| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dholakia: I want to take the opportunity to say how much we welcome custody visiting finally being placed on a statutory basis. All police authorities consider that having proper custody visiting arrangements in place is an important aspect of their role in safeguarding the interests of the community. When I worked at the Police Complaints Authority a great concern of a large number of people, particularly the complainants, was that in many cases information was not available as to precisely what was going on in police custody. Having a system of checks and balances, particularly in relation to the statutory arrangement, is indeed a good thing. It certainly has our support.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, need not apologise for speaking on Clause 45 stand part. We are in Committee. I welcome the opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has, in a way, made my point. The central change would be to put custody visiting on a statutory basis. Effectively it will become a compulsory matter for police authorities. Not all police authorities—anyone who has listened to the
debate over the past three or four days would think that they are all little guardian angels—are perfect, never make mistakes and are all fully committed. Life is not like that. It would become compulsory for every authority to provide and organise a scheme for independent custody visiting.There is a contradiction in what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said about who appoints the custody visitors. Once the police authority appoint these people they will in no way be connected with the police or the criminal justice system. We believe that we can get good voluntary, independent people usefully to serve the system in that way. My own experience is that the system has been welcomed by the police in my former constituency. Importantly, putting the matter on a statutory basis will raise the status of the visitors. There will be a code of practice to provide for consistent standards across England and Wales.
Inappropriate procedures, such as people visiting on their own, would be dealt with in a code of practice. Therefore, we can get some commonality of rules. That is an important aspect. I make no complaints about visits that have been made or the actions of existing visitors. We can deal with situations where some inappropriate procedures have varied between police forces or police authorities. Above all, the statutory basis will raise the profile and competence of people in the system. It will be governed by independent people from the local community.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I wish this move well.
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 271:
- Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
The noble Earl said: I should think that this morning the Minister was wondering how on earth I had managed to get this issue on every broadsheet newspaper and on the front page of the Daily Mail. The truth is that the Minister need not worry. The first that I knew about this development was when I heard it on the news at breakfast time.
I originally drafted and tabled the amendment for our discussions on the Transport Act 2000. If any Member of the Committee is not convinced on that point, he or she should look at the Journal of your Lordships' House, where I had to go to get the drafting for my amendment. I did not move it at the time for reasons that might have come from an episode of "Yes Minister".
Society generally now takes a very dim view of drink-driving. There is no sympathy for a convicted motorist. However, many motorists are unaware of the effects of drugs—illegal or prescribed—on their driving ability. Millions of people take drugs, such as anti-depressants, painkillers, antihistamines and cough mixtures, all of which can have a sedative effect. Yet, most of these people probably think that it is totally safe for them to drive.
Many people lack knowledge with regard to the legal position in relation to drug-driving. In law drug-driving is considered as serious an offence as drink-driving. Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
According to my briefing from the BMA, the use of illegal drugs by the younger generation is frequent and increasing. Nearly half of 16 to 24 year-olds in England and Wales are reported as having used cannabis at least once. The Committee will be aware that that age-group experiences the highest fatal accident rate. Furthermore, 39 per cent were reported to have taken hallucinogens. There were fewer taking other drugs. According to a separate survey of club-goers in Scotland, 69 per cent had taken cannabis while 85 per cent had at some time driven after taking illegal drugs.
The impact of some prescribed drugs and treatments, such as sedatives, anti-depressants and even eye-drops is relevant also. Although patients are warned of their side effects, for example, drowsiness and impaired vision, research shows that they tend to ignore the advice of doctors, pharmacists and even information leaflets. Having said that, illegal drugs are a much more serious problem because of the uncertainty of the strength of the doses taken and the fact that the drug dealers do not often provide an information leaflet. The Minister and the police should be careful in how they approach the problem of therapeutic drugs.
The wider implications of drug taking are beginning to emerge. Recent research shows an increasing incidence of road traffic accidents involving people who have tested positive for drugs that may have contributed to the cause of the crash. The Transport Research Laboratory carried out tests to detect alcohol and drugs in people involved in fatal collisions between 1985 and 1987, and again between 1996 and 1999. The results showed that over that decade there was a fourfold increase, from 3 to 12 per cent, in people who tested positive for cannabis, with the detection of illegal drugs overall having increased from 3 to 18 per cent. The only qualification is that the tests are not directly comparable.
