Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


(3) After subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) A person arrested under this section may, instead of being taken to a police station, be detained at or near the place where the preliminary test was, or would have been, administered, with a view to imposing on him there a requirement under section 7 of this Act."
(4) Section 7 of that Act (provision of specimens for analysis) is amended as follows.
(5) For subsection (2) substitute—
"(2) A requirement under this section to provide specimens of breath can only be made—
(a) at a police station,
(b) at a hospital, or
(c) at or near a place where a relevant breath test has been administered to the person concerned or would have been so administered but for his failure to co-operate with it.
(2A) For the purposes of this section "a relevant breath test" is a procedure involving the provision by the person concerned of a specimen of breath to be used for the purpose of obtaining an indication whether the proportion of alcohol in his breath or blood is likely to exceed the prescribed limit.
(2B) A requirement under this section to provide specimens of breath may not be made at or near a place mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above unless the constable making it—
(a) is in uniform, or
(b) has imposed a requirement on the person concerned to co-operate with a relevant breath test in circumstances in which section 6(5) of this Act applies.
(2C) Where a constable has imposed a requirement on the person concerned to co-operate with a relevant breath test at any place, he is entitled to remain at or near that place in order to impose on him there a requirement under this section.
(2D) If a requirement under subsection (1)(a) above has been made at a place other than at a police station, such a requirement may subsequently be made at a police station if (but only if)—
(a) a device or a reliable device of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above was not available at that place or it was for any other reason not practicable to use such a device there, or
(b) the constable who made the previous requirement has reasonable cause to believe that the device used there has not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath of the person concerned."
(6) In subsection (3) (circumstances in which requirement to provide a specimen of blood or urine may be made)—
(a) in paragraph (b) (breath-testing device not available etc.) insert at the beginning "specimens of breath have not been provided elsewhere and", and
 
6 Apr 2005 : Column 782
 

(b) in paragraph (bb) (police station breath-testing device has not provided a reliable indication of alcohol level) for "at the police station" substitute "(at the police station or elsewhere)".
(7) In section 8 of that Act (choice of specimens of breath) after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) If the person who makes a claim under subsection (2) above was required to provide specimens of breath under section 7 of this Act at or near a place mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of that section, a constable may arrest him without warrant."
(8) In section 9(1) of that Act (protection for hospital patients) for "for a laboratory test" substitute "under section 7 of this Act".
(9) Section 10 of that Act (detention of persons affected by alcohol or a drug) is amended as follows.
(10) In subsection (1) (detention at a police station)—
(a) for "until it appears to the constable" substitute "(or, if the specimen was provided otherwise than at a police station, arrested and taken to and detained at a police station) if a constable has reasonable grounds for believing", and

(b) for "not be committing" substitute "commit".


(11) In subsection (2) (grounds for detention) for "A person shall not be detained in pursuance of this section if it appears to a" substitute "Subsection (1) above does not apply to the person if it ought reasonably to appear to the".
(12) After that subsection insert—
"(2A) A person who is at a hospital as a patient shall not be arrested and taken from there to a police station in pursuance of this section if it would be prejudicial to his proper care and treatment as a patient.""
[Amendment 22 is an Amendment to Amendment 21.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]

Clause 177 [Short title and extent]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:


"( ) section (Power to require specimens of breath at roadside or at hospital etc.),"

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to SOCA]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 25:

"Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27)


(1) Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exemption of fire, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits) is amended as follows.
(2) The existing text of that section is to be subsection (1).
(3) After that subsection add—
"(2) Subsection (1) above applies in relation to a vehicle being used—
(a) for Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes, or
(b) for training persons to drive vehicles for use for Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes,
as it applies in relation to a vehicle being used for police purposes.
 
6 Apr 2005 : Column 783
 

(3) But (except where it is being used for training the person by whom it is being driven) subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to a vehicle by virtue of subsection (2) above unless it is being driven by a person who has been trained in driving vehicles at high speeds.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an important amendment that will allow SOCA to be included in the provisions that exempt police, fire and ambulance vehicles from speed limits, where it is necessary in pursuit of their functions. Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which makes that exemption, will not automatically extend to SOCA as the agency will not be a police body pursuing police purposes. Noble Lords may recognise that similar provisions were included in the Road Safety Bill. They have therefore enjoyed previous scrutiny and debate. However, as that Bill will not receive Royal Assent in the current session, it is essential that we make provision for that exemption in the SOCA Bill. There are safeguards inherent in the amendment that will limit the exemption to SOCA staff who are carrying out the purposes of the agency and those who are undergoing training to do so. Furthermore, the exemption covers only those vehicles driven by someone who has had training to drive at high speeds. With those considerations, I invite noble Lords to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I wish to put to the noble Baroness some points sent to me today by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. I am sure that she will find those points welcome; she will perhaps have to respond to them.

The advisory council points out that, although the amendment is welcome as a specific response to one problem, the original clause in the Road Safety Bill had a wider remit. It applied to fire, ambulance and police services and other prescribed purposes. That has been omitted from the Government's new amendment—naturally, because this is not the Road Safety Bill. The noble Baroness said that that Bill had been drowned in the wash-up. It is hardly surprising, given the vast raft of Bills that the Government introduced in the Queen's Speech knowing full well that they could not get through. Indeed, their own noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, in the latest edition of The House Magazine, trumpeted broadly the fact that everybody knew that the Government had done that knowing that a load of Bills would fail. Here is such an example, but we have managed to salvage something, on which all-party agreement has been reached, to tuck into this Bill, which looks as though it will have a safe passage today.

The advisory council says that it would be very helpful if the Minister could give a reassurance that if this particular Government—I have changed its wording to include the word "particular"—were in office and intended to return to such matters, they would look at the wider issue after the general election. I can certainly give an undertaking from these Benches that we would do that if we were in a position to do so.
 
6 Apr 2005 : Column 784
 

I agree with the organisation that there is widespread concern about the number of road users who have become casualties as a result of police vehicles involved in incidents while carrying out statutory duties. The original clause would have ensured proper and adequate training for police, ambulance and fire service personnel driving vehicles at high speed. I agree that that should not be overlooked in future legislation. I invite the noble Baroness to give the appropriate reassurances.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page