Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill

HC Deb 21 March 1994 vol 240 cc52-84

Order for Second Reading read.

5.35 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is required to ensure that the jurisdiction of British Transport police constables appointed under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 is not inadvertently reduced in England and Wales from 1 April by virtue of the Railways Act 1993.

I am grateful to a number of individuals and organisations—among them, Lord Harris of Greenwich, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), the chief constable of the British Transport police and the British Transport Police Federation—for drawing the issue to the Government's attention. I am also grateful to the police committee for providing helpful advice in recent weeks, and to the Opposition for facilitating thus far the passage of the Bill, which I hope will reach the statute book as quickly as possible.

The Government are committed to the British Transport police. We fully acknowledge their vital work in policing the rail network and ensuring the safety of the travelling public. The House will be particularly aware of the BTP's major role in anti-terrorist activities.

In the restructured railway regime, the BTP will continue, as a unified public force, to police Britain's rail network, performing the same range of duties as now—including providing services to the London underground and the docklands light railway. The core police services that the BTP provides will be laid down by the police committee. Those are the services undertaken by BTP so as to maintain law and order. They include services relating to safety; anti-terrorism; the prevention and detection of crime; keeping the peace; bringing offenders to justice; and rendering support to victims of crime. Railtrack and all licensed train, station and light maintenance depot operators will be obliged by the terms of their licences to use and to pay for core police services provided by the BTP.

The Bill is an indication of our commitment. We are concerned that there should be no reduction in British Transport police jurisdiction. The BTP's current powers in policing the railway should not be circumscribed, preventing it from continuing to be an effective public police force.

The Government are introducing the Bill because we recognise that the effect of the Railways Act 1993 on statutory provisions establishing the jurisdiction of BTP constables is inadvertently to reduce that jurisdiction from 1 April. Under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 and the Railways Act 1993—in so far as they apply to England and Wales—the BTP will have jurisdiction in, on and in the vicinity of the premises of British Rail, Railtrack and certain other railway operators, but will have jurisdiction to act elsewhere only in matters connected with or affecting the board and not in matters connected with or affecting Railtrack and other operators.

The defect does not arise in Scotland, which, since 1980, has had different provisions that are apposite to Scotland, where there is a different legal system. The Bill remedies the defect for England and Wales. It will enable the British Transport police to act elsewhere than in the vicinity of railway premises in matters connected with or affecting Railtrack and other operators that are police service users to the full extent of the agreements made between them and the board. In addition, it enables the British Transport police to act in, on and in the vicinity of premises of any subsidiary of the board, and elsewhere in matters connected with or affecting any of the subsidiaries.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

Just for clarity and perhaps to truncate this part of the discussion, will the Minister spell out the principal rail operators that will not be under a statutory requirement to be licensed users of British Transport police services?

Mr. Freeman

The principal and indeed only example that I can give—if there are others, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman—will be the preserved railways. I refer to those running steam trains wholly outwith the provision of a public service to passengers—in other words, running only on their own tracks and run by their own members for the benefit of those members. If a preserved railway wishes to offer a public service, it must be licensed. I hope that that example gives the hon. Gentleman the flavour.

Mr. Wilson

I am grateful for the flavour, but now let us get to the taste. By way of clarification, will the Minister assure me that there will be a statutory obligation on, for example, the Heathrow Express and European passenger services to enter into agreements and licensing that will involve the use of the British Transport police?

Mr. Freeman

The Heathrow Express will require a licence to run—I am fairly certain, but will check during the course of the debate—on existing track between Paddington and the point where there is a departure from the main railway lines. The hon. Gentleman asked about European services. I can give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance that the writ of the British Transport police will run for services from Waterloo and, in due course, other railway stations, down to the channel tunnel. There is no question of any ambiguity about the powers of the British Transport police in that regard.

The Bill thus ensures that the existing jurisdiction of the British Transport police will extend to all police services users—to all those who are party to a transport police services agreement with the British Railways Board. I have already made it clear that all licence holders in the restructured railway will be required by their licences at all times to be a party to an agreement to use and pay for the services of the British Transport police. The general authority to the regulator will ensure that the regulator may not issue a licence without such a condition. A licence will provide that the police services agreement ' must be approved by the Secretary of State, and the services to be provided under the agreement are those specified as "core police services" by the police committee.

