Proposition 52K1985

Projet de loi relatif à l'introduction des tests salivaires en matière de drogues dans la circulation.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V the Van Rompuy government

Submission date

May 12, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

drug addiction road safety road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Renaat Landuyt (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 25, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, the Infrastructure Committee has bowed over the salivary test during three committee meetings in May and June. We discussed the draft law together with the draft law on the subject.

It is a salivary test that aims to better control other substances than alcohol in the traffic. Technological advances have made it possible to do so in an efficient and reliable way.

Although the 1999 Law on the Criminal Character of the Use of Other Substances that Affect Driving Skills provides a legal framework, the procedure was not always efficient and ⁇ also not cost-effective. The procedure consisted of three steps, as the Secretary of State had outlined: standardized tests, the urine test and the blood test. This is, of course, a complex procedure that also generated a lot of costs. This procedure was therefore not so frequently carried out on the ground. However, there was absolutely a support from the population. A survey by the BIVV, clarified by the Secretary of State, showed that 67% of the population is of the opinion that the rules for drugs in traffic should be stricter.

The procedure set out in the bill is as follows.

First, the agents can overcome a checklist. This means that the agents search for external signs in drivers. Thus, the psychomotor tests will no longer have to take place in the future, which tests were fairly cumbersome. That checklist will not be imposed in case of an accident; then it will be possible to immediately pass to a saliva test.

If the salivary test shows that means that affect the ability to drive have been used, the person concerned shall be prohibited from driving a vehicle or from accompanying a driver for the purpose of training for 12 hours from the date of the identification. This is a security measure.

Only in cases where insufficient saliva has been removed or where a person refuses to undergo a saliva test, a blood test is performed. Therefore, it is clear that it is a simplification of the procedure.

Colleague Jef Van den Bergh of the CD&V group indicates that his bill is based on the ROPS study published in 2005, which deals with driving under the influence of psychoactive substances and was carried out within the framework of the federal science policy. That study showed that about 4% of drivers are driving under the influence of cannabis, which is no less. This is 1 in 25 drivers. Based on the fact that 5% of drivers drive under the influence of alcohol, it can be decided that drugs are a real problem, still according to the applicant of the bill.

Also important is, for further discussion, that then it was stated that 2.5% of drivers drive under the influence of sedative pills and 0.8% under the influence of opioids, such as heroin.

The speaker suspects that a number of parkets with the current legislation are hesitant to impose measures, due to the many unjustly positive results. This attitude has also led to a very low package chance.

In addition, as the applicant of the bill states, there is also a problem with the training along the police side. Only 18% of police officers have completed training on how to properly take a drug test in traffic. This, of course, does not benefit the operational effectiveness in the field.

During the general discussion, Ms. Snoy et d'Oppuers checked the parts of that checklist. There were questions around. For example, what do you do with drugs such as morphine, an illegal drug that is also used as a drug. From the MR faction, Mr Bellot raised concerns about the types of tests, the costs and the systematics of the salivary test. For the PS, colleague Musin also pointed out the costly nature and the complex procedure now being handled with the sanitary car. She wondered whether the saliva tests will be cheaper than the current system. Collega Van den Bergh has stated that it was a pity that so much time was lost because he had already prepared a bill for several years. Had it been possible to implement the legislative framework, the preparation was already a little further on the ground. Then the more efficient system would be operational, which would ⁇ have benefited road safety. Ms. Somers of Open Vld wondered whether drivers for whom the test is negative but who appear to be under influence can also be imposed a 12-hour driving ban. There were some questions about the agent’s freedom of judgment. Mr Lavaux of CDH also had questions about the budgetary impact.

The state secretary’s main responses were that the saliva test will cost around 15 euros. Unlike the breath test, the results of the saliva test will not be available immediately. However, if there is evidence that drugs have been used, the police officer will impose a 12-hour driving ban on the driver for safety reasons. If afterwards it turns out that the amount of drugs taken does not exceed the limit value, there will be no criminal prosecution. That is the essence of the system. There are currently 10 different saliva tests available on the market. When asking whether that system is reliable, it is important to know the numbers. The reliability of a negative saliva test is between 70 and 100%, depending on the product taken. This only means that some drug users will not be able to be caught. A positive test, however, gives certain certainty about the use of drugs by the person concerned, which is very important.

The questions about illegal drugs and drugs are, of course, completely outside the context of road safety. Whatever the reason for intake or use, these substances affect driving behavior. There is a real risk for other road users. Drivers who have taken such substances, be it through the channel of the medicines, be it through the administration of illegal drugs, should be prohibited from driving. The prosecution of the users of illegal drugs falls outside the competence of the Secretary of State. A double conviction after a positive saliva test is not among the possibilities.

As regards the entry into force, there are of course some practical consequences associated with the draft law and the draft law. The fixed date is 1 October 2010. An earlier entry into force is probably not feasible.

