Transport Select Committee
Oral evidence: Road traffic law enforcement, HC 518
7 December 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 7 December 2015.
Members present: Mrs Louise Ellman (Chair), Robert Flello, Mary Glindon, Karl McCartney, Stewart Malcolm McDonald, Mark Menzies, Huw Merriman, Will Quince, Graham Stringer
Examination of Witnesses
Witness: Deputy Chief Constable Garry Forsyth, Humberside Police, gave evidence.
Q210 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Transport Select Committee. Would you give your name and position, please?
Garry Forsyth: I am Deputy Chief Constable Garry Forsyth of Humberside Police. I am here in my capacity as the Vice-Chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council roads policing portfolio.
Q211 Chair: Thank you. We have heard a great deal up to now in this inquiry about very wide levels of discretion exercised by different forces and in different places. Do you think that there should be less discretion? Is your organisation doing anything to try to change that?
Garry Forsyth: There are two things, if I could start from the back and go forwards. We absolutely want our operational officers to have a high degree of discretion, to deal most appropriately with the public when they encounter them in the roads policing environment. You may also be talking about levels of discretion when setting enforcement and so on. I can happily talk a little bit more about some of the guidance we provide forces for that, if that is the case.
Q212 Chair: Does it concern you that there are wide levels of discretion in, let us say, issuing warnings, using speed cameras and sending people on diversionary courses? There is great variation in practice.
Garry Forsyth: There is. Chief constables in the 43 forces across England and Wales all have operational independence. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is not in a position where it can direct activity towards chief constables. We are very much an ask and not a task organisation—a co-ordinating body at the centre of that. We have published a document called “Joining Forces for Safer Roads”, which sets out guidance for chief constables around the setting of limits for enforcement and the like. As I say, it is a matter for chief constables whether they choose to apply that locally. That is the localism model.
Q213 Chair: Do you monitor whether chief constables follow that guidance or do you just accept that things will be different in different places?
Garry Forsyth: We do not do anything to monitor it corporately. We tend to see a fair degree of similarity across it. The guidance that we recommend for enforcement tends to be at 10% plus two for commencing enforcement—10% of the limit plus 2 mph. We recommend something around that level. What we do not want is drivers rigidly sticking to the limit and constantly staring at their speedometer while they are travelling, because that in itself could create a distraction for them that could be inherently dangerous.
Q214 Chair: What about sharing information that you have with other organisations such as DVSA?
Garry Forsyth: Sharing information is absolutely essential for us. Members of this Committee will know that the dedicated level of roads policing resources has reduced over the last few years very much in line with the general reductions in police numbers. That requires us to be much more intelligence-led in how we go about our business. We certainly want to exploit the opportunities that are presented through sharing intelligence and information with organisations. It is not just the DVSA but also HM Revenue and Customs and Highways England. We want to make sure that we exploit those opportunities. We have made sure that we have now embedded intelligence-sharing arrangements within our whole organisational structure. You have previously heard from Superintendent Keasey, who is the Chair of the National Roads Policing Intelligence Forum. That forum is brought together purposely to share information between all the agencies that can contribute towards policing the roads in partnership.
Q215 Chair: Could you give me an example of where sharing information has been helpful?
Garry Forsyth: There are any number of examples from operational front-line policing. We run operations on a fairly regular basis throughout the course of the year. Operation Mermaid, which targets road hauliers, would be one example. Obviously there is a range of information that we have around that, but it is augmented significantly by involving the DVSA. If you want to talk in slightly broader terms than Operation Mermaid, we have Operation Trivium, which is linked to all our international policing colleagues, but we include other partner agencies and the border enforcement agency, and so on.
Q216 Chair: In relation to the border enforcement agency, you put forward a proposal in relation to foreign drivers who breach traffic laws that involves the border agency and making conditional offers at ports. How far has that got? Has it been discussed anywhere else?
Garry Forsyth: That is not my specialist subject, I have to say, at the moment. We have a problem whereby in the UK we can require the registered keeper to name the driver, but that does not then translate across into Europe or other countries. I am not sure to what stage it has progressed. I think it requires a change in legislation, doesn’t it?
Q217 Chair: Yes, it does. We would like to know more about that. Perhaps you could send us some information. We would like to know if that proposal has been formally put to the Home Office or whatever authority is appropriate.
Garry Forsyth: I will certainly follow that up for you.
Q218 Chair: You have given me an example where collaboration with other agencies has been helpful. Can you give me an example where there have been problems in securing that collaboration or sharing information?
Garry Forsyth: We have founded our approach to roads policing for quite a time on working in partnership. As I mentioned earlier, we have things that are very well established, like the National Roads Policing Intelligence Forum. All our partners play into that and can see the benefits of it. Those things have probably been in place in excess of five years. They go before my time in the portfolio. We are not struggling to get anybody to contribute to that because they can all see the collective benefit of it. Indeed, we have just refreshed our strategy going forward, which is policing the roads in partnership. We recognise that we are much more effective if we can contribute as a partner, with all the other people who are in the same area of business or a similar area of business.
Q219 Chair: There is a single Home Office target of reducing crime. Does that take the emphasis away from roads policing?
Garry Forsyth: I do not think it does entirely. It can cause some difficulty in terms of prioritisation. Within our strategy, and throughout all our strategies, part is around engaging and tackling criminality. The strategic roads network, and the roads network in general, is utilised by all criminals and organised crime groups. Roads policing has a place in terms of tackling and engaging that criminality, and it does so very effectively. You often find that roads policing officers are utilised by things like counter-terrorism hubs or regional organised crime units to be the field arm doing front-line enforcement on behalf of other agencies. Effective roads policing has a direct impact at the top level of crime offending, but also an ability to tackle everyday criminality.
Q220 Chair: We have seen some pretty stark figures about the reduction in road traffic officers. In view of what you have just told us, does that mean that it has caused an impediment in identifying serious crime, including terrorism?
Garry Forsyth: We have obviously seen a reduction in roads policing officers; it has come down by about 1,300 officers since 2010. We are much better at utilising technology to target resources. Things like ANPR are enormously beneficial for us, and when we start to populate that with information from other agencies it means we can still be quite effective. I am not saying there isn’t any disbenefit in terms of the reduction of numbers. Obviously the more numbers we have, the more proactive we can be, but we have enjoyed some significant success, and intelligence will drive our activity more effectively going forward.
Q221 Chair: Are you saying that technology can completely replace people?
Garry Forsyth: No, I am definitely not saying that. Technology can be hugely beneficial. Clearly we want to be in the best position possible to exploit technological advances, but technology on its own cannot replace police officers in terms of the engagement and enforcement aspect as well as the educational aspect. There is technology emerging whereby a roadside camera can have the ability to identify a driver on the phone, but that in itself would not be sufficient to do anything about it. An offence would not be made out unless there was further evidence that could be provided by the officer. That would start to be quite complicated unless we had a significant change in legislation and also an uplift in resources to enable swift and effective translation of mobile phone data to confirm whether a call had actually taken place.
Q222 Chair: Let me go back for a moment to the comments you made about the connection between road traffic offences and other more serious crime. Aren’t you concerned that the reduction in police traffic officers could mean less success in apprehending other criminals?
Garry Forsyth: I do not think that is something we have seen just yet. We are increasingly reliant on the shared information and intelligence that we get, and then making sure that we utilise it to target our resources more effectively. I have not seen a correlation that demonstrates a significant increase in organised criminality on the roads network as a result of that reduction in roads policing officers, because we are a lot sharper in how we do our business there.
Q223 Huw Merriman: With 21% of car occupants killed in accidents when they have not been wearing seat belts, do you believe that more could be done by manufacturers in respect of technology? For example, could there be immobilisation or something along those lines?
Garry Forsyth: Absolutely. Seat belts are still one of the fatal flaws. While it is now culturally unacceptable to drive without a seat belt, we still see far too much of that taking place. It is a great example of where we could exploit technology to our advantage for road safety. Quite simply, it is possible to disable the vehicle if the seat belt is not engaged.
