HC Deb 21 March 1994 vol 240 cc103-8

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

9.30 pm
Mr. Wilson

I want to use this debate to explore the licence exemptions. The way in which information has trickled out tonight shows that the conduct of this Bill has been an affront. Many issues should clearly have been discussed in Committee. There is an awful lot of ground to be covered and many questions to be asked in this House and outside it by the people who will be affected by this legislation.

In something of a departure from his normal style, the Minister refused to answer my earlier questions and peremptorily terminated our discussion of the channel tunnel. As I said, a grave problem has to be settled. Where will the writ of the British Transport police run? Perhaps we can have an action replay of the earlier stages of the debate when I started to probe the Minister on that subject. The hon. Member for North Devon, (Mr. Harvey) also mentioned exemptions. The Minister's replies could not have been more clear cut—exemptions were about the odd steam train here and there. He stated categorically that the tunnel was not covered by exemptions.

I mentioned the relationship between the Bill and SI 606, the Railways (Class and Miscellaneous Exemptions) Order 1994. As far as I can gather from his reply on Second Reading, the Minister confirmed that the list of exemptions of operators who will not require licences contained in that order is relevant to the Bill. In other words, if one does not need a licence and one is therefore listed in the statutory instrument, one will not be covered by the obligation to retain British Transport police. If that is not an accurate summary, the Minister can correct me. If it is, it raises questions of major importance.

The list does not merely cover some trivial group of steam engine operators, but includes some important categories, and it needs at least some explanation to be given to the House. For instance, category (a) includes: any network, station or light maintenance depot, the operator of which immediately before the coming into force of this article was a person other than—(i) the Board, (ii) a subsidiary of the Board, (iii) London Regional Transport, or (iv) a subsidiary of London Regional Transport". Category (b) gives a geographical description of a network that is to be exempted from the need for a licence. I am no expert on the geography of London, but the description reads suspiciously like the docklands light railway, or certainly parts of it. Is that the case? The description is of the railway line running from the junction between Westferry Station and West India Quay Station, through Poplar Station, to the western end of Beckton station in London"— and so on and so forth. It also lists other stations. Is that the docklands light railway? If so, it is not some old steam engine, run by enthusiasts. On that count, the Minister's answer appears to have been faulty.

Paragraph (1) is perhaps the most interesting. It reads: any network, station or light maintenance depot comprised in the Channel Tunnel system". I am advised by the interpretation section that the "Channel Tunnel system" means that system defined in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. That Act contains a lengthy description and it appears that the system includes not only the underwater link between the two countries, but also much infrastructure on this side of the tunnel. For instance, it includes the two terminal areas, the service and maintenance area, the inland clearance depot at Ashford, the necessary links with the road and rail networks and the fixed and movable equipment needed for the operation of the tunnel. Is that the extent of what is to be outside the remit of the British Transport police? That is a straightforward question. Now that we have drawn out the information that the channel tunnel is affected by the legislation, I find the Minister's earlier answer extremely puzzling: I do not know why he said that exemptions had nothing to do with the tunnel, when that is clearly not the case.

Item "m" is also interesting. It refers to the light maintenance depots listed in Schedule 1". Schedule 1 of the order lists 63 such depots. They are not trivial; I would guess that they are some of the biggest British Rail depots in the country. Examples are Chester wagon shop, the traction maintenance depot at Crewe, the Eastleigh freight traction maintenance depot and Saltley fuel and maintenance point.

Let me truncate the question, and simply ask how many of those depots which are at present within the ambit of the British Transport police will not be subject to licence—and thus not BTP responsibility—in the future. If the answer is "none", the Minister can give it very quickly, and it will be in line with his earlier answers. If, however, the list includes depots which are currently the responsibility of the British Transport police but which will be exempted from the licence system, that is clearly not consistent with what the Minister told the Committee earlier.

There is a vast chasm of conflicting interpretations. At the beginning of the debate, the Minister told us categorically that exemptions meant steam railways, and similar bits and pieces that were of no account to anyone. The British Transport police, however, believe that as a result of the exemptions they will be excluded from the Heathrow express, the docklands light railway, European passenger services and many other important segments of the railway, and I believe that the hon. Member for North Devon has been told as much. That, as I have said, represents a chasm of misunderstanding—and an eloquent comment on the Government's handling of the matter: as we enter the last minutes of consideration of the Bill, that is the belief held by people outside who will be affected by it.