I can assure the House that a crucial factor in the Secretary of State's decision to approve an agreement for the provision of police services will be to ensure consistency in agreements. In particular, he will seek to ensure that provisions in the agreement that might affect the jurisdiction of constables are consistent so that British Transport police constables can have a clear and unambiguous understanding of their jurisdiction.

Moreover, the police committee will ensure that the core police services are such as to ensure law and order on the railway.

The employer of the British Transport police, which is and will continue to be the British Railways Board until there is a change in the law, will be fully responsible for funding the British Transport police and will be responsible for collecting charges from operators. Operators will therefore pay policing charges to the employer of the British Transport police, not to the BTP itself. I can assure the House that there is no question that any failure of an operator to pay the employer would affect the ability of the British Transport police to police the railway.

Hon. Members will realise that, despite the simplicity of what the Bill sets out to achieve, it is a detailed measure that reflects the complicated and much-amended status of the legislation.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, including his remark that the Bill is a complicated and detailed measure. Will he tell us why, if that is the case, it is necessary and appropriate for the Government to get the measure through the House in 24 hours—later today? Why could not the proceedings at least have been split up to allow the Committee stage to be taken another day? I recognise the urgency of the matter, but it is a sham and a disgrace to Parliament that the Bill is being railroaded through in one afternoon. That is totally unacceptable.

Mr. Freeman

The handling of parliamentary business is not a matter for me. The only comment that I would make is that there is universal agreement that we should seek to amend the law by the end of the month. The timetabling of the Bill and its various stages must be a matter for the business managers and representatives of the various parties involved.

Clause 1, in its application to England and Wales, amends section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 with respect to the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. It extends their jurisdiction to enable them to act elsewhere than in, on and in the vicinity of premises of the board or a police services user in matters connected with or affecting a police services user. In addition, it enables them to act in, on and in the vicinity of premises of any subsidiary—whether wholly owned or not—of the board, and in matters connected with or affecting such subsidiaries.

Clause 2 and the schedule specify the citation and commencement of the Act, the enactments that it repeals and its extent. It is intended that, when passed, the Bill will come into force on 1 April 1994 to ensure that the jurisdiction is maintained when Railtrack takes over from British Rail the ownership and management of the network.

I have written on the above lines today to the police committee. Following a meeting with it this morning, Sir Bob Reid has replied in the following terms on its behalf: Thank you for your letter of 21 March to David Rayner"— the chairman of the police committee— about the Transport Police 'Jurisdiction' Bill, which is most helpful and welcomed by the Police Committee. We shall now be putting in place work, in the light of your letter, to define model agreements for police services which are acceptable to the Chief Constable and the Police Committee. Any substantial modification which may arise to such model agreements will need to be evaluated and endorsed by the Police Committee as they arise. The Bill restores the powers of jurisdiction of the BIT inadvertently affected by the Railways Act 1993. I commend it to the House.

5.47 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

I welcome the Bill; as we suggested it to the Government, it would be rather churlish of me not to welcome it. As the Minister has explained, as a result of slovenly errors on the part of the Government, the jurisdiction of the British Transport police was reduced by the Railways Act 1993. Apparently, the Government have become so committed to deregulation that they now even do it by accident.

Nothing could better illustrate the importance that the Government attach to the need to tackle crime than their error in reducing the jurisdiction of the British Transport police and their apparent unwillingness subsequently to do anything urgently to put the matter right. There was a possibility therefore that, from 1 April, the staff of the British Transport police would not be able to investigate crimes or arrest people elsewhere than on, or immediately adjacent to, the property of Railtrack or any privatised railway company. That was clearly bad from the point of view of combating crime, and particularly bad from the point of view of continuing the fight against terrorism.

