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
|