HL Deb 17 June 2004 vol 662 cc914-21

2.10 p.m.

Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20 May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the British Transport Police Authority is to be established on 1 July this year under provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. The authority will oversee and manage the British Transport Police. It will replace the British Transport Police Committee, appointed by the Strategic Rail Authority, which currently oversees the running of the force. The new authority will also take over from the Strategic Rail Authority its responsibilities as "employer" of the British Transport Police.

The Government's guiding principle in setting up the new authority is to mirror for the British Transport Police as fir as possible the way in which local police authorities are organised and governed under the Police Act 1996. The creation of the new authority for the BTP is therefore a vital step in improving the BTP's public status and accountability.

The purpose of the order is to provide for the transfer of staff, pension funds, property, rights and liabilities of the British Transport Police from the Strategic Rail Authority to the new BTP Authority.

The principal effects of the order are firstly to ensure that arrangements are in place for the first meeting of the authority. The chairman is required to convene the meeting and decide where it is to be held. The location of the meeting is to be published and the chairman must notify each member to attend the meeting. At this first meeting the chairman is to appoint a clerk to the authority and determine the procedures to be applied to the meeting.

The order enables a level of continuity to be maintained during the transition stage by allowing for the budget, objectives and policing plan already set by the BTP Committee for 2004–05, together with the strategic plan for 2003–06, to be treated as having been set by the new authority. It does not, however, shackle the authority which, if necessary, can make adjustments during the course of the year.

The order also provides for the formal legal transfer of all BTP officers and civilian support staff from the Strategic Rail Authority to the new authority. Similarly it provides for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the BTP which are currently the legal responsibility of the SRA.

We do not foresee any difficulties for the SRA and the authority in agreeing the detail of these transfers, but the order puts in place a mechanism for resolving any dispute that may arise. This mechanism enables the authority and the SRA to appoint a person to determine the dispute, and if they cannot agree on who to appoint then they can ask the Secretary of State to appoint an appropriate person.

Next, the order provides for the authority to assume immediately the SRA's powers, duties and obligations in respect of pension provision for police officers and support staff. It ensures that the Secretary of State retains his current powers of consent in relation to the arrangements for support staff pensions once those staff move from the BR section to the new BTP Authority section of the railways pension scheme. The order also introduces into the scheme documentation, for the first time, a requirement for the prior consent of the Secretary of State in relation to future benefit changes for police officer pensions.

The British Transport Police is funded by the rail industry through a series of contracts known as police services agreements. The order therefore makes provision for these existing agreements to continue to have effect.

The order also ensures that existing agreements between the SRA and the BTP relating to rates of pay, hours of duty and conditions of service will continue to apply to transferred staff. Special police constables are not employees of the force and so the order also makes provision for the conditions under which special police constables will serve in the BTP. It makes transitional arrangements in relation to the British Transport Police Federation, the BTP union.

Finally, the order makes consequential amendments to primary legislation so that references relating to the SRA or the British Transport Police Committee are, where appropriate, updated to reflect the transfer of the BTP to the new authority and are consistent with the terms of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.

The order is very much a technical legal instrument, essential for providing the authority with the staff and other assets it needs in order to function properly. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20 May be approved [20th report from the Joint Committed.]—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this important order. I have no problem with what the order does, but I am rather alarmed at the cost of the new police authority. According to the Explanatory Notes, the first year costs will be £863,000, made up of the start-costs of £563,000 and an additional annual cost of £300,000. This will be expenditure on an organisation of which the British public will be blissfully unaware; if it was not there, they would never notice the difference.

If the extra costs in the first year are £863,000, what will the annual costs of the new police authority be? It is no use saying that it will be only a small proportion of the £162 million cost of the British Transport Police budget or that the cost is not borne by the taxpayer. The railway industry pays for the British Transport Police, but that industry is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. Money expended on the police authority will not be available for policing or providing public rail services.

My concern is centred not only on the British Transport Police Authority but on the high levels of expenditure generally on organisations with no obvious direct benefit to the public.

