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
| 
