a)    By Councillor Cannon:

This Council:

i)               Requests that Cabinet write to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and Thames Valley Police (TVP) seeking support in creating a joint RBWM campaign highlighting the issue of Drink/Drug Driving, supporting our zero tolerance environment, to enhance road safety for our residents.

ii)              Requests Cabinet to invite TVP and the PCC to work with us in holding a Roads Safety Summit on these and other RBWM Road Safety issues.

(A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote).

Councillor Cannon introduced his motion. He explained that the government had launched a call for evidence around drug drivers completing a rehabilitation course before they returned to driving after a ban. This would bring the consequences into line with drink driving.  The administration wished to reinforce its zero-tolerance stance on antisocial and dangerous offences being committed on borough roads. National statistics showed that drink drive deaths had fallen by over 80% between 1979-2015. However there had been an increase in drug-related activities. There were 12,000 convictions in 2019, of which 44% were by re-offenders. Apocryphal evidence was that the borough, as much of society, had an issue with cannabis misuse as well as other drugs. The risk to road users and others could not be tolerated in the borough. The council wished to work with the police and others to get the message out to the wider community, including those committing such offences. Councillor Cannon had proposed the motion to demonstrate that all accepted the seriousness of the issue and the council’s support of the police in dealing with it.

Councillor Haseler explained that he had served as a police officer for 30 years, mainly in traffic and roads policing, dealing with these types of offences, many road deaths and acting as Family Liaison Officer to bereaved families. Drink and drug driving were incredibly serious matters, causing death and serious injury on roads each and every year. A very worrying trend was the increase of incidents involving drug drivers. Some police forces were reporting double the number of drug driving arrests to drink driving arrests. Drugs, whether they were prescribed or recreational, legal or illegal, could have a significant and varied effect on an individual’s ability to drive safely. Drugs such as cannabis could result in a driver’s reaction time being slowed, meaning they were less aware, they drove slowly, and were less able to respond to hazards in adequate time. Drugs such as cocaine, however, had a different and incredibly dangerous effect, leading to the driver becoming more erratic resulting in increased risk-taking behaviour and a reduction in the ability to accurately judge situations.

The council must raise the level of awareness of how serious drug and drink driving was. A joint campaign with Thames Valley Police was needed to educate drivers about the dangers and consequences of driving whilst under the influence of drugs, accompanied with robust enforcement. Whilst for many years drink driving had been rightfully acknowledged as being socially unacceptable, it was clear that drug driving had not. Councillor Haseler asked how many people had been out walking, cycling or sat in a queue of traffic only to get a strong waft of cannabis from a passing vehicle. This was wholly unacceptable, anti-social and incredibly dangerous, and it must be dealt with robustly to improve safety for anyone using borough roads.

There were many other road safety matters that would benefit from being discussed at a road safety summit, including but not restricted to: collisions and their causes, drink and drug driving, excessive or inappropriate speed, driver behaviour, children, cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists, young inexperienced drivers and the older experienced drivers who may be losing confidence and need support or experiencing health conditions that may affect their driving ability. A road safety summit would enable these road safety concerns to be discussed and to look at how roads could be made safer through a balanced approach of education, enforcement, support where appropriate, and highway engineering.

Councillor Werner stated that he was seriously concerned about levels of drink and drug driving. Punishments were light and perpetrators often reoffended. However, road safety was more than this. He was keen to see road safety schemes on the agenda of the summit. The motion also mentioned environmental crime, which was an issue close to his heart. When he had previously been Cabinet Member, he had introduced community wardens, CCTV, a graffiti task force, designing out crime and a YOT focus on preventing reoffending. Councillor Werner referred to the ‘broken window’ principle that if issues were not dealt with an area then looked run down, which led to more vandalism, anti-social behaviour and crime. Evidence of drug driving was on the roadside in terms of the litter that was collected by the fortnightly ‘Green Team’. Councillor Werner questioned why the motion had been brought to council as he suggested it should just be got on with.

Councillor Larcombe commented on the small silver cylinders that were left as litter on the streets of his ward. Often these were used, placed back in the box and then tossed out of a car window. He could not understand how they could be bought wholesale.

Councillor W. Da Costa commented this was a ‘wicked’ problem that was not easy to solve. It was good to hear resources would be provided to help reduce the infrastructure that enabled crime. Councillor W. Da Costa asked what statistics were available to show what percentage of crimes these issues represented. The previous PCC had a policy and a plan but that had eased off. He asked what discussions had already been had with the current PCC and Thames Valley Police, and what was their approach to the issue.

Councillor Del Campo welcomed the two new crossings in her ward however it had been her experience that it was not always straight forward to get safety improvements in place. The second of the two crossings was part of a package of improvements to Switchback Road North requested in a petition signed by 2,205 people in light of the death of a 13-year-old boy in December 2019. Councillor Del Campo had lost count of the number of meetings that had been held with officers and the lead petitioner, but progress had been painfully slow in between.  Councillor Del Campo called on the new lead Member to leverage his experience to quickly implement a streamlined way for Members to request road improvement schemes. Councillor Del Campo supported recommendation i), and could be persuaded to support recommendation ii) if she could be reassured it would not divert funding from road safety budgets. If the motion were approved, she would like to see an update to Council in 6 months’ time.

