Drink and drug driving law - Transport Committee Contents


Memorandum from the Police Federation of England and Wales (DDD 13)

  The Police Federation of England and Wales welcomes this opportunity to contribute to this short inquiry.

  As the staff association that represents the interests of over 140,000 police officers, from the rank of Constable to Chief Inspector, we bring together views on the welfare and efficiency of the service, and take responsibility for their presentation to both Government and other opinion formers. For more information about the Police Federation please visit www.polfed.org.

  The Police Federation is fully supportive of most of the recommendations contained in the body of the recent report by Sir Peter North in relation to drink and drug driving. We have in fact been instrumental in calling for some of the recommendations for some time, so welcome the opportunity to further enhance our credibility in pushing for appropriate changes to the legislative framework surrounding drink and drug driving.

  The Roads Policing Group of the Police Federation of England and Wales has previously suggested that there could be an opportunity to consider a change in the drink driving limits which provide for a lower limit for professional drivers whilst carrying out that specific role, eg, taxi drivers, LGV and PCV drivers. We understand Sir Peter North's assessment of the situation within the body of his paper which rejects this proposal, but we feel this is an opportunity missed.

  In relation to the issues which you have suggested we focus on, we would respond as follows:

1.   Should the permitted blood alcohol limit be reduced as proposed?

  1.1  As identified in the North report comments, the current drink drive limit was set over 40 years ago, and public opinion has significantly changed since those early days in relation to tolerating drinking and driving. Likewise, enforcement equipment has developed over years into being exceptionally accurate.

  1.2  There are understandably higher risks associated with drivers who consume alcohol sufficient to put them on the high side of the current limit or in ill judged cases beyond that. This we feel can be addressed through a change to the current limits. This is readily resolvable by changing the law to the limit recommended by Sir Peter North, which we feel would receive global public support.

  1.3  For the avoidance of doubt and absolute clarity, we of course see that pro rata to the blood alcohol limit being reduced, the breath, urine equivalent amounts should be accordingly lowered within the law to the proposed standard.

  1.4  The review has very carefully and robustly considered the wider ramifications associated with lowering the drink drive limit, following which, there has never been a more appropriate time to address these issues and align our standards with those of we believe every other European Country. It seems perverse that our tolerance and legal limits have not changed to reflect the seriousness of drinking and driving.

2.   If so, is the mandatory one year driving ban appropriate for less severe offenders, at the new (lower) level?

  2.1  If drinking and driving is to be continually treated as a serious issue, and carry with it penalties that have been successful in deterring people from abusing the law and supporting compliance, then we believe there will be a public support for keeping the penalties as they currently are for the higher 80mg limit. To have a raft of penalty options will create a series of problems that disrupt the key message which is to refrain from alcohol whilst drinking and driving. It could also encourage people to take a gamble with drink whilst driving knowing the penalties to be less severe if caught. The risks and safety issues remain relative to the consumption of alcohol whilst in charge of a motor vehicle. Hence the Police Federation of England and Wales roads policing group believe that the current mandatory disqualification should be retained.

  2.2  We would however be open to consideration to reduce such a sentence if there were suitable alternative educational options to offer convicted drivers, after having served a portion of their disqualification, subject to certain criteria being met. This would not be dissimilar to that of the driver and speed awareness schemes, which have showed remarkable success in recent years. We would propose that convicted drivers would be expected to attend such a course at their own cost as part of the rehabilitation and educational programme, whilst still retaining the disqualification period as a significant deterrent.

3.   How severe is the problem of drug driving and what should be done to address it?

  3.1  This is a difficult question to answer with any degree of accuracy, and the problem varies in degree from policing area to policing area. The real fact is that we simply do not know the scale of the problem for a number of reasons. The only really measurable statistic which has any level of credibility are from those samples taken at post mortem and in evidence to HM Coroners following a road death.

  3.2  The principle reason being that it is difficult to enforce the current legislation relating to drug driving. Officers need to have confidence in applying the law, which means they need to rely on a series of road side tests, which only a small handful in England and Wales have the skills and knowledge to test. It is important having those skills they use them frequently to retain competency for evidential purposes.

  3.3  Officers complain that the road side testing takes too long and in busy areas late at night, can become a bit of a "circus" with onlookers goading or distracting officers from the drug assessment process.

  3.4  There are consistently reported issues with police station procedures in relation to establishing medical conditions due to the influence of drugs sufficient to impair driving. Furthermore, officers seem unsure of what evidential issues CPS and the Courts are looking for in relation to proving an offence. Some will say that CPS lawyers do not always know the issues in sufficient detail to successfully prosecute a case, and that it is often a challenge to provide evidence to satisfactorily press a conviction home, often destabilised because opinions can vary so much. This focuses on the need to prove an impairment, which links to a drug, which may not always be the fundamental ingredient as to why the driver was stopped or dealt with by the Police in the first place.

