§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
1.15 am§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)The aim of this Adjournment debate is to persuade the Home Office to adopt a more positive attitude towards moves under way to provide a standard for the use of radar speed measuring devices.
The aim is to protect the individual motorist from unjust convictions and to protect the public by ensuring the accuracy of devices used for that purpose. In short, I ask for the good offices of the Home Office to be used as a catalyst in bringing together the several parties so that a British standard can be agreed. The background is that hand-held radar guns are used by many, but not all, police forces in Britain to provide corroborative evidence in prosecutions for speeding offences. Given the evidence available to me, I am confident that many motorists have been unjustly convicted over the years, that there have been many miscarriages of justice, and that prosecuting authorities have been slow to take action—despite the accumulating evidence to show the inaccuracies of such devices—because they are essentially convenient weapons and give a certain spurious scientific certainty. However, on closer inspection one sees that an individual, fallible, police officer relies for corroboration on devices that are fallible.
Briefly, the history of the matter is that the Automobile Association has been seriously concerned about the inadequacies of the devices since about 1978. However, it is significant that this debate should be held today—one year to the day since Mr. Hughes succeeded in his appeal before Judge Pitchford at Newport Crown court. Despite the criteria that were laid down by the learned judge in Newport, there has been little official action since then. However, there is considerable evidence of public concern, which culminated in the AA's report in the summer of last year, in regular articles in "Motor" and in a programme last week in the "Watchdog" series on BBC television. One of the more significant parts. of that programme showed the limited instruction given to a police officer before using the machine. Since that programme, the BBC and I have had full postbags. I received a letter from a justice of the peace, who wrote stating that, having been alarmed by the evidence produced on that programme, he would not, in any circumstances in future, convict a person if the prosecuting authority had relied on corroborative evidence provided by a radar gun. If that is the case with some other justices, one can well understand why prosecuting authorities are now, as I must show, changing their views on the use of the guns.
It is clear that in the past the manufacturers have made extravagant and excessive claims for the guns. One of the major manufacturers, Muniquip—which is the device most used by the prosecuting authorities—initially issued for police authorities only a one-page instruction leaflet. That has now been increased to 22 pages as flaws have come to light, largely as a result of the diligence of Mr. Hughes, who has been advising me in this case. Claims in relation to the beam width and about interference, for 1066 example from trees, traffic signs, other motor vehicles and the power supply lead, have been shown to make the reading less than satisfactory. There is also the problem of reflection from parked vehicles, which is not dealt with in any of the instruction manuals.
Also, there has been considerable public concern about the practice in courts where the prosecuting authorities have relied for expert witnesses on an agent of the manufacturers, who clearly may not be able to provide the objective evidence which is necessary in such cases. There have been allegations that there has been coaching of police officers before they give evidence by the manufacturers, and there is a considerable dilemma for the motorist. When he is summonsed for speeding and the prosecution is relying on the radar devices, and if he feels that he is innocent, he is faced with two choices—either he pays up, knowing that he will be fined about £20 and that his licence will be endorsed, or he takes the high risk option of having to pay, if he fails to prove his innocence, not only his defence costs both of legal representation and his expert witness but the costs of the prosecution expert. I have provided evidence to the Home Office of claims by the prosecution experts—the agents of the manufacturers—in excess of £600 in individual cases. It means that there is effectively a denial of justice for those who do not have the resources or perhaps the gambling instinct to contest cases even when they feel that they are innocent.
Even the police are doubtful. There are divisions in the traffic committee of UCPA, and the Gwent authority has withdrawn the guns. Other authorities have withdrawn the radar guns from time to time. There is thus no unbiased testing and some uncertainty and concern among the public. I pay tribute to the work that has been done by Mr. Desmond Hughes, the successful appellant in 1981, to the AA for its diligent research, to Mr. David Vivian of "Motor" magazine, to Mr. Hugh Scully of BBC television, and not least to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas), who is Mr. Hughes' Member of Parliament and who has been of considerable personal assistance in furthering the cause of more stringent tests for the gun.
My contention is that we now need a positive response from the Home Office to implement a common standard. That standard can properly be carried out only by the British Standards Institute.
I understand that there is an instrument for the measurement of noise and to reduce the dangers of miscarriage of justice to the minimum. But the BSI tells me that before it embarks upon this exercise it needs a consensus of all the parties involved. In the past this was not possible because the Home Office and the ACPO—the Association of Chief Police Officers—were unwilling to participate. But from the start the motoring organisations, the RAC and the AA, were enthusiastic; and indeed the manufacturers themselves were in favour.