Q224 Huw Merriman: In the period while we are waiting for this technology to be rolled out in all cars—we believe the technology will be there—do you think we place enough emphasis on education, if it is the case that there is a reduction in the numbers of police able to stop cars?
Garry Forsyth: Education is key to our approach. There are three things that we try to do in the strategy with our partners. One of those is engineering, making sure that the road network is as safe as it possibly can be. Obviously enforcement has a key part to play in our activity. The education piece goes much wider than policing; it involves our partners as well and is critical. All those three things together seek to achieve habitual compliance, which would deliver the success that we all want.
Q225 Huw Merriman: As part of this inquiry, we had a gentleman who came along from Brake. He took the view that in times to come your car would be immobilised in terms of breath testing, seat belts and speed limits, and it would almost be going towards a driver-aided car. Would you hazard a guess as to when that would be likely to come in?
Garry Forsyth: If you look back perhaps 20 years ago and at where we are now, it would probably be very difficult to envisage the degree of technology we currently have. I would not want to sit here and rule out anything in terms of technology. I am not a huge advocate for flying cars or anything like that, but it is well known that technological advance is going much quicker than it ever has done and it is accelerating at pace as well. There will always be a cost balance for manufacturers as to what is marketable, but when you start to put that against the number of people killed on the roads every day—what the cost of that is and what the potential saving could be—on the cost-benefit alone you would have quite a persuasive argument for more prohibitive technology.
Q226 Will Quince: I was interested that you raised the point about mobile phone detectors. We have seen a number of different forces and councils looking to install those. I completely get the point about warning signs, but more and more want to move to fines. I understand that at the moment it is not the actual using of the mobile phone that is the problem; we know that if you buy a modern car you will struggle to find one that does not have Bluetooth technology built in. There is even technology that reads out your text messages. Of course, you can still be done—sorry, charged—in relation to a mobile phone if the police feel that you were distracted. Do you feel that is at odds with that position?
Garry Forsyth: Distraction is the real thing we are looking at, because there are so many means by which you can be distracted. Interestingly, I have a watch to which my text message comes through rather than on my phone. That is on my wrist and in some respects while I am driving it is very difficult not to look at it. That could cause distraction in its own right, so distraction is the key element for us rather than just one particular issue. Phones have always been a significant part of it, but again there are many different elements built into the issue.
Q227 Will Quince: How do you see that technology progressing? My understanding is that the technology cannot distinguish somebody who is using a mobile phone, either hands-free or holding it up to their ear, or using it through a Bluetooth hands-free system, or indeed distinguishing the driver and the passenger because it is the cellular network that is being picked up. I am interested to know what you think. I can see mobile usage being flagged up as a warning, because speed warnings work; they alert us to the fact that we should be paying attention, but how do you see the technology changing because of the clear barriers that exist?
Garry Forsyth: A good parallel to draw would be the benefits that could exist for operational police officers as we are made aware of things when we drive around particular localities: for instance, if somebody is on bail and a vulnerable victim lives in close proximity. All of that has to be within the legislative framework. It is really important that we take the opportunity to work with the DFT and the vehicle manufacturers to ensure that we are exploiting technological advances with an eye to safety as well as just to the benefits and comforts they bring for the user.
Q228 Mary Glindon: What powers do the police have to use publicly collected video footage such as dashcams to investigate road traffic offences?
Garry Forsyth: That evidence would be considered in the same way as any other evidence, in effect. The police will enforce offences. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service to consider the quality of the evidence itself, but the police will enforce offences where there is evidence to do so.
Q229 Mary Glindon: If evidence is collected from dashcams, could it be used if a prosecution takes place? People wonder whether they can use evidence. If the police have not seen it, can they bring it forward?
Garry Forsyth: There are issues for policing as to how we can effectively manage all the wealth of different routes of evidence that could come into the organisation. There is potentially a huge quantity of digital evidence around some things. That would be an issue for us, or infrastructure-wise as we go forward. If the evidence is there, the police will consider it in terms of putting a case forward to the Crown Prosecution Service. When the Crown Prosecution Service consider the evidence, they will want to consider the quality and continuity of the evidence, as well as any identification issues that may arise from it. They will be the body that decides whether or not a prosecution goes forward. That will be based on the quality and their assessment of that evidence. Certainly if the evidence is there, the police will enforce it.
Q230 Graham Stringer: What impact has the change in not having to display a road tax disc had on accidents?
Garry Forsyth: A change on accidents?
Q231 Graham Stringer: A change on enforcement and accidents. As I understand it, there are a lot less drivers who have paid their road tax.
Garry Forsyth: I do not have any data to hand on that. I suppose the most obvious—
Q232 Graham Stringer: Do you not?
Garry Forsyth: I do not have it with me, I am afraid.
Q233 Graham Stringer: But it is available to you.
Garry Forsyth: It is available, yes. I could certainly come back to you on that. The most visible difference in terms of the failure to display a road fund licence is that the police officer who used to be on foot patrol would get an immediate indication if there was something awry with the vehicle, and could then utilise that to further explore it with an individual.
Q234 Graham Stringer: Do you think it has been a good or a bad innovation?
Garry Forsyth: There are some benefits. On balance, from an operational police officer’s perspective, while we have technological advances that make up for it, I would personally rather have the road fund licence that remained in the vehicle.
Q235 Graham Stringer: But you do not know if there has been any impact on accidents or lawlessness, or breaking the law.
Garry Forsyth: I do not think there has been any impact on accidents that I am aware of. I will have to get back to you on any issues about the no insurance side of it and any correlation there.
Q236 Graham Stringer: I am grateful for that. We have had a couple of interesting sessions on cyclists. What resources do you put into stopping cyclists cycling on pavements?
Garry Forsyth: It varies from force to force, depending on the threat and risk that is presented. Certainly here in London there is a cycle traffic team that looks to enforce appropriately, not just against cyclists but against people committing offences against cyclists. There is an interesting bit around safety. On some occasions, you might open up some of the pavements to cyclists to make that a safer route for them. Other than that, it varies and it is bespoke depending on the level of threat and risk that exists in individual forces. For example, Cambridgeshire will have a much stronger dedicated focus on that than somewhere that does not have the same cycle infrastructure.
Q237 Graham Stringer: Do you think there should be national guidelines?
Garry Forsyth: On cycling?
Graham Stringer: Yes.
Garry Forsyth: No, I do not think there should be national guidance on that.
Q238 Karl McCartney: Carrying on from the questions from my colleague Mr Stringer, you might not have these statistics but you might be able to hazard a guess. Compared with 10 years ago, how often are people stopped by police officers when driving and taken to court for a tail light that does not work or car tyres that are not of sufficient depth of tread, or indeed prosecuted for smoking in the car while children are in the back?
Garry Forsyth: I can give you a gut feeling answer on that, if you wish. I do not think it happens to the same extent that it used to 10 years ago. The reason I say that is that we are much more targeted when stopping people now. There would need to be intelligence that supported somebody being stopped in that instance, unless there was an obvious offence. If there was an obvious offence, you would look at the investment in time and resource to take a case to court for a relatively minor offence, and what other options there were. Is it somebody who is repeatedly offending or somebody to whom we could give a verbal warning? We look at what other options exist to rectify the issue. Is it a behavioural issue or a vehicle issue? What are the options that enable us to tackle it more effectively?
Q239 Karl McCartney: Percentage-wise, how may fixed penalties do you think are issued for a broken tail light or number plate light?
Garry Forsyth: I would only be guessing. I do not imagine that it would be a huge amount, to be fair.
Q240 Karl McCartney: Obviously different forces choose where to put their resources. If I give you a scenario, what do you think is more dangerous in your own personal opinion? It is raining and somebody is driving a car with four brand new tyres but they are on a mobile phone; somebody else is driving in traffic in a car with four tyres that are illegal. Which is more dangerous?
Garry Forsyth: I would say instinctively that the mobile phone is probably the more dangerous of the two, but it would depend on the state and condition of the tyres.
Q241 Karl McCartney: They are virtually slicks—I am putting the other side of the argument.