Some amendments were also submitted, which can be read in the report prepared following the discussion at these three committee meetings.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, also the Open Vld Group points out the great risks associated with driving under the influence of drugs and drugs. We would like to urge local and federal police to make this a priority in the context of traffic enforcement.

However, the current urine tests are quite busy and time-consuming, making them too little in practice. Therefore, there is indeed a need for a simpler test method in order to effectively realize the pre-established control objectives, which were formulated in the second State-General for Traffic Safety.

Currently, the salivary tests for the detection of drug use in the traffic are already successfully applied in several countries. The bill, which is now under vote, aims to create a legal basis for the introduction of the salivary test in Belgium as well.

Open Vld supports the bill, but calls for attention to two important points. First, we urge the government to continue to strive to further improve the scientific reliability of the tests currently on the market. According to the explanation attached to the bill, the reliability of detecting, for example, TAC, the main psychoactive component of cannabis, would vary between 69 and 78%, depending on the test used.

Although significant progress has indeed been made in recent years, the Traffic Safety Support Point also in 2007 in its publication Drugs and Drugs in the Traffic, still pointed out the dangers with regard to the reliability of the tests.

The Secretary of State also acknowledged during the discussion of the bill that the tests that are now being carried out may still be subject to improvement. Therefore, we ask the government to carefully select the different manufacturers of the saliva tests and to set requirements for further improvement of the reliability of the products they market.

Second, our group believes that further work needs to be done to better align the policy of detecting and prosecuting drugs in the traffic. This does not only mean that the FOD Justice will have to release sufficient resources to finance the cost of the expensive saliva tests and that the costs in case of a criminal conviction will be effectively recovered from the offender. It is equally important that after drawing up a process-verbal for driving under the influence of drugs, every time there comes an effective prosecution by the police courts. In fact, it can be assumed that after the introduction of the salivary test, more checks will be carried out and therefore more infringements will be identified, which will also increase the workload on the police parks substantially.

Therefore, we call on the Secretary of State to make agreements with the Minister of Justice on the prosecution of drugs in traffic following the introduction of the saliva test.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, promoting road safety must of course remain high on the political agenda. Although the number of road deaths has never been so low, in 2008 there were still 922 road deaths to be regretted. We were at a historic low since 1950, but there are still 922 deaths too many. Not to mention the more than 50,000 injured in the traffic.

Compared to other European countries, and especially Western European countries, we still have a huge backwardness. We must definitely continue to work on this, but it is also happening. A few weeks ago, we approved in the Chamber the bill on alcohol slots. The draft law on the salivary test is now on the vote.

Driving under influence is still one of the main causes of accidents. Unfortunately, super-adequate statistics are lacking, but scientific studies speak of a role of alcohol in 25 to 40% of accidents and traces of drugs in one in five accidents. Approximately 20% of road accidents involve drug use by the driver involved in the accident. Unfortunately, this is not evidenced by the results of the enforcement actions. In one year, hardly more than 2,000 drivers are convicted for driving under the influence of drugs, while alcohol controls can get this number, in a way of speaking, on a weekend. So today there is something fundamentally wrong with ⁇ ining the prohibition to drive a vehicle under the influence of drugs.

Since 1999, the addition of Article 37bis to the Traffic Act allows police and courts to carry out checks and prosecute the use of drugs. It is still a law amendment that was proposed here at the time by my eminent predecessor Jos Ansoms. That was then a very necessary measure, because the results of experimental research showed that the use of, for example, cannabis, heroin and cocaine, to name the most famous, greatly increases the risk of an accident.

The risk of a traffic accident doubles after cannabis use and is more than three times higher when using opioids. These risks are even greater when combined with alcohol use. In 2005 – already mentioned in the report of colleague Deseyn – the so-called ROPS study – “Riding under the influence of psychoactive substances” – was published within the framework of the federal science policy.

The study found that about 4% of drivers would drive under the influence of cannabis and 0.8% under the influence of opioids such as heroin. These are important figures to justify measures.

Since 1999, as mentioned, it is possible to control this. However, the procedure we know today consists of three steps that together can take up to an hour to one and a half hours. First, there is a test battery to assess the state of the road user on external signs that may indicate drug use. Then there is the urine test and possibly a blood test. For a urine test, the necessary sanitary facilities must still be available. A blood test requires the intervention of a doctor, if such a doctor can at least be found and recruited.

In addition, the police struggle with a lack of training to perform these tests. In 2004, it was found that only 18% of operational police officers had received the required training. It would not be surprising, therefore, that this labor-intensive procedure and the lack of training result in the fact that today there is hardly any control.

In 2007, the road police spent approximately 4,300 man-hours on checks on driving under the influence of drugs. This resulted in almost 2,200 violations. The objective chance is therefore ⁇ low, the subjective if possible even lower, giving rise to the idea that one can crawl behind the wheel impunely drugged. This is at the expense of road safety on our roads.