British Transport police is currently responsible for policing the whole railway system. It is vital that it stays that way, particularly because of terrorist threats. We either have a fully comprehensive system—as we have now—or it is broken up, loses its effectiveness and makes passengers and staff vulnerable. Last year, British Transport police received more than 1,130 bomb threats on British Rail and London Underground. It vetted them carefully and advised the closure of stations on just 33 occasions. Of those 33, only nine turned out to be bombs; all were dealt with successfully. No one was killed and no one was injured. There were no bombs involved in the 1,100 instances where the BTP exercised their judgment and advised that stations did not need to be closed. I am sure that all would agree that that was a remarkable achievement—a credit to the BTP, to the effectiveness of their communications and assessment system and to the judgment exercised daily by their senior officers. That judgment is based on confidence that they run a watertight system and that there are no gaps in their information. That is a major reason why there must be no railway organisation not covered by the BTP and no curtailment of their jurisdiction.

If anything goes wrong with the present arrangements, two things could happen. First, some bomb threats might not be dealt with properly or promptly. As a result, people might be killed or injured. In that event, the terrorists would have succeeded. Alternatively, because those who had to exercise their judgment on the bomb threats no longer had confidence in their system, BTP could order far more station closures. Again, the terrorists would have succeeded. The public will be protected only if there are proper and comprehensive arrangements that are properly regulated.

Given the Opposition's concern for the safety of passengers and their property, I did not believe it right to leave the BTP for months after 1 April bereft of their proper powers, which they continued to operate. I suggested to the Government that they should introduce a one-clause Bill to put things right, and that they agreed to do. It almost goes without saying that the Bill that they introduced has not one clause but two and that it does not put things right. The Bill covers only England and Wales, presumably because the Government are satisfied that the law in Scotland is adequate. If that is so, surely it would be logical to apply that law in England and Wales. That would be simple and sensible—so the Government have done something else.

The Government propose wording that introduces new uncertainties that do not apply in Scotland and should not apply in England and Wales in future. Another fine mess the Government have got themselves into. The Bill provides that a constable will be able to investigate or arrest on the premises or on and in the vicinity of privatised railway premises, or "elsewhere", providing that the agreement between the owner of the premises and the BTP permits the constable to do so.

If privatisation proceeds as the Government claim, there could be more than 100 private owners of parts of the railway system. Each owner could have a different contract with the BTP. If that happens, BTP constables will need to carry a backpack of contract documents with them to ensure that what they are doing is covered by the appropriate agreement. If all the details are checked against the documents that the constable has with him, he will then presumably shout to the suspect, "You are nicked." Apparently the Government think that the suspect will be standing by waiting for the constable to finish his adjudication. That is preposterous.

In their letter to the police committee of the BTP—this has now been made clear in the Chamber—the Government have said that they will assuage the BTP's concern. Obviously there was concern, which is why the Minister had to write. There was also concern in British Rail. The Government have said that they will check on all the agreements to ensure that they all say the same thing. If that is to happen, why have they put such a ludicrous requirement into the Bill? If all the agreements are the same, there is no need to confine the authority or the jurisdiction of the police to the terms of each individual agreement. At present, however, the Bill sets out that requirement. The Government could grant a general power or dispensation. That is what they have done in Scotland. Apparently that approach works properly in Scotland, and we believe that it should apply here.

In the Minister's letter to the police committee, he seeks to quote three precedents. The only trouble is that they are not proper precedents. None of them refers to agreements that might be reached between the police and a private owner, with the private owner in the position of being able to decide what should be set out in the ageement.

Two of the agreements to which the Minister refers in his letter are with publicly owned bodies, so they would be reasonably under control. The other example is subject to agreement by the police in the first place regarding the terms of the contract. In other words, these examples should carry no weight in our discussions. We are not impressed by the Government's effort to cover up yet another fumble in the process of privatising the railways. There are some who claim effortless superiority; the Government seem to go in for effortless incompetence.

We would like the Government to accept in Committee this evening that the law in England and Wales should be brought in line with the law in Scotland. The detail of the relevant amendment that we have tabled may not be satisfactory. I am only too aware of that because I drafted it myself. I know that my drafting is usually just about as inadequate as that prepared for the Minister. It is quite possible that the drafting is wrong in detail, but I am sure that it is right in principle. It cannot be right to have a different law in Scotland—a wider and more effective law—that is not constrained by private agreements.

