Select Committee on Transport Minutes of Evidence


Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Police Federation of England and Wales

  This memorandum is in response to the Transport Committee's request for additional information. We address each question in turn, before providing brief comment on two issues raised in the second oral session of the inquiry we believe to be pertinent to our own oral and written evidence:

According to your submission, the Police Federation recently formed a Traffic and Policing Sub-Committee. Please explain why this was formed, why it was felt necessary and why now.

  The Police Federation of England and Wales' Traffic Policing sub-committee was formed in July 2004 due to frontline officers' growing concerns over the direction of traffic policing policy.

  First and foremost amongst these concerns was the alarming rate at which the road network has been denuded of a police presence in order to meet neighbourhood policing requirements. Paradoxically, as the service has become more and more subject to central targets and priorities, roads policing has become less of a priority.

  Secondly, the introduction and growth of Highways Agency Traffic Officers (HATOs) following the Traffic Management Act 2004 has also presented huge challenges for the future of roads policing, particularly in respect of cooperation and communication. Further, we have strong concerns over the police powers that could be conferred to HATOs in the future by use of secondary legislation, with scant parliamentary debate. We believe it is imperative HATOs do not evolve beyond their original remit, especially as theoretically these powers could be given to private sector company employees. This is of particular significance as unlike the new Community Support Officers, HATOs are not employed by police forces.

  Thirdly, the Police Federation believe traffic policing is a core policing task—in contrast to the Minister of State for Transport who merely described visible traffic policing as "significant" during the second oral session of the Committee's inquiry.[7] It is simply impossible to divorce vehicle crime of a technical nature, road safety or traffic offences from wider criminality. The criminal fraternity utilise the road network and it is only police officers who focus on this aspect of policing roads. If this contribution is not recognised it will not be prioritised.

  The purpose of the sub committee is to utilise the skills, knowledge of experienced traffic officers to inform and influence decision makers, both within policing and beyond.

  In November 2005 we held the inaugural traffic policing national seminar under the theme "The future of roads policing—opportunity or threat". This was in specific response to the distinct lack of change following the launch of the joint roads policing strategy in January 2005.  We intend to continue raising the profile of traffic policing by organising other such seminars in the future.

Please can you explain whether you would welcome the introduction of "random breath testing" or "targeted breath testing" powers?

  We do not see a need to introduce new powers for performing breath tests. We believe sufficient latitude exists as reasonable targeting comes under the auspices of reasonable suspicion.

  Our key concern in this regard is that despite the worrying rise in drink driving the number of such tests has in fact fallen. This issue is therefore inherently linked to not only having a visible and proactive traffic police presence on the roads, but one that undertakes the whole range of road policing tasks rather than focusing on, for instance, ANPR or speeding.

What do you think the impact would be of reducing the penalty from 3 points to 2 points for driving 39 mph on a 30 mph limit road?

  Police officers judge speeding offences against a number of factors such as time, place and weather conditions. Clearly speeding at 39 mph in a 30 mph zone past a school at 3 pm on a weekday should be considered a serious offence (indeed we believe it could warrant a 6 point penalty) but in different circumstances, for instance at 3 am, a lower offence of 2 points might be more suitable.

  The chief impact therefore of such a reduction in the penalty from 3 points to 2 for driving 39 mph on a 30 mph limit road could therefore be greater public support, provided that this is matched by more severe penalties at more dangerous times of the day. We would support work in this area, particularly examining the affects of variable speed limits abroad. We emphasise however that these views are conjecture: it is impossible to state categorically the impact of such a change until it has taken place, and even then driver behaviour is subject to change over time.

"TRAFFIC POLICING AND TECHNOLOGY: GETTING THE BALANCE RIGHT" ORAL EVIDENCE SESSION, 15 MARCH 2006

National ANPR usage

  During the above session Paul Goggins MP, Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, observed that:

    "When I was out recently as I was with an inspector in a part of my constituency, he was in a vehicle equipped with ANPR technology. He was dealing with antisocial behaviour. He was reassuring the public. He was also able to detect if there was a vehicle being used illegally and perhaps also then connected with other crime, because we know people who drive illegally are much more likely to be committing other offences. There are many aspects to this police officer. He was not a roads police officer but he was doing roads policing as well as other aspects of his work. As we go forward, we want to see roads policing integrated. It is not enough just to say there are so many officers. We want every officer to see roads policing as part of his responsibility."

  The reality is that very few police vehicles are equipped with ANPR in the way the Minister describes. ANPR technology is restricted almost exclusively to roads policing vehicles—distinct from neighbourhood or other police vehicles. We do not have the precise figures for ANPR, and we are not aware they are held centrally, but it cannot be any greater than 3 to 5% of the total force fleet. It is therefore impossible for the vast majority of police officers to undertake these tasks in the way the Minister describes.

REDUCING THE PERMITTED BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT

  In response to a question from Mr. John Leech MP regarding whether more lives would be saved if the permitted blood alcohol content was reduced from 80 to 50 micrograms, Dr. Stephen Ladyman MP, Minister of State for Transport, stated:

    "It is not as simple as that. Clearly, if everybody obeyed the law and we reduced the blood alcohol level to 50 micrograms, yes, we would save more lives but we think about 500 deaths a year are attributable to people over the 80 micrograms and I think the figure is about 50 to 70 lives a year would be saved by reducing it, involving people between 50 and 80.  It seems to me obvious that the target for our enforcement, our priority, has to be catching all of the people who are over the 80 micrograms limit and saving the 500 lives before we start diverting police resources to try to catch the 70 or so that are between the 50 and 80 limit. I do not rule out the possibility, once we have strict enforcement at 80, once we have the situation under good control with 80, of the government of the day wishing to move down to 50.  Let us focus where the big gain is to be made first."[8]

  In contrast we believe that if the legal limit was aligned to that of the rest of Europe a strong message would be sent that drinking and driving must not be tolerated. There is every reason to believe that with lowering the limit there will be a pro rata impact on people who drink and drive. It is therefore disappointing that the Minister is apparently unwilling to contemplate a change in the legal drink drive limit.

28 March 2006




7   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtran/uc975-ii/uc97502.htm Back

8   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtran/uc975-ii/uc97502.htm Back


 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 31 October 2006