Councillor Taylor commented that drink and drug driving was a big problem everywhere; all knew someone who had been affected. Drink driving now had more of a stigma following huge campaigns.  In comparison, not enough attention had been given to drug driving. Many users were unaware of the limitations. She would like to see more collaboration between the council and Thames Valley Police. She asked Councillor Cannon to identify a better way for residents to report drug-related issues as they often dropped through the gaps.

Councillor Price suggested that the issue should first be raised with the Community Safety Partnership as the existing partnership arrangements may result in a speedier response. She also requested that the issue of parking on pavements be considered.

Councillor C. Da Costa strongly agreed with any campaign that educated the public on the issue. It went without saying that illegal drug use was anti-social and dangerous. However, she sought reassurance that the campaign included the effects of prescribed drug use.

Councillor Baldwin commented that, following Councillor Larcombe’s reference to issues in his ward, he wished to highlight that the ‘Green Team’ was finding commercial size canisters, often in car parks. Councillor Baldwin felt the term ‘summit’ was not appropriate as a summit was usually between Presidents or leaders, and a distant concept people found hard to access. Any conversations would need to include a sufficiently diverse group of people. He realised it was a sensitive issue when politicians sought to discuss police matters but the intelligence of local residents would go a long way to identify areas to concentrate on.

Councillor Johnson stated that he fully supported the motion. The issue of drug driving was increasingly prevalent in society as demonstrated by both anecdotal and hard evidence from the police and the ONS. There was an argument that it was more dangerous and prevalent than drink driving given how hard it was to detect, the level of resources the police had, and the peculiarities of funding and reclaiming of fines. The council would be raising these issues with the Home Office.  The proposed summit was intended to be broader; it was not a summit of individual parties. It was envisaged as a comprehensive and all-inclusive event that would bring together all interested parties to hear their views and to identify solutions to tackle the wider issues of road safety.

Councillor Davey stated that he agreed with the intent of the motion but questioned how it would be implemented. He had asked local police for the statistics:

·       Windsor in 20/21: 45 arrested for drink driving, 41 for drug driving. Maidenhead: 64 arrested for drink driving, 50 for drug driving.

·       Windsor in 21/22: 61 drink driving, 33 for drug driving. Maidenhead: drink driving 80 and 36 for drug driving.

The statistics showed that drink driving was up, but drug driving had dropped by a third.

Matthew Barber, the Thames Valley Police & Crime Commissioner had posted a video to Councillor Davey’s Facebook Group at the weekend. Councillor Davey had therefore asked him a question:

I attended a licensing meeting last week where a number of options for taxing publicans were reflected on. The aim being to raise money for policing our towns at night. Wasn’t there talk of the police precept being raised to pay for more community policing? Why does it feel like we pay more for less? Could part of future precept increases be ring-fenced for town centre policing? And for tonight’s motion, could you advise on how many drink driving arrests / fatalities RBWM have had in the last year compared to other areas in the Thames Valley and by comparison how many pedestrians and cyclists have been hospitalised / killed on our roads in the same time frame?

Matthew Barber had responded that he was not aware of the motion and did not have the statistics to hand, but he would be taking a much closer look at such matters at the Road Safety Summit he was holding next month.

As the summit was already happening, Councillor Davey stated that the intent was good, but the execution left him speechless. For this reason, he would be abstaining.

Councillor Carroll highlighted tough action was needed on drug dealers who preyed on children and vulnerable people. The PCC had been promoting the issue but was also open to seeing what more could be done and to raise the profile of the issue. There was also a need to get the broader Public Health message out, so people were aware of the risks and dangers.

Councillor Clark had looked at the statistics for the Thames Valley which showed a 110% increase over the period 2019-21. It was a growing problem. It was devastating when an accident happened and unthinkable when a death occurred. He was obviously fully aware of the death of the 13-year-old boy in his ward. Evidence was given that due to drugs in the defendant’s system an accident was 27 times more likely. Anything that could be done to deter people must be pursued.

Councillor L. Jones commented that she was minded to support the intent of the motion, but given the PCC had said a summit was already happening, she invited the Lead Member to remove recommendation ii) from his motion.

Councillor Cannon concluded that this was a very important and serious issue. A zero-tolerance policy was needed as a vehicle became a dangerous weapon when someone was drunk or high. He had been sad to see some political grandstanding on the issue. Councillor Cannon explained that it was not currently illegal to be in possession of the silver canisters referenced earlier. The council was however looking to put a PSPO in place to give police more powers. In relation to statistics, it was only possible to report what was detected. There was also lots of anecdotal evidence. The summit on road safety being held by Matthew Barber was in Milton Keynes. If local councillors wanted a local voice, an RBWM summit was needed to address RBWM issues rather than force-wide ones.

There were systems to report drug related issues including 999. If there was a regular issue, Crimestoppers was also available. A summit could be used to get the message out locally. The summit was not the only route; Councillor Cannon confirmed that the Community Safety Partnership would also be used to progress the issue and to give everyone a voice. Prescribed drugs would be covered as mentioned by Councillor Haseler.

It was proposed by Councillor Cannon, seconded by Councillor Haseler, and:

RESOLVED: That this Council:

i)               Requests that Cabinet write to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and Thames Valley Police (TVP) seeking support in creating a joint RBWM campaign highlighting the issue of Drink/Drug Driving, supporting our zero-tolerance environment, to enhance road safety for our residents.

ii)             Requests Cabinet to invite TVP and the PCC to work with us in holding a Roads Safety Summit on these and other RBWM Road Safety issues.

The vote was taken by a show of hands: 36 Councillors voted in favour; 2 Councillors abstained.