Garry Forsyth: If they are virtually slicks, you would be in a position where that would be dangerous driving as a result of the condition of the vehicle. Therefore, that would probably attract a fiercer and stronger penalty than for the use of the mobile phone.
Q242 Karl McCartney: Do you see the point I am trying to make?
Garry Forsyth: Absolutely. It is a balance between the two. That is why it is important that officers have discretion; it enables them to deal effectively with whatever they are faced with.
Q243 Mark Menzies: The issue about road safety campaigns is something I want to pursue with the Ministers when they come here in a few minutes. From a police perspective, do you believe that the road safety campaigns that the Government currently run are adequate? What are the gaps? What messages would you like us to get across from a road safety campaign point of view?
Garry Forsyth: The Think! campaign has been particularly effective. Some of the stuff done around Bike Safe also worked very well when it was targeted towards particular communities. Any campaigning that could be increased would be beneficial. There is still more that we could do to raise awareness. There are things around the Fatal Four, and certainly any seasonal activity, particularly things like Drink Drive campaigns, that raises awareness has to be beneficial. My view would be that the more of that we can do, the better.
Q244 Mark Menzies: In terms of being able to communicate that message, is there a particular age profile of people at risk from some of these actions, or a particular part of the country? Is it urban versus rural or younger versus older? If the Government are trying to target that message, who do you have in mind as the recipients?
Garry Forsyth: The majority of issues that we have around excess alcohol, excess speed and distraction while driving tend to be in the younger age group, up to the age of 24. We are also seeing an interesting shift at the moment around excess alcohol; there is quite a significant uplift in the number of female drivers at that younger age. There certainly needs to be targeted campaign activity. Understanding the age group and demographics enables us to segment the way it is communicated. We are doing more things with social media rather than conventional matrix signage on motorways or billboard advertising. It gives us an opportunity to look at that.
Q245 Mark Menzies: Is there anything that works particularly well at the moment in terms of communication? What are the good bits that we could pull out and do more of?
Garry Forsyth: Without wishing to be too proprietary, there are things like Twitter. If you have effective reach built up through a local audience, you can have really effective campaigns. They get retweeted and you get a huge amount of visibility from something that is relatively simple and goes to the right places by being targeted at the audience who follow that particular thing.
Q246 Chair: Twenty-one per cent of car occupants killed were not wearing seat belts. Have you ever called for a public information campaign about the importance of seat belts?
Garry Forsyth: I do not think we have, to be honest with you. Probably the last one I can remember would be “Clunk Click Every Trip”.
Chair: That is a long time ago.
Garry Forsyth: It is a long time ago, yes; absolutely.
Q247 Chair: Would you regard it as your responsibility to call for a campaign?
Garry Forsyth: Certainly we could have those conversations with people. Again it is a matter for independent chief constables as to what they would like to target locally. There would certainly be some benefit. Seat belts remain stubbornly there as a significant factor of fatality in roads policing, so it is certainly something we would be supportive of.
Q248 Chair: Would the NPCC see it as its responsibility to call for such a campaign if you were aware of figures like this? The figure of 21% is very high, isn’t it, for car occupants killed not wearing a seat belt? It is shocking.
Garry Forsyth: It certainly is. Our role would be to have those conversations with Ministers and the appropriate Government Departments rather than necessarily standing alone to call for a campaign.
Q249 Chair: Have you had those conversations?
Garry Forsyth: I have not personally. I do not know whether the chair has.
Q250 Chair: But you are not aware of any.
Garry Forsyth: No, I am not.
Q251 Will Quince: On this very point, I am conscious that you do not have the statistics, but do you have a gut feeling as to the demographic, in terms of whether it is elderly or younger drivers or passengers who tend not to be wearing seat belts and are involved in collisions of this nature?
Garry Forsyth: I am afraid I do not have any information on that.
Q252 Will Quince: There has been a campaign running for a certain period of time—I fear with limited success—in relation to younger drivers not being able to carry passengers under a certain age after a certain time at night because of the propensity of accidents. What is your view on that?
Garry Forsyth: I am personally a fan of graduated driving licences. That is something I would like to see progress. I do not think you should necessarily be able to go from having passed your test one day to the next day having all the freedoms that the road can bring. I am also quite concerned about some of the potential perverse impacts of things like the black box monitoring that can take place. Sometimes we have seen young people in a rush to get home before the curfew ends tragically involved in a fatality or some sort of accident themselves. Graduated driving licences could be really beneficial in that area.
Q253 Karl McCartney: You were asked about graduated licences and I agree with you to some extent, but do you think that everybody should be made to take a driving test again during their life rather than having a driving licence for life; and do you know roughly, out of the 30 million drivers in this country, how many people should not have a driving licence, because they have not taken a driving test but somebody else has for them?
Garry Forsyth: I can answer the second one easily. I do not know the exact numbers for that. On your first question, this is something where education is quite beneficial when it comes to the speed enforcement bit. There are significant changes to how we drive. Technology and our vehicles have changed substantially. There are things like the smart motorway network with various kinds of signage. If the last time you looked at The Highway Code was when you were 17 in preparation for your test, that is probably not putting you in the best place to drive safely on a continuing basis as you go through your whole driving career.
Q254 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: On a slightly different tack, Deputy Chief Constable, last week the Scottish Government brought in new limits for drink-driving. It is 50 mg as opposed to 80 mg in the rest of the UK, making the UK and Malta the two highest jurisdictions in the rest of Europe. Would you welcome a change from the UK Government to bring it more in line with Scotland’s new regulations, particularly given the flow of traffic over the border?
Garry Forsyth: We are watching what is happening in Scotland with very great interest. I can speak with a dual hat on because I actually live there.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald: The best people do.
Garry Forsyth: I drove down this morning, as the train service is not great right now. There are issues, and you will be familiar with them, around the impact that then has on the local economy. What I see in Scotland is people choosing simply not to take any risk whatsoever and not having any alcoholic drink if they are driving. From our perspective, that has to be positive because it completely removes the possibility of risk. We wait to see with interest what actually happens in Scotland—whether it drives a reduction in offending and an increase in safety.
Q255 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: Obviously we have the Scottish example on these islands, but have you learned any lessons from Estonia, Poland or Sweden where they have a 20 mg limit? Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic have a zero limit. You talk about learning from Scotland, but what about other countries where the limit is lower than in Scotland? What can we learn from them?
Garry Forsyth: We are engaged with all our European roads policing partners through TISPOL. We regularly engage with people to look at what is working for them. My position is really clear. If you are going to drive, do not have anything to drink, because then you will put yourself and other people on the road network in the safest possible position.
Q256 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: Should the UK Government reduce the limit to be in line with Scotland?
Garry Forsyth: It is probably too early to make an assessment of what has come from Scotland. There is quite a persuasive evidence base that follows the rationale that, if you are going to drive, don’t drink at all.
Q257 Chair: I want to go back to the work of roads policing officers. There does not seem to be overall agreement on whether the expertise of roads policing officers is something special that should be maintained, or whether it can be incorporated in more general policing. Could you tell us how you see roads policing in relation to the national intelligence model? In the written evidence we have had from your organisation we are told that it should connect at high levels of risk, but it is not terribly clear what that means.
Garry Forsyth: There are two elements to that question. Let me try to answer the national intelligence model one first. The national intelligence model is the way we understand threat and risk and then deploy resources according to the threat and risk. For example, as the vice-chair I sit on the national tactical tasking and co-ordination meetings group, whereby a whole load of agencies and regional police forces with their organised crime capabilities sit in a meeting chaired by the National Crime Agency. They make decisions on what the priorities are for the people in the room and how they can contribute tactically to deliver operationally on the front line. Operation Trivium would be one example of that, where a national operation sponsored at national tactical level is discussed at the national tactical tasking and co-ordination meeting and is then delivered by roads policing specialists in conjunction with their colleagues from across Europe to local effect. I was out with our roads policing officers two weeks ago as part of Trivium doing exactly that in Scunthorpe. That is one aspect of how you focus capability on the operational front line.