It would have been much more straightforward of the Minister not to ignore the existence of the list of exemptions, but to try to explain to the Committee its relevance, or lack of relevance. We would then have been given a statement of the position, rather than a dismissal of the idea in the hope—probably—that no one would notice the connection between the Bill and the statutory instrument that the Minister himself tabled a few days ago.

I look forward to the Minister's answer.

Mr. Freeman

Let me deal with the three major points raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).

First, if there is an exemption and a licence is not required, the arguments that I have deployed in relation to enforcing an agreement through the licence clearly cannot apply: the hon. Gentleman is right in that regard. Undertakings that are exempt—including London Underground and the docklands light railway, which is related to London Regional Transport for the purposes of legislation—will exercise their right, and enter into an agreement with the British Transport police. The hon. Gentleman is correct, however, in saying that because they are exempt from the railway licensing system it is an option for them to extend the jurisdiction of the British Transport police, rather than its being imposed on them.

I can confirm that the docklands light railway and London Underground have a formal relationship with the British Transport police; in other words, they have extended the jurisdiction of the police voluntarily to themselves—and the system has worked very well.

I have mentioned the representation on the police committee. I indicated a cross-reference and the hon. Gentleman was right to ask questions about police jurisdiction in relation to exemptees.

The hon. Gentleman cited the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 and its definition of the tunnel system, which is exempt. That definition relates to the tunnels, terminal areas at Cheriton and Frethun, an inland clearance depot which is not proceeding as originally envisaged, necessary road and rail links of each country, and the fixed and movable equipment needed for tunnel operations.

Although British Transport police jurisdiction cannot be imposed on the tunnel system through the licensing system, BTP's jurisdiction is clear in respect of passenger and freight rail services to and from the tunnel. It exists because licences are required to run those train services, so a requirement will be imposed on the licensee to enter an agreement—which must be approved by the Secretary of State—to cover the powers of the police. Therefore, British Transport police will be at Waterloo station and on the trains, and will be responsible for the law and order function that I described earlier in respect of freight services.

In the tunnel itself and at its portals, Eurotunnel will be responsible for security arrangements. If there are problems, it will call in Kent constabulary. There is an agreement between Kent constabulary and Eurotunnel. On the other side of the channel, different arrangements will apply because there the state is responsible for security and policing arrangements.

Mr. Harvey

Will European Passenger Services be an exemptee?

Mr. Freeman

It will not be exempt. European Passenger Services will run all the trains to and from the tunnel. It will be licensed, so BTP will police those boarding and using its trains.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North drew my attention to the long list of light maintenance depots, which are exempt from the licensing system. He is right to say that jurisdiction can extend automatically to investigations and to the pursuit to those depots of anyone committing an offence. Of that, there is no question. I should not have thought that policing the depots themselves would be high on the list of policing responsibilities, but I accept that there may be a legitimate interest on the part of depot owners to enter an agreement with British Transport police. However, that will not be compulsory but voluntarily negotiated.

Mr. Dobson

Is the Minister saying that British Transport police will have no jurisdiction over exempt premises and will have a right to enter such premises only in pursuit of someone who thieved something from the railway?

Mr. Freeman

Yes, that is a fair and accurate description. After discussions with British Transport police and the chief constable, I am not aware of any particular problems arising in relation to constraints on jurisdiction. Clearly there is a right of pursuit, but because such depots are exempt from the licensing regime it would not be possible to impose a BTP agreement on their owners, although some may wish to enter such an agreement to protect their property.

Mr. Trotter

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour party issued a press release tonight? I subsequently spoke to the chairman of the British Transport Police Federation, who described that press release as a load of garbage, so wrong it is unbelievable. I can only conclude that it was designed to stir up trouble unnecessarily. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that has been the tone of many comments by Opposition Members tonight.

Mr. Freeman

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. Doubtless the matter will be discussed in Torquay at the annual conference that he and I will be attending.

Mr. Wilson

That was a despicable intervention.

I have stood opposite the Minister, at the Opposition Dispatch Box, throughout the Railways Bill and in Committee, I respect his regard for detail and his attempts to explain the proposed legislation—in so far as it is capable of being explained—and I know that he does not run away from the issues. I am not suggesting that it was anything deliberate, as the area had not been explored, but it is on the record that at the start of the debate today he dismissed the exemptions as being only steam trains, and the odd bit here and there.