There is now evidence of a change of mind on the part of the police and I cite in support of this the statement made by Mr. McLachlin, who is the spokesman for ACPO and the Chief Constable of Nottingham, published in the last issue of Drive, the AA magazine, that he is now personally in favour, having changed his mind on the issue.
Why is there a change of mind? I believe it is because the police now realise that it is in their interest to have 1067 public acceptance of these radar devices and that there should now be a standard set for the manufacture, the maintenance and the use of these radar guns.
I therefore call upon the Home Office to convene a meeting, to take the lead, and to act as a catalyst in bringing all the parties together for joint discussion. There was a reluctance in the past, but that reluctance appears no longer to be present. The time is therefore ripe for an initiative. I certainly await a more positive response from the Home Office. In particular, knowing that the AA wrote to the Home Office as recently as 19 March making precisely this point and suggesting that the Home Office now arrange for all those directly concerned to meet with a view to joint discussion on the need for a standard and stating that if the Home Office were to find this suggestion impractical the AA would be happy to make appropriate arrangements for such a meeting, it would certainly be worth while for me and, I know, although he is muzzled on this occasion, for the hon. Member for Monmouth, to know what the response of the Home Office would be to this invitation from the AA.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison)The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has raised a number of significant points about the enforcement of speed limits. I know that some of them were also mentioned in a recent television broadcast, and I welcome the opportunity to explain to the House the Government's position on these issues.
The first point to make is that radar devices, or indeed any other mechanical or electronic devices, provide only corroborative evidence. Where a person is prosecuted for an alleged offence of exceeding the speed limit, he cannot be convicted solely on the unsupported evidence of one witness. Such evidence needs to. be corroborated, and the function of any speed detetion device, be it speedometer, stop-watch, or radar meter, is solely to provide corroborative evidence of the opinion, already formed, of a police officer that a vehicle was in fact exceeding the speed limit. Neither the device nor the unsupported opinion of the police officer is sufficient by itself to secure a conviction.
There was considerable publicity about the Muniquip radar device in March last year, when the appeal of a particular motorist to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was allowed in the Crown court in Newport, South Wales. I should like to say something about that, but first I want to explain in strictly layman's language how these radar devices work, because I think it is important to do so for the record.
Hand-held radar devices were introduced after extensive evaluation by a working group of senior police officers set up by the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers. They record the speed of the offending vehicle by measuring the reflected radar beam and showing the result in miles per hour in a digital display in front of the officer. With Muniquip, checks on the accuracy of the device are carried out at each location where it is used, involving three built-in checks on the instrument and a final check against the certified speedometer of a police car driven at a known speed.
There are also a number of safety features incorporated into the design of the instrument to ensure accuracy. If 1068 more than one signal is being received, a minus sign is displayed on the digital read-out and it continues to show if the signal is unsatisfactory. Likewise, the instrument is calibrated to ignore very low speeds—in most cases less than 7 mph—which avoids difficulty with pedal cycles and other slow movement, such as pedestrians.
In the South Wales case, the officer formed his initial opinion of the speed of the offending vehicle in circumstances that the court felt left reasonable doubt as to its accuracy. His subsequent use of the Muniquip device as corroboration was the subject of cross-examination, and, because of the manner of use, the reading taken was judged, in that particular case, to be unsatisfactory. So the appellant won his appeal.
But the verdict in that case cannot be construed as casting doubt upon the accuracy of every hand-held device used by the police, provided that the device is used correctly by a properly trained officer. The judge did not suggest that the Muniquip radar device should be withdrawn. But he did make certain recommendations on operating procedures, and in particular suggested four guidelines. Of these, the only one not previously included in police practice was that the equipment, in addition to the built-in accuracy checks, should be tested against a motor car travelling at a known speed.
Following the judge's comments, the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers immediately asked a working group of senior police officers, drawn from various forces, to re-examine the position as a matter of urgency and to look at existing instructions and operating procedures. But it is important to stress that those existing instructions were already based on a two-day training course, which included such things as screening the site for sources of radio interference, performing all checks correctly, making an assessment of speed before checking with the device, and making the correct target selection—that is ensuring that other vehicles did not interfere.
The findings of the chief officers' working group were endorsed by the traffic committee, which concluded that the hand-held radar devices now in use by the police forces in the United Kingdom—including Muniquip—were accurate when used in accordance with the operating instructions and by officers who had been properly trained. The extra guideline recommended by the judge—a test against a motor car at a known speed—was incorporated in slightly revised operating procedures and training instruction, though it was not considered strictly necessary on technical grounds. But it provides an additional check, and helps to retain public confidence. The instructions now advise, as I have explained, that before the device is used it should be checked against a police car travelling at a known speed.