I remind the Minister of what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said in Committee when we were considering what became the Railways Act 1993. He said: Transport Police travel all over the country and that is why there is no territorial arrangement".— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 March 1993; c. 878.] We know, of course, that other forces have those arrangements. We do not want a territorial arrangement for the BTP. We want all parts of the BTP to have the same powers throughout the country as they have at present in Scotland. The Minister must accept that in Scotland the BTP are not constrained by the contents of any agreement that they may have to reach with any private owners. If that is good enough for Scotland, it should be good enough for England and Wales.

The Bill is before us because we suggested that change should be made as there was a danger that the powers of the BTP would not be sufficient from 1 April. In the spirit in which we have proposed that the law should be changed—we have not obstructed the Bill's passage, and we do not intend to do so this evening—the Minister owes it to us to ensure that our arguments are accepted. If he cannot accept them and agree to changes this evening, he should give an undertaking that the appropriate amendment will be made in another place.

5.58 pm

Mr. Nick Harvey (North Devon)

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being in my place at the start of the debate. I had not anticipated as accurately as some hon. Members that the preceding debate would end rather quickly.

Like the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I welcome the Bill in principle but regret that it is necessary. Throughout the passage of what is now the Railways Act 1993, several of us objected repeatedly to the indecent haste with which some important measures were being put together.

I well recall one morning in Committee when the Government turned up with a raft of amendments that had been tabled at the last possible moment. After the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) had advanced his arguments against them, they had to be withdrawn. The proceedings for the day were then scratched. I referred to that during the final stages of our consideration of the Bill. I meant to say that we were proceeding with the Government's amendments while the ink upon them was scarcely dry. Unfortunately, I said that the ink was scarcely wet. It was said by someone on the Bench behind mine that I had accidentally coined a new phrase but that in all the circumstances it was probably more accurate than the old one.

I am glad that the Government have recognised the deficiency of the legislation as we left it at the end of last year. Whatever arguments might be put to the contrary, the jurisdiction of the British Transport police was distinctly undermined in that they would be exceeding their jurisdiction if they attempted to stray beyond British Rail property when conducting their inquiries or trying to apprehend a suspect. One can imagine the public outcry if, after a mugging, theft or attempted rape, the British Transport police, in hot pursuit of a suspect, had to give up when the suspect leapt over a perimeter fence. The sorts of incidents that might arise during mass travel to football matches leave one very worried indeed.

I welcome the fact that the Government have attempted to address the problem, but, like Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, I voice some concerns about the Bill. I, too, am unable to understand why England and Wales are to have a regime that is different from that in Scotland. If the situation in Scotland is deemed to be adequate, that would seem an ideal model for England and Wales.

I am slightly concerned that commercial interests might be involved. After the railway network has been broken up and privatisation has smashed it into many different pieces, if different elements of the railway negotiate their own different agreements, there could be a real mess. It is essential that one form of jurisdiction should apply across the whole railway network. That is the crucial aim of the Bill, regardless of how it is attained.

I regret that I missed an earlier exchange between the Minister and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), when I think the question of exemptions from the licensing requirements of the Railways Act 1993 were dealt with. It is essential that the question of exemptions be dealt with. If the elements of the railways that are exempt from holding a licence were also to be exempt from a police services agreement, different regulations would apply to different parts of the railways. I also seek clarification about railway maintenance depots, leasing depots and freight depots.

Nowhere does the Bill mention people who are approaching the vicinity of the railways. We have conducted the argument only in terms of people leaving the vicinity. What about people who are approaching the railways with crime in mind? This matter must be addressed. On an everyday level, a train driver may come on duty having drunk excessive amounts of alcohol. If that were known about, the transport police must be able to enter the depot from which the driver is to start his work and deal with the situation in a preventative way rather than waiting until he reached the main network.