They can then use their specialist skills to a great extent, whereas an ordinary officer would not necessarily have the detailed grasp of construction and use offences that then enables you perhaps to target criminality more effectively. Very often if criminals are not in the process of carrying commodity, are not transporting firearms or trafficking drugs, but actually might have something wrong with their vehicle on the road, that gives another opportunity for a specialist with the right skills and experience to bring them in, cause disruption and enable us to tackle that criminality.
Over and above that, you ask if it is important that roads policing is recognised as a specialism in its own right. Yes, I absolutely believe it is. There are some highly specialist skills that are very different from other elements of policing. The investigation of serious and fatal road traffic collisions and the provision of family liaison officers are all things done in various ways. If there is a murder, it would be investigated by a homicide detective. The skills are not dissimilar but they are not the same for a serious road traffic collision investigator. Indeed, a road traffic FLO has a different set of skills from those required for a crime FLO. The specialist skills are absolutely necessary across a whole range of roles. Certainly when you get into some of the technical aspects around the carriage of dangerous goods, for example, the detailed technical nature of the legislation means that a regular front-line operational officer just could not have the knowledge and understanding effectively to look at those issues.
Q258 Chair: Is what you have said accepted in all police forces by all chief constables?
Garry Forsyth: I run a programme at the moment that is developing learning standards. Again it has to be based very much on threat and risk for that particular force. If I am a chief constable in an organisation that has very few fast roads in the strategic roads network, why on earth would I want to train my roads policing officers in that particular specialism? What we are doing is setting learning standards in conjunction with the College of Policing that enable forces to select what they require for their officers to deliver more effectively against the threat and risk that they have identified through their tasking and co-ordination process.
Q259 Chair: Are all forces involved in that?
Garry Forsyth: Yes, they are; absolutely.
Q260 Chair: They are all with you in looking at that approach.
Garry Forsyth: Yes. We have spoken to every single force in the country in terms of what their current capability is and how they currently train their officers. We are standardising that in the College of Policing and making sure that it is available for them to select, in the event that it meets their threat and risk profile.
Q261 Chair: How do we explain the wide variation in the number of police traffic officers in different forces? If they have all bought into that, why is there such variation in recognition of the importance of road traffic officers?
Garry Forsyth: Because, coming back to my earlier comments, chief constables are operationally independent. They choose to deploy their resources against their threat and risk profile. They have a finite amount of resource, and they have to make choices as to where they are going to point that resource. For some places, if there is a particularly passionate chief constable around the roads policing issue who has a particularly active community generating a high level of complaints to the police and crime commissioner, or there is a high level of public interest around a certain area, they may choose to devote more resource to roads policing. If you are a force that does not have a big issue about speeding concerns being raised with you—you might not have a very big strategic roads network—you will make choices to deploy your resources against your threat and risk. If that is not roads policing, you will have fewer roads policing officers.
Q262 Chair: Do you think that the police and crime commissioners are connected to this way of thinking? Are they aware of all of it?
Garry Forsyth: I think very much so now. I do not think they necessarily were all that connected when they first came in. If you spoke to police and crime commissioners, I am sure they would probably tell you—as a lot of chief officers would—that roads policing does matter to the public. There will be a significant amount of correspondence with the public. They will say, “This speeding is an issue. This antisocial use of vehicles is an issue.” It has probably gone up the profile for police and crime commissioners from when they originally came into being.
Q263 Chair: Could you tell us something about the work of the Central Motorway Police Group?
Garry Forsyth: I can, because I used to be an assistant chief constable in the West Midlands and I had responsibility for it. You have had evidence from Paul Keasey. It is a tri-force collaboration and it is a fantastic example of where we can work better and more effectively in collaboration, linking with partner agencies and having really targeted, effective enforcement activity supported by three forces, and education as well.
Q264 Chair: Could it be replicated in other parts of the country?
Garry Forsyth: We are now seeing some elements of that collaboration being repeated elsewhere. In the west country there is a tri-force collaboration. As a business model, efficiency will tend to drive collaboration. Certainly in my own force at the moment we are in the process of embarking upon a joint specialist operations unit, which will also see collaboration between Humberside and South Yorkshire. I think you will see that continuing to occur across the country.
Q265 Chair: On diversionary courses, there is variation in different forces as to when such courses are applied. Is there any guidance on when an offender should be offered a diversionary course rather than a fine?
Garry Forsyth: This goes back to my earlier answer about the guidance that was published, “Joining Forces for Safer Roads”, which was refreshed earlier this year. Chief constables of individual forces have operational independence. They procure, through their road safety partnerships, their preferred provider for a diversionary course. There is some variation but national guidance has gone out. Obviously from March next year the Road Safety Trust will come into being. That will give clearer governance, transparency and accountability around NDORS. That might see improved consistency across those courses.
Q266 Chair: If the number of police traffic officers continues to reduce, would that give you concern about loss of expertise in the force?
Garry Forsyth: Yes, it would.
Q267 Chair: Do you feel concerned that it might indeed happen, with perhaps more focus on terrorism and other security-related issues?
Garry Forsyth: Roads policing is an essential part of protecting our network against terrorism. That is why I am confident that it has a role to play in terms of the strategy and will continue to feature prominently in people’s tactical activities target map, as it will for organised criminality. I would be concerned that, as you reduce numbers further, it obviously starts to impact on your proactive capability and the amount you can do. Yes, I would be concerned about that.
Chair: Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Andrew Jones MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Jessica Matthew, Deputy Director, Road User Licensing, Insurance and Safety, Department for Transport, and Rt Hon Mike Penning MP, Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice and Victims, Home Office, gave evidence.
Q268 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Transport Select Committee. Welcome back to one Minister, and welcome to the other Minister.
Mike Penning: It is like Groundhog Day.
Chair: Please tell us your names and positions for the record.
Mike Penning: I am Mike Penning. I am the Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice, Victims and Veterans Minister in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office.
Andrew Jones: I am Andrew Jones, Member of Parliament for Harrogate and Knaresborough and one of the Transport Ministers with responsibility for roads, buses, taxis, rail in the north of England, and today road safety.
Jessica Matthew: I am Jessica Matthew, Deputy Director for Road User Licensing, Insurance and Safety in the Department for Transport.
Q269 Chair: Do you think that roads traffic policing is important in relation to security and terrorism issues, or is it something entirely separate?
Mike Penning: We think all policing is important, which is why within the counter-terrorism budget we protected CT funding in the last Parliament. As the Committee is obviously aware, we have shown our commitment to policing with no funding cuts at all for the duration of this Parliament. However, policing has changed dramatically and there are other policing methodologies that are used on our roads. That has changed an awful lot, not least since the Highways Agency came in with highways officers as well.
Q270 Chair: Do you feel concerned that as the number of traffic police declines, and it has been declining, that in itself is a threat to dealing with other sorts of crime?
Mike Penning: No. As I alluded to in my comment a moment ago, traffic officers have been declining since the inception of what was the Highways Agency and is now Highways England. Many of the non-policing roles of traffic officers have been taken over by Highways England. It is obviously up to chief constables as an operational decision how many officers they have for different aspects of policing within their forces.
Q271 Chair: We have been told that the Home Office focus on just one target—the reduction of crime—makes it difficult for individual forces to prioritise road traffic policing. How do you see that, Minister?
Mike Penning: We do not have targets within the Home Office. We abolished them in 2010 when we came into power. We are interested in reducing crime in all its different aspects. Crime is changing quite dramatically. We have put cybercrime into our fraud statistics for the first time. It has never been put in there before. We want the public to be aware of the changing nature of policing. As I said, it is an operational decision as to how chief constables decide to police their particular area. A lot of the traditional roles of a traffic officer are now being done by highways officers.
Q272 Chair: Mr Jones, despite what we have just heard, we have been told that because the Home Office is focused on just one phrase—reduction of crime—that makes it difficult for chief constables to focus on road traffic officers, and we have seen a decline in those. Would you agree with that?
Andrew Jones: No; I would agree with my colleague. Enforcement is a key part of road safety, but so is education and engineering. I do not think there is necessarily a direct correlation between the number of police officers and the amount of incidents they deal with. That is what HMIC have said, and I support my colleague’s comments.