All this happens while there are a lot of signs that drug use is increasing in our society. I refer, for example, to the latest two-year outcome survey of the Association for Alcohol and Other Drugs Problems, the VAD, from 2007. The study revealed that drugs among young people are getting out of the taboo sphere, that there is more blooming than ever, and that 12% of young people even use cannabis every day. If they cross behind the wheel, this clearly means a danger, a risk to road safety on our roads.

This week, the Flemish Mobility Support Point published hopeful figures on the sharp decline in the number of road deaths in weekend accidents, a halving from 2001. The group of young drivers also always comes quite positively from the alcohol controls, the BOB campaigns.

Nevertheless, the number of weekend accidents, though for a large part linked to outgoing, is still disproportionately high. Young drivers are still a very vulnerable group in traffic. Is it possible that the growing use of drugs has something to do with this? It would be possible for this group of drivers, with an efficient maintenance of drug use in the traffic, to knock on the right nail, rather than with separate alcohol limits.

The 2005 ROPS study already highlighted the complexity and user-friendliness of the existing drug test. There was already reference to the much easier and more user-friendly saliva test, although the aforementioned test in 2005 was not yet fully completed. For example, there were too many doubts about the reliability of the test. Nevertheless, we took the initiative to submit a bill on this subject.

However, the previous government has always hidden behind the existing unreliability in order not to adjust the legal framework yet. On the other hand, our recommendation was that we had to prepare the legislation for drug testing in traffic before the saliva tests were ready for use and sufficiently reliable.

Today, unfortunately, we must find that several countries already successfully use the saliva test. I mention France, Finland, Spain and Portugal. There are already pilot projects in Germany and the Netherlands. In Belgium, on the other hand, the first saliva test may not be taken until after the summer of 2010.

From that moment, at the latest from 1 October 2010, a quantitative and qualitative leap forward in the fight against drugs in the traffic will be possible.

It is important that all those involved are on the same line at the aforementioned time, that sufficient officers are trained and that the judiciary is ready to adequately punish the offenders.

The saliva test is a simple and reliable alternative to the current, complex and time-consuming drug test. Thus, the presence of sanitary facilities and the collection of a doctor is no longer necessary. The entire field test would only take twelve minutes. In terms of reliability, the saliva tests score ⁇ well. The number of false positive results, which is still the most important, is in the salivary test, unlike the existing urine test, almost none. Finally, when everything is charged, the cost of the saliva test is also much lower than the current test. A saliva test costs 15 euros per unit, while in the current test there are costs for providing a sanitary car. The recruitment of doctors also has a cost.

The simpler procedure and the addition of the execution of the salivary test to the basic training of police officers should ensure that more controls will be carried out in the future. The more controlled, the higher the probability will be estimated and the stronger the deterrent and deterrent effect will be. In this way, the saliva test will be able to make an important contribution to reducing the number of drug-related traffic victims in our country. The Netherlands speaks about 80 road traffic deaths per year.

Thus, the salivary test becomes a new, additional tool to ⁇ the objectives of the General States on Traffic Safety, in particular a reduction in the number of road deaths to a maximum of 750 in 2010 and a maximum of 500 by 2015.

We are on the right track to ⁇ the above-mentioned objectives. With the present draft law, we once again add a tooth. It is important that we continue the current course, that the efforts made are continuously monitored and that we work on new measures. In this way, we are doing well to save our society a lot of traffic suffering, which should remain our ambition.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, while everyone knows or should know that the consumption of psychotropic substances significantly increases the dangers when driving a vehicle, a IBSR survey conducted in 2006 shows that 70% of respondents consider the risk of being subjected to drug control as limited or very limited and 25% consider that the risk of sanctions in case of positive detection is limited or very limited. This is due, among other things, to the limited number of drug controls carried out by police forces. One reason for this is the complexity of the only test permitted so far, the urine test that requires the presence of a sanitary truck, in a very limited number on our territory, and to be confirmed then by a blood test that requires the presence of a doctor.

It is time for things to change because the presence of drugs in accidents is very important. A study covering more than a dozen European countries shows that more than 20% of people who died in traffic accidents had consumed drugs or alcohol. This figure rises to more than 40% when counting the injured.

In addition, a study called "SAMP" found that in France, 230 deaths per year are attributable to driving under the influence of cannabis. This suggests that in Belgium, this number should be in the order of 50.

Due to the complexity of the current procedure, only slightly more than 300 circulatory drug screening urine tests were carried out in 2007, or less than one per day for the entire territory. The new system will allow for much more screening tests for the three most well-known illicit drugs but also for drugs such as can be commonly taken in the population. Drugs are often considered as an illegal product but drugs such as Valium, Xanax, Temesta, which are commonly used by people with insomnia, are also concerned with this salivary test.