The known effects of cannabis are impaired co-ordination, visual perception, tracking and vigilance. Impairment is also shown when subjects are tested under simulated driving conditions. Studies report that in the majority of fatal crashes involving people with detected levels of cannabis, the effects are compounded by alcohol. Alcohol alone or in combination with cannabis increases impairment, the accident rate and accident responsibility.
The amendment is based precisely upon Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but, in addition to breath tests for alcohol, I suggest saliva tests for drugs. It is important to understand that the existing Section 6 and my amendment do not provide the necessary evidence for a conviction but are an objective test, allowing a police officer to arrest a suspect in order to further investigate a suspected serious offence. At
The Minister may be tempted to suggest that the necessary equipment has not yet been fully developed. However, if the Minister agrees the principle of my amendment and returns with an even better one, manufacturers will be prepared to expend more effort and money on perfecting that equipment if it does not meet the required standard. In addition, it is significant that the UK is a leader in developing the technology. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to support another noble friend, who has shown remarkable timing in bringing forward the amendment. I hope that the Government will, at the very least, study the amendment. I must admit that I am not quite certain of the technology that is mentioned in the Bill. A saliva test might prove that someone had taken drugs, but I am unsure whether it would necessarily prove that someone had not. It would not therefore be entirely adequate for the purpose my noble friend Lord Attlee intends.
Drugs are a serious problem, particularly in certain sections of the community. The issue should be examined seriously. Even if it is not technically practical to proceed at the moment, a study is merited so that we can act as soon as we are certain that the technology is appropriate. To introduce a new part to the legislation, based on the hope of technology being developed, would not be the right approach. However, the issue is sufficiently grave in society to merit a serious study.
"SALIVA TESTS
(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 6 (breath tests) there shall be inserted—
"6A SALIVA TESTS
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable cause to suspect—
(a) that a person driving or attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place has a drug in his body or has committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion;
(b) that a person has been driving or attempting to drive or been in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with drugs in his body and that that person still has a drug in his body; or
(c) that a person has been driving or attempting to drive or been in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place and has committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion;
he may, subject to section 9 of this Act, require him to provide a specimen of saliva for a saliva drugs test.
(2) If an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, a constable may, subject to section 9 of this Act, require any person who he has reasonable cause to believe was driving or attempting to drive or in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident to provide a specimen of saliva for a saliva drugs test.
(3) A person may be required under subsection (1) or (2) above to provide a specimen either at or near the place where the requirement is made or, if the requirement is made under subsection (2) above, and the constable making the requirement thinks fit, at a police station specified by the constable.
(4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen of saliva when required to do so in pursuance of this section is guilty of an offence.
(5) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
(a) as a result of a saliva test he has reasonable cause to suspect that that person has committed an offence under section 4 of this Act; or
(b) that person has failed to provide a specimen of saliva for a saliva drugs test when required to do so in pursuance of this section and the constable has reasonable cause to suspect that he has a drug in his body;
but a person shall not be arrested by virtue of this subsection when he is at a hospital as a patient or the drugs have been prescribed by a medical practitioner.
(6) A constable may, for the purpose of requiring a person to provide a specimen of saliva under subsection (2) above in a case where he has reasonable cause to suspect that the accident involved injury to another person or of arresting him in such a case under subsection (5) above, enter (if need be by force) any place where that person is or where the constable, with reasonable cause, suspects him to be.
(7) Subsection (6) above does not extend to Scotland, and nothing in that subsection shall affect any rule of law in Scotland concerning the right of a constable to enter any premises for any purpose.
(8) In this section "traffic offence" means an offence under—
(a) any provision of Part 2 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c. 14);
(b) any provision of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27);
(c) any provision of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) except Part 3; or
(d) any provision of this Act except Part 5.""
"A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence".
The law makes no distinction between illegal and prescribed drugs and does not state a limit for drugs levels as it does for alcohol. That is understandable given that there are numerous drugs but only one type of alcohol. I hope that the Minister does not use that argument to justify doing nothing about drug-driving.
4.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page