Q273 Chair: Do you have any concerns at all about the reduction of road traffic officers?
Andrew Jones: The evidence points the other way. We are seeing that our roads are ever safer. The road traffic data are incredibly encouraging. We have the second safest roads in the world behind Sweden. The number of road deaths fell by 45% between 2005 and 2014. I would not want to give anybody the wrong impression. Our roads are safe. Our work now is to make them even safer.
Q274 Chair: It is certainly true that, if you look over the time period that you have just mentioned, roads have become safer; but if we look at what has happened more recently, over the last year or two years, there has been an increase in pedestrian casualties and cyclist and other fatalities. Is that not something that concerns you? Do you relate it to the reduction in road traffic policing?
Andrew Jones: Does it concern me? Yes, it does, because I want to see road safety continue its relentless improvement. I am aware that the data went up in 2014, but I would caution against saying that that is a trend. One data point is not a trend. The first two quarters of 2015 have seen a reduction. I do not think there was a single factor responsible for the increase in 2014. The number of fatalities that went up was not statistically significant. We know the weather has an impact on people’s driving conditions and therefore the amount of accidents. In 2014, we saw increases in other European countries: for example, Sweden, Germany and France. They have very comparable levels of enforcement to ourselves, so I do not think it is fair to say that there is a correlation with one data point. I think that your hypothesis is wrong.
Mike Penning: I completely agree with my colleague. The reduction in traffic officers started years ago when we brought traffic officers in. That was a decision made by the previous Administration and in many ways it has been seen as very sensible. There were warranted officers doing things that were not policing jobs, such as clearing up the highway and that sort of safety work. Of course, in percentage terms the number of officers involved in front-line policing in this country is greater now than it was in 2010.
Q275 Chair: Do you think there is a problem with people ignoring some road traffic laws because they reckon they will not get caught?
Andrew Jones: Again, I do not think the evidence supports that. Our roads are getting ever safer and we need to build on the momentum that we have. No, I do not think that is the case.
Q276 Chair: You are not concerned about lack of visible enforcement—people not seeing officers there. You do not think that matters.
Mike Penning: The biggest thing that we have seen is the speed camera. I don’t mean the old yellow speed cameras; technology has changed dramatically on our highways. When you look at our motorways, for instance, people are being caught and are going through the legal system. The vast majority of them, if they are caught for speeding offences, opt to go on speed awareness courses if they can. They are something I brought in when I was the Minister four and a half years ago. We hoped then that it would reduce the amount of reoffending. All the evidence clearly shows that. We have fewer people being prosecuted and fewer people getting penalty notices, but nearly 100,000 people going on driver awareness courses. They are all about prevention, which is what we would like to see.
Q277 Chair: The Department encourages offering motorists a diversionary course. Is that based on any evidence that it works? Mr Jones, what do we know about that?
Andrew Jones: Yes, it is. This is a significant and very positive development in road safety. What are we trying to do? We are trying to change people’s behaviour. What is the best way to do that? It is to educate them. The Association of Chief Police Officers—as they were then called—did some work looking at the pre and post-behaviour and attitudes of people who had been on speed awareness courses. It showed that even after three months a really positive change had taken place. We are now building upon that, looking at a broader piece of research that we have commissioned and that will be starting next year. It will look at how that is measured and whether we can take some of the learning from that into some of the other courses. Overall, there are seven courses that you can go on; it is not just on speed. They include careless driving and mobile phone courses, and so on. If we just think about what we are trying to do, it is about changing behaviour. How can we change behaviour? We educate.
Q278 Chair: Is the information you have referred to published? Can it be accessed?
Andrew Jones: Yes, I believe so. I can supply you with it. I am happy to write to the Committee with that information.
Mike Penning: We will write to the Committee.
Q279 Chair: Does it concern you that there seems to be such a wide range of discretion as to whether diversionary courses are used in different places?
Andrew Jones: No. The police decide, and they should have operational freedom to decide. We are not in a country that gives direction to the police. They have operational freedoms. That is a good thing.
Q280 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: I have a slightly different subject. The United Kingdom, with the exception of Scotland, and Malta have the highest drink driving limits in Europe. Why?
Andrew Jones: We have had that limit for a considerable number of years. One thing we also have is one of the safest records in terms of drink-driving. Drink-driving is clearly wrong. It is utterly irresponsible. It is dangerous to others and indeed dangerous to yourself. Making progress on drink-driving is not a question of limits alone; it is a question of enforcement as well as education, so there are three things going on.
Q281 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: You will be aware that in Scotland last week the limit came down to 50 mg. Were the Scottish Government wrong to do that, in your view?
Andrew Jones: No. The Scottish Government can do whatever they feel is right for Scotland.
Q282 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: Of course they can, but what is your assessment of that decision?
Andrew Jones: I think it is early days to make an assessment of it. I will take a look at it and see what evidence comes forward. I am cautious about making a change here, but I certainly want to see continued progress. Only last week, we launched our own Think! drink driving campaign. Let me put in a little extra detail for you on this. In the first year when we had detailed information on the number of casualties involving alcohol there were 1,650 road deaths. It was a shockingly high number. That was in 1979. The number went down to 240 in 2013, which is the latest data on this. Information on accidents involving alcohol takes a little longer to come through because it involves coroners’ reports. That is the latest data. It is an 85% decline, which is very good progress by any definition.
Q283 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: Don’t you think it would make sense though, given the amount of traffic that crosses the border between Scotland and England on a daily or weekly basis, to lower the limit to what we have decided to do in Scotland?
Mike Penning: Why?
Q284 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: Why not?
Andrew Jones: If that was the case—I am happy to agree that there are very significant links between our two fine countries and we are much stronger together—and if your argument was true, why therefore did the Scottish Government reduce?
Q285 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: Did you have discussions with the Scottish Government or Police Scotland when they were making this decision?
Andrew Jones: No.
Q286 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: Why not?
Mike Penning: It is a devolved matter.
Andrew Jones: It is their business.
Q287 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: I find it quite astonishing, given the flow of traffic between Scotland and England, that there were no discussions between your Department or the UK Government in general and the Scottish Government or Police Scotland on changes to drink driving laws. I think most people would expect there to be some discussion.
Mike Penning: At the end of the day, Scotland is a devolved Administration and it is their decision. Certainly it is not for Scotland to tell England and Wales what their drink-driving limits should be, exactly as it is not for—
Chair: I think we have had the answer, Mr McDonald. We should move on.
Q288 Stewart Malcolm McDonald: I want to ask a more general question. With the change in Scotland from several police forces to a single police force, how has that impacted on your relationship, if at all, in terms of road safety in any other joint working that you might have to do?
Andrew Jones: On joint working, I am always very happy to take ideas on how we can improve our performance on road safety. I will take those ideas from wherever, but that would come through links with the Scottish Government. I do not think it would come from the Scottish police service.
Q289 Mary Glindon: I want to ask about devolved power. The Local Government Association and the Local Government Technical Advisers Group have given evidence that calls for part 6 of the TMA to be brought into force. Do the Government have any plans to do this at all?
Andrew Jones: Not at the moment, no. I am aware of this, partly because I have met the Local Government Association and Councillor Peter Box who leads on this for them. That was only a few weeks ago. They want more powers. They are particularly thinking of enforcement of yellow boxes. I have some caution regarding that. I do not particularly want to make any changes. I am aware that local authorities are lobbying for it. I am also aware that some councils have made a significant amount of money from box junction enforcement. I am also aware that we get representations from drivers’ groups expressing the opposite opinion, so I was not planning to make any changes.
Q290 Mary Glindon: There was a report by this Committee back in 2011—I was not part of the Committee then—recommending that it should be brought into force. At the time the Government said that there was insufficient demand for these powers to be taken up by local authorities. Do you believe that remains the case?
Andrew Jones: I have had one representation from the Local Government Association. Not all councils are members of it. That is the only representation I have had on the subject. In London, they of course have these powers, but London has quite different traffic challenges from other parts of our country. I do not think there is a necessary reason to make any regulatory change at the moment.