The cost would be, according to estimates, in the order of 10 to 15 euros per piece.

This test will be systematic in case of an accident with personal injury for all drivers involved. This test will increase in efficiency in finding the causes of accidents what the test will gain in simplicity.

We hope that sufficient financial resources will be provided to allow each police area to have enough drug detection kits to carry out a real screening policy and thus contribute to improving safety on our roads.

The situation is improving, but the goal remains to reduce the number of road traffic casualties by 500 by 2015 and by 750 by 2010; there is still much progress to be made. This new tool, if used properly, should be a valuable aid for an even more sharp reduction.

Therefore, the MR group will support the government bill presented by Mr. The Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker, the drug itself is a plague that affects many of our young people and whose consumption, unfortunately, tends to become banal because, in particular, our legislation on soft drugs is at least ambiguous. Moreover, 12% of young people consume it every day without worrying about possible retaliation.

The CDH, for reasons of protection of our youth, protection of their physical and mental health, reaffirms the need not to liberalize, therefore to maintain the formal ban on the consumption of soft drugs in our country.

On our roads, the negative effects of drug use are unfortunately even more flagrant. The pages of Monday morning newspapers remind us of this every week. We all know of parents who came to wake up in the middle of the night or early in the morning.

Statistics are scattered, numerous, difficult to interpret, because controls are rare. The tests that have been done, on the other hand, are more enlightening. It is known that a fatal accident under the influence of cannabis combined with alcohol is, according to a study, 14 times greater or more likely than when driving empty. Cannabis multiplies this risk of accident by 1.8, while alcohol multiplies it by 8.5. But what about cocaine, amphetamine, ecstasy and heroin mixtures?

In our country, controls remain too weak. In 2007, only 2,289 crimes for driving under the influence of drugs were found. The objective risk of getting caught remains low. Very few young people, very few drug users imagine that one day they can be controlled. Our police forces are currently ⁇ reluctant to implement larger controls, given the importance of the infrastructure to be implemented: use of a special truck with toilets, urinary manipulation, mandatory presence of a doctor; also given the small number of police officers capable of implementing these controls. Only 18% have completed the training.

Today, technological advances allow us to implement salivary testing devices, more reliable, faster. This is an opportunity that we must absolutely seize. This bill must be voted quickly to carry out this effective policy of fighting influenced driving, so that it is put in place and that it continues to reduce the number of victims on our roads. We reduced this number of victims by intervening, by performing much more speed controls, by installing radars. The results are here! It is also done with alcohol and there too, we could count on evidence results.

The third thing we need to work on now is drugs. The Government, the Secretary of State, the Minister have committed to this. This is really a beautiful project that we must launch, even if we will not escape, subsequently, an evaluation of it, since the problem of the use of drugs still persists - we have also filed a bill on a better signage of the drug box, highlighting the danger of driving under drug influence.

Also remains - I speak in my capacity as mayor and chairman of a police area - the financial cost. The Secretary of State clearly stated that he would be in charge of the budget of Justice.

It is important for police areas, especially the smaller ones, that the decisions taken in this district are supported also by the federal and not by the municipalities. I will be there, as well as my fellow mayoral councillors here, especially attentive.

Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, our group will, of course, approve this bill. We believe that reducing the number of road traffic casualties should remain high on the political agenda. Collega Van den Bergh has already pushed forward the current number, 924. It is true, it is a sharp decline. In fact, 924 is too much.

I think we should be able to go to 750, or ⁇ the zero target, as in Sweden. Then all measures to ⁇ that goal are, of course, good.

We believe that even an active fight against drugs is likely to contribute to a decrease in the number of road traffic casualties and especially the number of weekend deaths. Therefore, it is good that the procedure is simplified and that the chance of packing is increased. Colleagues, I think that this is most essential, when we have approved the text, that through simplified procedures the chances of package are effectively increased. Otherwise, it will remain an empty box.

We therefore support the design, with the hope that more checks will be carried out. We will ask the other colleagues in the government.

Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, our group is absolutely in favour of the introduction of saliva tests for drugs in traffic. It is a good measure, which should be part of a set of road safety measures, and which will also have an impact in the field of drug policy.

It should not be a single measure, but should fit within a policy with more targeted and efficient controls, a strong withdrawal policy, with a tougher approach to drug production and drug trafficking, with a better support to the victims, as well as with a priority treatment by the prosecutors.

Today, I am not going to talk about the failing judicial policy. This has already been discussed extensively here and also in the public opinion.

Mr. Secretary of State, the introduction of the salivary test, if it is accompanied by sufficient personnel and financial resources with an efficiently operating police force, can make a serious contribution in the field of road safety. We will therefore vote in favour with great conviction, not least because it is the realization of one of our program points.