On a brighter note, your Lordships increased the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police during the passage of the Terrorism Act. Can the Minister give any examples of the benefit of extending the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police?

Lord Bradshaw

My Lords, we welcome the order but have some questions. If the Minister is not able to answer them today, I should be grateful if he would communicate in writing later so that we might be advised of them.

I differ from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in that I believe the public would notice a difference if the British Transport Police disappeared. One has to note that it was only about six weeks ago in Madrid that a most terrible disaster occurred.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, but I was referring to the authority and not to the police force. The police force is absolutely essential; it is the authority that I am worried about.

Lord Bradshaw

My Lords, I want that to be quite clear because I believe that, particularly in London, the British Transport Police are carrying out a vital role in combating terrorism.

I should like the Minister to address the question of funding. Although he has described the funding arrangements that will exist, we are well aware that the Secretary of State in another place is engaged on a review of railway finances. That review ought to address—I believe that it may do so, although I do not know—the issue of funding the railway police. The existing system under which the chief constable has almost to go round on bended knee to train operators to get the money—which comes mostly from the taxpayer, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said—seems to be a particularly circumlocutory method of getting the money. Why does not the Department for Transport pay the money directly to the British Transport Police instead of paying it in subsidy through the train operators' franchises or other agreements, and then the train operating companies handing it over to the British Transport Police after a great deal of costly and lengthy argument? It should go directly to the police force because it has to construct an annual budget and needs to know whether the money will be available.

In this context, there appears to be an element of policing relating to public order and terrorism which goes beyond that which is of general interest to a railway passenger but which touches on us all in one way or another.

I am also very anxious that any review of the British Transport Police and its funding deals once and for all with the powers of the police. We have amended the powers. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the extension of powers in respect of the terrorism legislation, but there is a need to make sure that police powers generally are the same for the transport police, the MoD police, the nuclear police, and so on. If a policeman is in uniform and out on the street, he ought to be quite clear that his duty to the public is to intervene if he sees a crime being committed or is approached by a member of the public for some sort of direction.

I think that this is understood, but I ask that any review should make it clear to the British Transport Police that with the setting up of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, the role of the police in investigating railway accidents should be confined to those areas where it appears that a criminal act has been perpetrated. We should not expect the British Transport Police to carry out the technical aspects of railway accident investigation which they are singularly ill equipped to do.

Finally, I turn to the funding of rail travel. Many railwaymen do not travel by railway because their travel facilities were taken away with privatisation. I know that the TOCs do not agree, but it is important that the travel facilities which are enjoyed at present by the police and police staff continue so that railway staff travel by rail rather than use their cars. In that way, they can see the system that the public have to put up with, day by day.

Apart from those points—and I am certain that I will not get a straight answer to them now because the Minister may not be able to give me one—I generally support the order.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I, too, support the order, which comes out of the legislation passed last year. It is very welcome. As my noble friend said, the move mirrors the arrangements of local police forces in having an authority. It would be nice if the Government could publish the names of the members of the authority if they have not already done so. I did not quite hear whether my noble friend mentioned that in his opening remarks.

Although the transport police will have the same structure as local police forces, it is worth saying that the importance of having a specialist police force for the railways has never been greater than it is today. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said about changes regarding the Rail Accident Investigation Branch. It is very important that this force survives and prospers. We must also remember that half its activities are directed at London Underground, so the position is slightly skewed.

My concern is funding, a point that was also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Both noble Lords said that it all comes out of the Government's pocket in the end. Well, some of it does, but, as chairman of the Rail Freight Group, in which I declare an interest, let me make it clear that the rail freight industry does not receive a Government subsidy. Rail freight tries to compete with road freight, whose policing is not paid for by the road freight industry. This is not new—I have mentioned it many times before.

There are strong arguments from many quarters to fund the BTP on the same basis as other police forces and enable the passenger and the freight industry, whether it is in the private or public sector—as much of the passenger industry is—to compete and operate on the same basis.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, it would be very nice if some indication of changes to funding arrangements were made in the outcome of the review, which I believe is due next month. Other than that, I support the order.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, sits down, does he agree that the road transport industry is rather more heavily taxed than the rail freight industry?