Q291 Chair: It is still on the statute book, isn’t it?
Andrew Jones: Yes, it is. It is just a question of it commencing, or not commencing.
Q292 Chair: You don’t sound very keen.
Andrew Jones: No, I’m not that keen. I am a little nervous when we have local authorities that have used cameras for high levels of enforcement, effectively to raise a significant amount of revenue, as we have all heard in various cases. I am a little cautious about it; as a general rule I am open to seeing evidence on it, but cautious.
Q293 Mary Glindon: You mentioned London. This may be something that both Ministers want to address. Why can enforcement of some moving traffic offences be devolved in London but remain a police matter elsewhere?
Andrew Jones: They have different transport challenges in London from elsewhere. It is as simple as that. London is a huge, thriving, enormous city with its own specific challenges. We do not have a Transport for London anywhere else. We do not have equivalents, though of course we are setting up the seven national transport bodies. We have different rules in different places to meet local need.
Q294 Mary Glindon: In relation to things like the northern powerhouse, and so on, will that not change things at all?
Andrew Jones: The northern powerhouse is about a little more than yellow box enforcement. It is about addressing the long-term structural difference between the north and south of our country. It is about recreating wealth in the way that the great northern cities drove our national wealth in the 19th century, and recreating that in the 21st. It is a big and exciting project. Transport is certainly at the heart of it, but it is nothing to do with the capacity to enforce yellow boxes.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House—
On resuming—
Q295 Chair: How are the Government working to ensure that enforcement agencies can identify foreign drivers who have breached traffic laws? What are the problems?
Mike Penning: If an officer pulls a driver over and they happen to be a foreign national, and the officer is not happy with the evidence being presented about their residence, and so on, the officer has the power to arrest them and take them in for further investigation. The issue is around cameras. I can pass this on to my colleague. It is something that has been troubling successive Governments for a long time. This is really your area, Andrew.
Andrew Jones: It is, yes. We have quite a significant EU directive on the issue, which we are working through at the moment. We are required to transpose by May 2017 the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences directive—the CBE directive. It presents us with quite a challenge. It was originally classed as a justice motion and we had an opt-out. After a ruling from the Commission following a legal challenge it has been redesignated as a transport issue. We have a problem with it because it is about the exchange of registered keeper details, whereas all our laws are based upon the driver, not the keeper. We are not alone in this. We might be able to find out through an exchange of information with other European countries who the registered keeper of a vehicle is, but we could not necessarily enforce who the driver was. That is why we have a problem with it and that is what we are trying to get changed.
Q296 Chair: I understand that a proposal has been discussed with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the NPCC, about how this particular problem could be addressed. Are you aware of that?
Andrew Jones: No, because I am currently working to try to get the directive changed. I have been working with colleagues in the Foreign Office on this issue. Basically we have a problem with it because it will be asymmetrical and potentially will reduce our capacity to enforce road safety. I want to try to get the directive changed. The EU have said that they are looking at the operation of the directive during the course of next year to see if it can be improved. It is not just us in this position. French laws work on having a registered keeper, but the German laws work on the registered driver.
Q297 Chair: What is the nature of the improvement that you are seeking?
Andrew Jones: What I want to see is being able to enforce getting the name of the driver and not the registered keeper. The keeper might say, “Well, the vehicle belongs to me but I don’t know who was driving it at the time.” We are unable to enforce any action on that. I would like us to be able to enforce who was actually behind the wheel and who was the driver who committed the offence. That is what I want.
Q298 Chair: Is there a specific problem about finding whether a foreign driver is insured?
Andrew Jones: No, because we will be able to exchange information satisfactorily. The question is about who the driver actually is.
Jessica Matthew: It depends whether or not the vehicle is registered in the UK and is on the DVLA database. If it is a foreign-registered vehicle and it has not been re-registered in the UK, it will not appear on the motor insurers’ database. In that sense, it is more difficult to enforce against foreign vehicles for insurance purposes.
Q299 Chair: Can anything be done to change that situation in that specific case?
Jessica Matthew: It would be through the information exchange that might be done in relation to part of the directive.
Q300 Chair: When would be the earliest we could expect that to operate?
Andrew Jones: This is work that is ongoing and will run through next year. We have to implement the directive by May 2017, but I do not want to implement it until we have got this sorted out correctly.
Q301 Chair: What was the Government’s aim in giving the police power to give fixed penalty notices for careless or inconsiderate driving?
Andrew Jones: That is part of a broader point about how we can make some changes. We have fixed penalty notices, and careless driving is effectively what falls below the standard expected for competence and care. It is not by any means the same thing as dangerous driving. We have been able to implement a fixed penalty approach, but since 2013 we have also been able to send people off on courses. It is about trying to make sure that people learn and improve their performance.
Q302 Chair: What work have you undertaken to see if it is effective, and if that aim has been achieved?
Andrew Jones: That is part of the broader piece of research I mentioned earlier. We are developing how we are going to measure the effectiveness of these courses. We have a project, working with Ipsos MORI, looking at the impact and developing a methodology so that we can enforce this and take it into other areas.
Q303 Chair: That is something you are looking at now.
Andrew Jones: Yes, very much so.
Q304 Chair: At the moment you do not know if it has been effective or not.
Andrew Jones: We think it has been effective, but we are going to double-check with everything. It is appropriate to go back and undertake the analysis. It will cover three areas: the effectiveness of the introduction of the fixed penalty notices on enforcement; changes in driver attitude and behaviour; and the impacts on bureaucracy and the burden on the police services. What we are trying to get is a change of behaviour. It seems to be working so far, but this is still very new. It has only been in place since 2013. Trends have not had a chance to develop yet, but it is an important area of driving offence and that is why we want to address it.
Mark Menzies: We have faced big challenges over the last 30 or 40 years, particularly in terms of road safety. For example, there has been drink-driving, the wearing of seat belts and speeding. Success has been achieved through a number of things. First of all, there has been behavioural change among drivers. There have been legal changes but also public education campaigns. A lot of success has been achieved and we heard some statistics earlier on, but 21% of road fatalities still involve people who fail to wear a seat belt. What work are Government currently undertaking, or planning to undertake, in order to move road safety to the next level? How are we going to try to tackle some of the hard core people who, despite attitudinal change and all that stuff, still choose to drink-drive or not wear a seat belt? That is my first question.
Andrew Jones: You have hit on something really important. We have made great progress, but there are residual groups who are perhaps self-excluding: “That is not something I am involved in; it is what irresponsible people do, but that is not me.” We have to reach people in a very targeted way. Everybody knows that drink-driving is wrong, full stop, yet some people still choose to do it. Some people self-exclude. If we take the point about education, we have the Think! campaign, which is a long-running road safety communication campaign. It has been high profile. We launched the drink-drive campaign last Tuesday, 1 December. It came on the back of the speed and country roads campaign that ran through November, and will be followed up by drug driving, which will be starting at the end of February. Cycling will be running in the spring. It is a series of targeted communication, so we have gone from a blanket approach to the kind of targeted marketing that you will be familiar with from a former life. It is communication—very much so—but homing in and getting the right message to the right group at the right time.
Mike Penning: Sentencing has a major role. While we are encouraging education and the driver awareness courses, which I was very involved with when I had Andrew’s job and was here in a very similar evidence session four years ago, it is not just about the traditional things. For instance, as I said to the Chair earlier, when I gave evidence here before one of the biggest issues when I was a fireman and used to go to RTAs, or RTCs as they are now, was drugs. Drugs are in our society and they impair your driving just as much as alcohol. Fortunately, the police now have roadside drugalyser testing—I am happy to leave a kit here for you. I promised the Committee it would be in force when I gave evidence as a Transport Minister. I am very pleased as a Police Minister responsible for type approval that we are now in the position that officers at the roadside, if they think you are impaired, will always test you for drink first and if you pass the drink test but they still think you are impaired, they will test you for drugs. Things are moving very fast. For instance, I think roadside evidential testing for drink will get type approval in the next 18 months. That takes away a whole swathe of bureaucracy and concerns about the time between when someone has been arrested at the roadside and whether they have dropped below the level. All these different things will be done at the roadside.