These revised instructions were sent to all forces, and the need to ensure that only properly trained officers used the device was stressed. Thus the accuracy of the Muniquip radar device has recently been carefully examined, and the judge's remarks about the device have been taken fully into account. It should also be remembered that the Muniquip radar device has performed satisfactorily since 1978. As with any other technical device, there may be occasions when it is not operated in accordance with standing instructions because of human error. But there is no evidence that the machine—or indeed other radar speed detection devices—is not reliable if used correctly. They have been demonstrated to 1069 magistrates throughout the country, and of course in every case the court has to be satisfied that the machine was used correctly, and that the corroborative evidence that it provides is valid and accurate.
The hon. Member has suggested that a British standard should be introduced for hand-held devices. This suggestion was in fact considered some time ago by the Association of Chief Police Officers working group, but reservations were expressed about it, because the doubts that were raised related to the way in which the machine was used, rather than its technical accuracy. The association believes that, in the light of all the evaluation and checks it has made, Muniquip and other radar devices are accurate if operated correctly by trained officers. It recognised, however, that confirmation by a BSI standard would enhance public confidence and the association has now contacted the BSI to see whether a standard can be devised.
The terms of the motion on the Order Paper—
a national standard for hand-held radar speed check equipment"—might be construed as meaning that Home Office regulations should be introduced. The hon. Gentleman asked that the Home Office should act as a catalyst in this matter. We have looked at this carefully in the past but decided against such a policy. The reasons are still valid. Chief officers of police are responsible for law enforcement in their areas, including enforcement of the road traffic laws and regulations. They decide what equipment to use to assist with enforcement of speed limits. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no authority to issue directions to chief officers on operational matters. On technical matters of this sort, chief officers are advised by the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which seeks such expert technical advice as it thinks necessary. The system works satisfactorily.Bearing this in mind, the Government do not think the testing of radar meters is an appropriate task for central Government to undertake, nor is it necessary. The Home Office does not, in any case, have the resources to do it. There are eight types of radar speed devices at present in use in England and Wales, and others are being proposed and evaluated by the traffic committee, which has shown itself to be responsible and effective in carrying out this task. The proposed discussion between the Association of Chief Police Officers and the British Standards Institution seems to be the next right step to deal with this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
The question of the provision of expert prosecution witnesses has been referred to. This is again a matter for chief officers. It is usual for the suppliers to nominate a qualified expert who has conducted laboratory and other technical tests on the device, has made himself familiar with that instrument and is prepared to give evidence in court. I can see no fundamental objection to expert witnesses being provided by the manufacturers of a device, as it seems logical for the police to call upon those with a first-hand knowledge of a device in order to give 1070 evidence. The assessment of all the evidence is entirely a matter for the courts to determine, once the prosecution and defence have put their cases.
I understand that when Muniquip was brought into use by the police the suppliers of the device undertook to arrange for the attendance of an expert in court when necessary, at no cost to the force concerned other than expenses. There are two such experts who generally appear. The average costs awarded to the prosecution in these cases amount to about £60.
My right hon. Friend has recently received a letter from the Automobile Association, in which the AA suggests that there should be discussions to see whether it is possible to have a recognised standard for hand-held radar devices. We shall, of course, be replying in due course, but I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East will agree that the dialogue between the Association of Chief Police Officers and the British Standards Institution largely meets that suggestion. Whether, at the end of the day, it will be possible to devise a practical British standard, we do not know, because only very detailed and technical discussions can decide the point. But it is being explored and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
§ Mr. AndersonIt seems a helpful first step that discussions between the association and the BSI should take place. When will those discussions take place? if they are to be a first step, does the Minister envisage that other organisations, particularly the motoring organisations and manufacturers, will be brought in at the second stage? Who is taking the initiative and what are the likely subsequent steps in this process?
§ Mr. RaisonI would rather not say what the likely subsequent steps will be. We are glad to know that this first step is taking place and, of course, we hope it will be successful. One must judge after that what needs to be done. We have a relationship with the police in this area and should necessarily be involved. Whether we should be a catalyst is a matter of definition. The important thing, as I understand it, is that this will happen. I see no reason why much time should be spent over it and I certainly hope that it will be able to proceed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that reassuring.
I reiterate what I think the hon. Gentleman knows to be the case. If he would like a demonstration laid on for his own benefit and, no doubt, that of my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. John Stradling Thomas)—who, as always, is silent but observant on these matters—the police will be happy to arrange it.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that things are happening. Although that does not necessarily answer all the points that he raised, the things that are happening will ensure that a possible BSI standard will be looked at carefully.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Two o'clock.