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I certainly agree that the road freight industry is more heavily taxed, but most specialists in the field would still accept that it does not pay all the internal and external costs that it imposes on the environment and on the roads.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, says about creating a body about which the public will be blissfully unaware. In some ways, of course, supervisory bodies of this kind are doing their job well if the public is unaware of them, because the only time they come to public attention is when things go manifestly wrong. In seeking to create an authority which is comparable to and parallels the way in which our police services are governed by local police authorities, we want a structure which makes the transport police accountable. The body becomes significant if a significant complaint ever materialises about the operation of the police. Any offended member or members of the public will be very concerned to have a body which is accountable, to say nothing of issues that can arise when public money is involved, for which we need a structure that is accountable.

I note what the noble Earl says about costs. The biggest aspect of the additional costs in setting up the organisation is that the number of members has been increased from nine to 13. That changed the calculations based on the original numbers. One or two other areas have necessitated a rather greater expenditure than the original estimate.

Although not all members have been appointed to the authority yet, Sir Alistair Graham has been appointed as chair. That has been made public and I am merely confirming the excellent appointment of Sir Alistair to carry out this very important role.

I recognise that there are areas of concern on extended jurisdiction. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether I could cite instances. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated, policemen are policemen. They are people with authority. The public are in need of police support and protection on occasions which no one can predict. It would look very odd to the public if a police officer stood idly by if something were not in his immediate jurisdiction when the public interest would be served by putting all hands to the pump. He may, indeed, be the only figure of authority there.

As has been recognised in debates on these issues, the concept of extended authority is predominantly related to potential terrorist attacks and how to prevent them. If such a disaster should occur and authority must be exercised, it makes sense to incorporate the transport police. We cannot, as he knows, go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on all aspects of all police forces in their various capacities in this country. However, the intention is, as far as possible, to ensure that the British Transport Police can exercise proper authority when that is needed.

Travel facilities have been mentioned. I am afraid that the principle upon which we are working is that all those in employ up until 1996 will maintain their travel facilities and benefits. The difficulty is that the extension of benefits to employees joining the staff after 1996 would be paid for by the company carrying them. If we insist by legislation that these benefits are carried over into the new system then the Government can rightly be requested to make necessary provision for such benefits. That raises a real difficulty.

Lord Bradshaw

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with me that the costs imposed by the additional travel of the people concerned are so small that it is doubtful that one extra train would be run on the system? Would he, in any remarks he makes, address the train operating companies and say that it is to their benefit that these people are on the system?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. He has a point. I am in danger of fulfilling his prophecy that I would not give him a straight answer, but he meant to say that I would not be able to give him a full answer in every respect. I certainly endeavour to give all answers as straight as I possibly can. I appreciate that his point is on the margin. But he will also recognise that there is the problem of the Government incurring additional costs in that respect.

In terms of the general issue introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the fairness of the allocation of such costs and who should bear them, we had extensive debates on this in the passage of the legislation. As my noble friend indicated in his modest manner, he has, from time to time—virtually every three weeks—alluded to that point since the last legislation was put on the statute book. He has taken his opportunity again today. I think that he will recognise that an order is slightly more narrowly confined than a debate about the proper allocation of costs but he has taken his opportunity to voice his real concerns in this area again. I congratulate him on having done so. I have no doubt that he will continue to make these representations whenever he feels justified. On the basis of those points—

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the answers that he has given to noble Lords, but I have a horrible suspicion that he has come with his order instigating the police authority without knowing what the total costs of it are.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I have a figure of £750,000 for the first year of its operation, its inaugural period. I have already recognised that that is higher than the original estimate. I have given some indications of why it is higher. I recognise the noble Earl's scrupulous attention to detail with regard to public finance. I am seeking to establish before the House that this authority is being established according to proper principles of the disbursement of public moneys. I hope that I have succeeded in answering his particular questions on specific costs. But I hear what he says. I merely indicate that the distinction between the estimate and the reality of the first year is not an unknown phenomenon in the establishment of a public body of this kind.