Q305 Mark Menzies: That is very encouraging. The one thing we touched on when we had the deputy chief constable in before this session was about making sure that the police have input and that we can localise some of these campaigns. Something could be a problem in a rural area, where you may have disproportionately more drink-driving and there may be speeding on country roads, which, as the Minister highlighted, is not a problem in metropolitan areas by definition. How many of these campaigns will be localised and how will we ensure that the police have direct input into what the campaigns look like in their areas?
Andrew Jones: We co-ordinate things with the police service. For example, the drink- driving campaign was launched to coincide with the police national enforcement campaign, so there is co-ordination work on a local basis. Officials in the Department are always talking with police services locally. The campaign on drink-driving has a quite different approach. It is all about targeting to reach people who exclude themselves from it. They might think, “Two pints—no problem at all.” What we are saying in this campaign is, “Think and do not have that second drink. That is not appropriate.” It is a different type of message but it is a message targeted to a particular consumer group.
The country roads campaign again had a mixture of targeted work, but we used a lot of social media and developed a different creative that would be more appropriate to the media. In this particular case it was painted sheep, and it has had a lot of coverage because it is a bit more imaginative than some of the things that have perhaps come out of Government over the years, although the Think! campaign has traditionally been pretty creative. The point is that it is a tailored message to reach the right audience using the right media.
Q306 Mark Menzies: The other category of drivers—this is something we approach with some sensitivity—is the older driver or perhaps someone suffering from early onset of dementia, where there may be reluctance on their part to acknowledge a problem. Their motor car is also one of the ways of connecting them to the outside world. What work is being done to ensure road safety and that the police are aware of the problem? What are we doing to tackle something that could be a growing phenomenon?
Andrew Jones: You say it could be a growing phenomenon, but it probably is a growing phenomenon. We know that one in three people over the age of 85 suffer some form of cognitive impairment and that can obviously have an impact upon their driving. First, above a certain age, people have to be re-examined as to whether they are fit to drive. That happens by the age of 70. We are also obviously asking people to think about it, because ultimately they have to be responsible for themselves. It is a stage of life that is really difficult. People give up their cars quite reluctantly because it impacts on their social lives. It makes life quite difficult sometimes, particularly in rural communities where there might not be a bus service. It is not a decision you take lightly, but it has to be done with families. We are now of course talking with the medical profession about their involvement in these decisions too. It is very difficult, and most families have to have those conversations. I have done that, and it is not an easy one.
Mike Penning: To be fair to the medical profession—sorry, Andrew; I’m crossing into your territory—my father-in-law got diabetes when he was in his early seventies. He would often go into a diabetic coma or be unconscious. The GP wrote to the DVLA and had his licence taken away from him. That was right, but it was devastating for him. As we understand dementia and Alzheimer’s better as we go forward, GPs have a legal responsibility, but we have a responsibility, society-wise, as well, and you touched on this right at the start. It is really difficult for families, but it is their loved one who is driving that car. Their lives are at risk but probably, just as importantly, other people’s lives are at risk. It is a freedom, and I can remember having this discussion with the family, but we have a responsibility to society as well, whether you are impaired from alcohol, drugs or because of a cognitive illness.
Q307 Chair: According to WHO figures, we have the highest number of child pedestrian deaths in Europe. What is being done to deal with that?
Andrew Jones: The key thing is some kind of road awareness. The way we tackle that is often through the Bikeability schemes in schools, to tell people some of the things they need to think about when using our roads. We should put this into some kind of context, however. As with other types of groups, we are seeing a reduction.
Q308 Chair: Does it not concern you, Minister, that we have the highest number of child fatalities on the road?
Andrew Jones: I do not want to see any fatalities on our roads.
Q309 Chair: But aren’t you troubled to hear this? You do not sound as if you are terribly concerned about it.
Andrew Jones: No, that is absolutely ridiculous; no disrespect intended. I have put road safety at the heart of what we are doing in our road investment. It is one of the key pillars of our road investment strategy. The first piece of work I commissioned as a Minister was to develop a new plan for road safety, which I am hoping to launch within the next few weeks, so to say that we are not concerned is absolutely ridiculous I am afraid. It is something I personally feel very strongly about.
Q310 Robert Flello: I put on the record my usual declarations about the Road Haulage Association. Initially I want to look at what seems to be a randomness among police forces as to whether a driver gets points and a fine or gets sent off on a course. Given that randomness, how can work be done within the DFT or the Home Office to look at whether these courses are effective or not? People who commit the same offences in the same way but in different police force areas, or even within the same police force area but with different officers, seem to have a different outcome. Related to that is the randomness, it would appear, of speed cameras. Some might be set at 10% plus two or 10% plus four; some are 10% plus five. In terms of whether it is a domestic motorist or a professional driver, all of whom you would expect to drive at exactly the right speed for the conditions, there does seem to be a strange randomness of approach.
Andrew Jones: I do not think that is fair. I do not think there is randomness to this at all. That would be, quite frankly, a bit disparaging to the police service. We have operational freedoms for our police to send people on courses as appropriate and we should be encouraging that, whether they set the level at one point in one part of the country or at another point in another. Your argument is really for tidiness. What we should be looking for is what is effective. The police know the situation locally and they should be making decisions that are right for their area.
Q311 Robert Flello: I am sorry you feel that is unfair, but the reality is that a police force might set the limit on the cameras, for example, because they do not have the resources to deal with the camera going off either at the speed limit or 10% plus two, so they set it at 10% plus four. I ask again how you would measure the effectiveness of a course, given that there seems to be—I will use the word again whether you like it or not—randomness across the country, and indeed even within a force area.
Andrew Jones: It is about what you achieve and what the cameras are there for. The cameras are there to change behaviour. That is why they are painted yellow. Cameras are not hidden to try to raise revenue. It is about people seeing them and therefore changing their behaviour. Are they effective? Yes; we have seen evidence on this from ACPO. We are doing a further piece of research on it, which is due in spring next year. The evidence is that it is working.
Q312 Robert Flello: Again, that does not quite chime with my own experience but I will move on to the next question. My own experience is that on the particular road I live on, in Stoke-on-Trent, the speed camera has not been working for a while and now motorists are accelerating and driving very quickly down that road, making it almost impossible for pedestrians to cross. Any impact that that particular speed camera might have had was very short-lived, and now that it is no longer working, motorists are adapting their behaviour to what they were doing before.
I will move on to another issue, which is perhaps for the Police Minister’s area of expertise. It concerns the loss of knowledge among police officers; I do not mean traffic support officers on motorways. It seems that if you are on the motorway there is a very good chance that you will have a police officer who is knowledgeable about what they do. Off the motorway network, certainly the experience in Staffordshire seems to be that if you talk to most police officers they are so busy doing other things that their time to learn about traffic-related offences is pretty limited; even the ability to stop on the highway to deal with something they see as they are going from one particular job to another seems to be quite limited. What is your experience?
Mike Penning: To be fair, it is not that, and not when I was in Staffordshire. This is an operational decision for an officer to make at a scene. It is just as we were talking about earlier—it is for the officer to decide whether a driver should go on a speed awareness course or be put through for prosecution in a different way. We do not know what is going on at the end of a phone; that is why we have warranted independent officers making those decisions. At the end of the day, we made a conscious decision, obviously with Treasury’s assistance, not to cut funding for the police in this Parliament, but there are without doubt modernisations and changes for the better that took place in the previous Government because of austerity. Modernisation of the police force is very important, but it has to be an officer’s decision whether or not they stop at an incident. Of course, they are under lots of pressures at different times of the day. I can say that, when I went out in plain cars before I did this job, there was nothing to stop officers making that decision. In training terms, every officer I have been with had good enough knowledge to stop for most road traffic offences and make a sensible and good professional decision.
Q313 Robert Flello: Our experiences clearly differ. Certainly a lot of knowledgeable officers were lost under their forced retirement when they got to a certain level of service. A lot of knowledge within the police services was lost.