There are problems with this legislation, but I will not pursue the specifics any further tonight. The objective should be a universal system of jurisdiction throughout the railways by whatever means that that can be brought about. There should be no question of different commercial operations having different regulations with no one being clearly accountable for the whole.

6.4 pm>

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

In case I omit to make my position clear, I state first that I fully support the passing of the Bill. It is desperately needed by the British Transport police if they are to continue their much-valued and brave work in promoting and protecting the best interests of the travelling public. I recognise that this legislation needs to reach the statute book before 1 April.

I am extremely angry about the way in which this matter has been conducted by the Government and the way in which other people have acquiesced in procedures which I believe make a sham of parliamentary democracy. I am disappointed to have to speak in such terms, but I think that it needs to be said. Even though not many Members of Parliament are present, it needs to be made clear that the manner in which this important—I think the Minister referred to it as detailed—and complicated legislation is being dealt with is a total negation of proper scrutiny and parliamentary democracy.

Of course, this is not the most important Bill ever to pass through the House but it is a measure which requires proper scrutiny. Because of their incompetence, the Government are trying to get through all stages of the Bill in one parliamentary day. That is almost unprecedented; it happens when people invade our shores and when the integrity of the United Kingdom is put at risk. Normally, one would expect that parliamentarians and other interested parties would have a reasonable opportunity to examine legislation and to prepare appropriate amendments in a considered manner, but I and other Members have been denied that opportunity in this case.

I will explain why I think that the proceedings today are a charade. Since the last general election, the Minister for Public Transport and others on the Treasury Bench have been cautioned and counselled repeatedly about the need to safeguard the interests of the British Transport police. I can bear witness to that. On the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Act, I bored my colleagues almost silly going on about the need for the Minister to recognise their interests.

The Minister then issued a document entitled "The Future Status of the British Transport Police" which was referred to on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions and in various Committees of the House. Hon. Members have raised a plethora of questions and early-day motions urging the Government to be mindful of the need for precision in legislation which will avoid putting in jeopardy the powers and interests of the British Transport police. But we have seen a combination of arrogance and incompetence from Ministers who, on every occasion, have said to hon. Members, "Don't worry, it is all on board". They have not said that just to hon. Members; they have said it also to the chief constable and the British Transport Police Federation.

I hope that when the Minister replies he will at least concede that as long ago as September 1993 in correspondence with the British Transport Police Federation he acknowledged that there was a flaw in the legislation. So why is this legislation being railroaded through Parliament at the eleventh hour? There have been plenty of opportunities for the matter to come before Parliament. As recently as last week in another place it was conceded by the right hon. Earl Ferrers, Minister of State, Home Office, that legislation was needed in this area, but even then the Government did not come to the House of Commons and publish the Bill. An extra day would have given hon. Members the opportunity for greater scrutiny, consideration and understanding of the legislation, as well as the opportunity to consult interested parties. It would also have allowed other parties, such as the chief constable and the British Transport Police Federation, to make representations.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has joined us. Unfortunately, he was unable to be here for the Minister's opening speech. That is a pity.

Mr. Neville Trotter (Tynemouth)

I spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister before the debate and explained that I had to take the receivers of Swan Hunter to see a Minister most urgently about the future of that company. I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will appreciate the extremely important nature of that constituency problem.

Mr. Mackinlay

That is why I said that I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Tynemouth. It is good that he has arrived. No doubt he will give us the benefit of his views and information. I understand that he is the advisor to the British Transport Police Federation which is anxious that its views should be heard in this debate.

I am a friend of the British Transport Police Federation. It should be stated on the Floor of the House that yesterday, on my own initiative, I faxed a copy of the Bill to the chairman of the federation who, prior to that, had not seen it. I blame the Government for that. How can it be right that the representative body in the police has not been allowed to see the Bill officially until today if, indeed, it has received a copy now? As of yesterday afternoon, that body had not received a copy of the Bill. It received a copy only when I sent one, on my own initiative, via my fax at home. That is an outrage and an insult to that representative body.