  3.5  The Police Federation of England and Wales roads policing group has been asking for some time now for a much simpler and practical scientific process of testing at the road side for the presence of drugs (screening device). We are aware that work is ongoing in this respect, but we feel that a much closer relationship between government legislators, Home Office Scientific Development Branch (HOSDB) and manufacturers needs developing in order to progress the issue, so that a type approval can be provided by HM Government.

  3.6  It would be a requirement that such screening devices are manufactured at a price that is not cost prohibitive to forces in purchasing sufficient quantities of the kit to apportion to each Police vehicle used on operational policing work, or as deemed required on a case by case basis.

  3.7  There has been much debate in recent times about the need to remove the legal imperative of proving driver impairment to that of simply driving whilst under the influence of a drug. We are fully supportive of engaging in further discussion over these issues, whilst simultaneously appreciating that there are a number of factors that make this quite difficult to easily resolve.

4.   What wider costs and benefits are likely to result from changes to drink and drug driving law?

  4.1  It has been suggested by key academics who understand the science and adverse physiological ramifications of drinking and driving that up to 50 or 60 deaths per year could be prevented if the alcohol level were to be reduced to the recommended levels suggested by Sir Peter North. We would expect an equally significant reduction in injury cases.

  4.2  It is difficult to assess the relative impact on a reduction of drug driving deaths for reasons stated above, but we believe there could be derived benefits if drug driving could be tackled more engagingly by the Police with the advantage of a far more simplified process, which is better understood in terms of evidential necessity.

  4.3  The economic cost to such death trauma and related injuries is difficult to quantify, but benefits through reduced costs, reduced risks, public safety and better behaviour must be worthy of significant favourable considerations.

  4.4  We have campaigned for some years in relation to removing the drink drive statutory option, and we welcome this as part of Sir Peter's recommendations. If this were to be removed we would see this as representing but a small measurable benefit in reducing the time spent by officers waiting for a registered medical practitioner attending police stations.

  4.5  We can see no real reason to retain the current "get out of jail" option where a driver has already been allowed a reasonable tolerance above the current legal limit. Unless there has been some specific reason to switch the breath test to one of blood or urine as a consequence of technical issues with evidential testing devices.

  4.6  Policing and enforcement alone cannot get the message across. There will have to be a commensurate package of public awareness and media activity which promotes and discourages drinking and drug driving. This will inevitably come at a cost, as will local initiatives aimed at pressing the message home though whatever programme of educational and information facilities are delivered through community action to the more vulnerable groups.

5.   What would be the implications of such changes for enforcement?

  5.1  Obvious benefits should translate into safer roads and drivers, such that the number of incidents involving drinking and driving should decline over time. However we offer a warning, that in the short to medium term we would expect a natural rise in casualty and fatality figures due to drink driving (especially) because a change in law to the lower limits would produce an expected rise in such recorded incidents, until the public change their pattern of behaviour and reduce alcohol consumption prior to driving.

  5.2  We express our concerns that the pressure on policing is increasing at a time when operational resources to deal effectively with roads policing considerations are decreasing and likely to suffer further cuts through ongoing budgetary challenges. For this reason the ability of forces and operational officers to provide more attention to these important criminal and road safety related areas could be seriously challenging, through a lack of capacity and resilience. The operational resource implications varies from force to force, but the overall outlook for a high profile 365 presence is indeed an issue that has to be addressed to ensure drink and drug driving enforcement retains a high level priority.

  5.3  It is a fact that there is such a high degree of compliance with drink driving regulations, because the public are justifiably concerned or afraid of the consequences of their actions or being caught, even though the chances of being stopped by the Police, remain minimal unless or until an adverse attention is brought about their behaviour. So it is important that making an impact and keeping the momentum going should be a policing priority. We are therefore concerned that in the event there is any further reduction in capacity to enforce the rules, then any positive impact on changes to legislation in furtherance of driving down deaths and injuries on our roads could well be lost.

  5.4  We reserve our position with regard to the recommendation (27) made by Sir Peter in respect of the deployment of portable evidential machines, sufficiently reliable and evidentially proven to replace the current substantive machine. Laudable though the recommendation is for the right reasons, there are a number of matters for our concern, namely in that we have not yet evaluated the devices, or the process sufficiently to be satisfied.

  I hope you find our response of help in your deliberations.

August 2010





 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 2 December 2010