I want finally to turn to the issue of overseas drivers. Transport Minister, you were talking about it all being up in the air until it is sorted out at European level. That is fine for spring 2017 with the changes that may or may not come in, but what happens in the meantime in terms of overseas lorry drivers who flout our laws, or indeed overseas domestic drivers who flout our laws? What is happening in the meantime?
Andrew Jones: We can and do take action against them. We know that the police have the powers and indeed can arrest, if appropriate. We know that if there are issues with people who have not paid penalties, they get chased through a European debt recovery agency. My point was really about how we are tasked to bring a directive into force by May 2017, which will change things for the future, not change things now. It is about how we will have information on the registered keeper but not on the driver. That is the point we are trying to address.
Q314 Mary Glindon: The Committee went on a traffic stop exercise last week near Millbank, which was very interesting. What is quite concerning is that only a small percentage of HGVs stopped by the London freight enforcement partnership are fully compliant. What can the Government do to improve compliance in the freight industry?
Andrew Jones: That is partly an education issue and partly an enforcement issue. There are particular requirements in London. They have their own HGV schemes and we should be really quite keen to see this enforced strongly. I am quite relaxed that TfL have developed their own scheme. They are faced with challenges with, in some cases, the medieval road network structures around the City, for example, while dealing with 21st century levels of economic activity and 21st century levels of building. They have to have particular controls. It is a question of enforcement, and I am relaxed about them taking more of it.
Q315 Mary Glindon: Perhaps one thing would be greatly to increase the fines imposed when there are prosecutions. Do you think that would be not just a good punishment or deterrent, but could be fed back into the system to create similar partnerships?
Andrew Jones: If there are persistent offenders, the traffic commissioners have the power to stop people having a licence. It could be appropriate if we see repeat and persistent offenders, or people taking a casual approach to road safety or driver hours in a particular company’s case. We should keep a watchful eye on this and remain aware of the fact that our roads are among the very safest in the world. We need to think about making them better, but I do not want anybody listening to this to get the impression that our roads are not safe, because they are. I could keep a watchful eye on it, yes, and I am very happy to do that. The whole point is that, as situations change, you keep a watchful eye on them and change appropriately. But it is building on a position of strength; that is where we are now.
Q316 Mary Glindon: I want to ask about doing things across the country and replicating things. Do you think there could be an opportunity to replicate the London freight enforcement partnership in other parts of the country? I am particularly concerned that there are no units within police traffic units that could do this. Again it was something talked about when we were on the site visit. It could be needed. When I spoke earlier I talked about parts of the country that are developing that, and you made reference to that. If it is working in London, could something similar be done in the north-west or another city, where in the near future there could be similar construction issues, bringing large vehicles into city centres?
Andrew Jones: Let us not confuse things like emission zones or London HGV schemes with broader compliance. The DVSA has staff all over the country. There are stops on our strategic road network all over the country. They look at compliance in relation to the weight of the vehicle, the brakes or the number of hours the driver has been driving. This is already taking place across the country; it is not a London-specific issue.
Q317 Mary Glindon: But this is a unique partnership. I know TfL are involved. There could be a similar partnership, where it is not just the DVSA but work with the police. Some of these transgressions are linked to other crime issues.
Mike Penning: When I was Transport Minister I was out looking at these things, as well obviously doing the same since being the Police Minister. It is really interesting. While you are on the motorway you pull in front of the vehicle you want and ask them to follow you, and they do. If they don’t, the police are informed and that vehicle will be stopped. You are absolutely right that very often, if you pull a vehicle over for an offence—the police say this about cars and other things as well, not just HGVs—you sometimes end up finding other offences. ANPR has been the classic example where you pull someone over because it has come up that they are not insured or there is no MOT, and then you find a plethora of other offences that those people are willing to do, simply because they are willing to drive around in an illegal vehicle. The difference in London, of course, is that the police would not be involved in emissions or something like that. That is clearly nothing to do with them and is for TfL. The police are engaged and informed, and very often get called to the stop stations, should other offences be found.
Q318 Chair: Do the Government have any plans to expand the use of average speed cameras on the strategic road network, or anywhere else?
Andrew Jones: Not especially at the moment, no.
Q319 Chair: There are no particular plans to do it.
Mike Penning: I will just touch on that, because it comes up a lot with the police. They are asked to give advice, for instance, on whether a 20 mph speed limit should be set in an area. One of the ways of addressing a speed limit in an urban area is by an average speed camera. It is not like those we see on the motorways; it is a different sort. The police often say that it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to enforce it. But there are schemes and one particular provider, Siemens for instance, makes average speed cameras for villages—for the rat-runs as we call them—which are often very cost-effective. When people get caught, and often it is the locals as well as people they are trying to stop speeding through, the speed awareness course has a charge and it becomes self-funding. In my constituency, at the moment it is something we are looking at. It is not a Department for Transport issue, but the police quite like something that can be enforced rather than putting in something that is very difficult to enforce. The old traditional yellow cameras on the road often do not address those sorts of rat-runs, particularly in the more rural parts.
Q320 Chair: During this inquiry we have heard a lot of evidence about different approaches in different parts of the country, discretion by chief police officers and different policies on a whole range of traffic enforcement issues. Are you satisfied that, taken overall, the system is producing the best possible road safety, or would you like any changes to be made?
Andrew Jones: I would go back and look at the data. We have a fantastically good road safety record. We now have to build upon that in a number of different ways. It comes down to the three pillars that we were talking about: education, enforcement and a bit of engineering as well. It is about getting targeted messages over to people. There is still that tricky group who might not be involving themselves in drink-driving—that is something other people do—or it could be about the country roads where 60% of fatalities occur. We have now gone from the blanket approach, where we had hundreds and hundreds of people being killed on our roads every year, to a much more targeted approach to make a difference. Things have changed fundamentally. I would go back to look at that big picture. We have seen casualties fall so comprehensively on our roads that clearly something is going really well. We would not be leading the world on this if it was not going well.
Q321 Chair: Does that mean that in terms of road traffic policing and enforcement you are generally satisfied with the way it operates?
Andrew Jones: I am pleased to see the progress that is being made, but I also want to build upon it. Governments of all colours over decades have had consistently better performance, which gives us a fantastic platform to improve things even further. We are talking stats, but behind every statistic is a lost life or a shattered family, or both. It is very personal. About three weeks ago, I went to a church service at St James’s in Piccadilly in London. It was a United Nations day of remembrance for people who had been killed in road traffic accidents, collisions and crashes. Such services would have been taking place across the world that day. I spoke at the service. It was a very moving service that was mainly attended by families who had lost loved ones, particularly parents who had lost children. The idea that this is some kind of bald statistical exercise is just not true. It is a properly human life-changing matter, which is personal. That is why I am really keen that we build upon the progress that we have made, and I go back to my earlier point about there being no complacency whatsoever.
Q322 Chair: In terms of road traffic policing, would you be concerned if there were fewer road traffic police in a year’s time? I accept what you say—you are looking at the overall picture, but I want to focus on that because that is what we are looking at in this inquiry.
Mike Penning: We must allow chief constables to decide what is required operationally in their part of the world. Chief constables are not shy. They will come forward. They tell us on a regular basis what powers they need and what extra they would like, as they did during the negotiations on future funding. For instance, they asked us for the ability to arrest people at the roadside who were impaired and had clearly taken drugs. We produced that as a manifesto commitment; we have done that. I meet all the chiefs—the deputy who has just left knows me very well—and if they want more powers we will look very carefully at that. I am very confident, as is the Road Safety Minister, in their professionalism to make decisions at the scene. If chief constables want to bring in more, or less, it is very much their decision.
Andrew Jones: Operational independence is the principal point.
Chair: Thank you very much for coming. It is unusual to have Ministers from two Departments here, but it has been very helpful.
Mike Penning: I was just going to refer you to the answers I gave four and a half years ago.
Chair: Thank you to both of you.
Oral evidence: Road traffic law enforcement, HC 518 3