking and will lead to an increase rather than a decrease in drug use. I favour prevention and enforcement. When I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee, an investigation in to drugs policy was carried out. I ploughed a lone furrow in the debate and suggested about 80 amendments to the final report, all of which fell. That was an indication of how strongly I felt that the policy on drugs was moving in the wrong direction.

I draw the Minister's attention to the Home Office's ‘Talk to Frank' website on drugs which is aimed at 11 to 21 year olds. It offers such gems as:

“If only illegal drugs came in packets with instructions on the outside… Give the first drug plenty of time to kick in before taking another one.”

In reference to impure cannabis, it states:

“This makes it cheaper, but it's a false economy really as it is often harder to get stoned.”

That is shocking. I could not believe my eyes when I read it.

I am tempted to stray on to the subject of the declassification of cannabis, but I suspect that you would rule that to be out of the confines of this debate, Mr. O' Hara. Suffice it to say that I oppose it- it is not protecting young people.

We must establish the appropriate circumstances for compulsory roadside fitness testing, because the system is currently voluntary. If a police officer notices that someone is driving erratically, stops them and breathalyses them for alcohol, the breathalyzer can show green, amber or red. If the result is green there is no evidence that the person driving is under the influence of alcohol. However if the police officer still believes the person to be unfit to drive, he can proceed with roadside fitness testing only if the person agrees. If they do not agree, they are free to drive away as long as they have not committed an arrestable offence. That is a dangerous situation. We must proscribe in law circumstances in which the police can carry out a test to determine more accurately whether someone needs to be taken to the police station if they believe that that person is unfit to continue driving. The police have no such powers unless an arrestable offence has been committed- for example, on vehicle impact.

The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) referred to the tests used in the United States and Canada since the 1970s. They sound amusing but have stood the test of time , and are known colloquially as “walk the line.” For anybody who is sober and fit, the tests are relatively easy to comply with although they are not foolproof- if asked now, we may not be able to do them all accurately. I found out information about the tests from discussions with the Metropolitan police yesterday. If someone were under the influence of drugs it would not only be difficult for them to walk heel to toe, turn and walk back heel to toe, but it would be difficult for them to understand the instructions to start with.

Another test is the Romberg test in which somebody is asked to put their head back and count to thirty. Apparently, some drugs distort the passage of time. Some make people think that time is going much faster, others that it is going much slower; the test provides an indication that someone is not behaving normally. Other tests include standing on one leg, and from a position with either one's left or right arm outstretched according to instructions, putting one's finger to one's nose. There is also a pupilometer that gauges the size of the pupils in both eyes. I understand that the norm is between 3mm and 6.5mm. Collectively such things give an indication of whether someone is fit to get back into their car and drive away safely. Failure in the test can lead to arrest.

I was surprised to hear that the 1924 offence of driving while unfit through drink or drugs is still in use, as is the Road Safety Act 1967, which allowed for breath tests. Anyone who is taken to a police station is then tested by a Doctor who is a qualified professional and will test either blood or urine and also determine whether any other medical condition may have led to that person being unfit. Failure may not necessarily be the result of drink or drugs and it is important that a medical professional can determine the reason. A Doctor will say whether the impairment may be due to the impairment of drugs. The problem with drug testing is that the traces may be found but they are not measurable. The lack of accurate equipment for testing the level of drugs in the blood or urine is a big problem.

There is great need for the development of an accurate roadside device. I understand that there is a prototype for testing the sweat from the forehead and that that has been piloted in custody suites when people have been charged with other offences. A Metropolitan police trial of roadside drug testing took place between 2001 and 2002. It involved the borough of Redbridge, my own borough of Havering and North-East traffic. Some 140 officers were trained including some magistrates and custody Sergeants. The trial had some success. It involved a certificated court, meaning that officers in court could produce a certificate, which adds weight to the evidence. However the trial was hampered by the fact that testing is still voluntary. That point needs to be looked; should there be specified circumstances in which testing should be compulsory?

I understand that the London borough of Barking and Dagenham used building safer communities funding of less than one thousand pounds to train officers in fitness impairment training. That is exceedingly good value. Unfortunately there are only two trainers in the whole of the district covered by the Metropolitan Police. It would be a good investment if funding could be found to increase that number. If all 400 traffic officers in the Metropolitan police could benefit from such training it would cost under twenty-two thousand pounds. That represents a drop in the ocean when it comes to police funding. The force needs to increase its training capacity, and that small amount of expenditure would be justified in accident reduction terms alone.