In his response to me on the stand part debate, the Minister went through every one of the substantive exemptions that I asked about and confirmed that, in each case, there would be at the very least a possibility that those parts of the railway would be outside the jurisdiction of the British Transport police and that they might or might not opt in. So far as I am concerned, that is it—the record is straight on that and we shall not obstruct the Bill tonight—but that was not what the Minister said to start with, so there are still huge questions to be answered.

The guy who is paid money by the British Transport police to look after their interests—the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who had neither the intellect nor the energy to ask any of those questions—then stood up at the end and produced the best contribution that he could make. And it spoke volumes. When members of the British Transport police read the record of this debate, they will know who asked the questions, who scraped away the surface and who began to get some of the information that is relevant to their future work and to that of railway passengers. I will let it rest there, but—my goodness— what a movement there has been since the start of the debate in the factual information that has come from the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

9.47 pm
Mr. Dobson

I do not wish to detain the House for long. As I explained on Second Reading, the Bill is before the House because the Labour party pressed the Government to put right their errors in the Railways Act that would have left the British Transport police bereft of significant powers to combat crime, look after the interests of passengers and goods on the railways, and continue our efforts to fight terrorism. The Bill was urged on the Government by myself, and, in the knowledge of my urging, also by the chairman of British Rail and the chief constable of the British Transport police. They believed that it was right to introduce such a Bill. I believe that it was right to do so and hope that the inadequate measure that is before us tonight will be something of an improvement on the situation that would have prevailed had we not got the Bill.

Tonight's brief debate has demonstrated what we suspected as soon as we saw the Bill—that it is an inadequate and confused measure. I do not know what members of the British Transport Police Federation might think, nor do I know what the chief constable of the British Transport police might think, but it appears to all Opposition Members that aspects of the Bill suggest that the comprehensive policing of the whole of the railway network exclusively by British Transport police is under threat and is further threatened.

We suspect that it is the Government's intention to exempt more and more of the railway system from the coverage of BTP generally and to cause them to restrict their activities to what is called core policing so that organisations such as Group 4 can move in and take over some of BTP's current functions.

As I said on Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) was not present, the measures taken by BTP to counter terrorism are extremely impressive. They managed to assess 1,136 bomb threats last year and to close stations on only 33 occasions, when nine bombs were found. Of the 1,103 occasions when they decided not to advise the closure of stations, none of them involved a bomb and no one was injured or killed. That was the result of having a comprehensive policing system for Britain's entire railway system. That left the senior officers who have to make such judgments confident about the information that they were receiving. They were confident about their ability to analyse the situation and confident to take their lives and others' lives in their hands in making their decisions.

If the Bill undermines in any way the comprehensive nature of BTP's coverage, the Minister will be responsible for putting at risk people's safety and for increasing the vulnerability of the transport system to terrorism. He had better remember that. If he has any doubts about the Bill in view of what has been said and the questions asked by Opposition Members, which have been left unanswered, perhaps he should eat a little humble pie and suggest some changes to be made in another place.

We are dubious about the Bill. We asked for it to be introduced and it was, but we consider it unsatisfactory. Its long-term ramifications may be extremely dangerous.

9.52 pm
Mr. Freeman

I have a clear conscience about the Bill. It deals with a specific problem and it is clear and concise. It does not undermine the powers of the British Transport police. It ensures that their jurisdiction and powers are unimpaired. I reject the criticism that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has levelled that the Bill may be defective in some way and that we should think again. It is, of course, a Government Bill. We are not dealing with an Opposition measure. It is the result of the best legal advice and it has been supported by the Labour party and endorsed by the police committee, the chief constable and the chairman of the British Railways Board.

We are correcting a specific problem. The Bill is not a charter for Group 4 or any other private sector security firm. It is designed to ensure that BTP's powers remain unimpaired. The force will in future be able to provide the same jurisdiction and cover that it has applied hitherto. The Government have discharged their responsibilities to BTP promptly and adequately and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Mackinlay

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief but this is an important matter. I am concerned that the Bill affects the prerogative of Her Majesty in as much as it relates to constables who are sworn, I believe, to carry out their powers under the royal prerogative. If that is so, the Queen's—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. That point of order cannot now arise; we have just completed the Bill.

Back to
Forward to