The Minister had the audacity to thank various parties, including the hon. Member for Tynemouth, for drawing attention to the matter. The Minister also mentioned Lord Harris of Greenwich. I took the opportunity to examine Hansard from the other place and it is clear that Lord Harris of Greenwich believes that the Government have shown unprecedented incompetence in this matterm, so it was interesting that the Minister referred to Lord Harris. I understand that the Minister will be going to the British Transport Police Federation conference later this week. The federation should feel the Minister's collar and I hope that he receives a thoroughly good earbashing for his incompetence and that of his colleagues.

We are considering this Bill because there has been an error. The matter goes to the heart of our proceedings in this place. No one can pretend that we give adequate scrutiny to legislation in this House, as has been demonstrated by the error which gave rise to the Bill. To some extent, all 651 Members of this place are to blame. In particular, the Government are to blame for pushing through the Railways Act 1993 in a very arrogant manner, regardless of the views of hon. Members. The Government guillotined the proceedings on that legislation, but when it reached the statute book they found that it contained an error. In other circumstances, people would be dismissed for such a costly and fundamental error, but that does not happen in the Government. There are two standards in this country, as has been shown yet again by the present scenario.

The Government now want to rush this Bill through in one day and at the eleventh hour. If any hon. Member is confident that the Bill contains no errors, perhaps he will show his hand. It would be absurd and would make nonsense of our proceedings if we found that the Bill contained an error after it had completed its passage, but there is a real danger of that as hon. Members have riot had an opportunity to study the Bill or to seek advice or counsel about what it means.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) raised some interesting points to which he did not know the answers, while my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked some rhetorical questions. No doubt we shall receive answers from the Minister. Members should have an opportunity to explore what the Bill means before debating it in the Chamber. Apart from the Minister—and I am not too confident. about him—not one hon. Member fully understands the contents of the Bill. Yet we are expected to give it a Second Reading, allow it a Committee stage and then give it a Third Reading all in one day. That is wrong.

Later on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will take the Chair as First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

My hon. Friend has said that hon. Members do not understand the Bill. Does he agree that that is because the Railways Act 1993 is of such labyrinthine absurdity in relation to the consequences of breaking up a national system into various parts, the number of which we do not know, and under agreements of which we do not have sight? It is not possible for us to know what kind of agreements are referred to in this Bill as they have yet to be drawn up among organisations which do not yet exist, in a degree and in numbers of which we are unaware.

Mr. Mackinlay

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is the danger of this Bill, particularly with regard to the speed of its passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made a serious point. There will be a plethora of agreements, but there cannot be consistency in all of them. They will follow the same theme, but there will be variations on that theme. It will be most unsatisfactory for police officers or chief constables to have to operate in that way.

If we had more time to deal with the Bill, we might understand the points, but it is an inescapable fact that none of us has had an opportunity to explore what the Bill involves or its implications. I assume that the motion will be passed and that the Bill will be considered in Committee, although I shall resist that and I shall be pleased to welcome any hon. Members who would support me in the Lobby to resist the Bill being considered by a Committee of the whole House today. This is a fundamental principle and one that I will not shirk. I am opposed to the way in which the Bill is proceeding because it is bad legislation and bad for Parliament.

Assuming that the Bill passes to a Committee of the whole House, I shall wish to raise points of order with the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. I believe that amendments should be explored and examined. The hon. Member for North Devon made a valid point about people who are heading towards committing a crime or contemplating a crime. What powers exist in respect of such people?

The Bill is entitled the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the graphic scenes on television a few months ago when there was a riot against the poll tax in Trafalgar square and a rioter threw a piece of scaffolding through the window of a police car. It is a matter of fact that that police car was a British Transport police vehicle. As things stand, those officers had no power to intervene in crimes being committed in that vicinity other than the powers that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hold as ordinary citizens. I am also told—this also relates to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—that such a situation does not prevail in Scotland.

We have an opportunity to remedy that situation and to clarify the jurisdiction of the BTP instead of fudging and confusing the issue. My objection to the details of the Bill, to the extent that I am able to understand them, is that far from clarifying the powers of the BTP, the Bill will cause confusion. I used the example that I did to demonstrate how, if my amendments were considered and accepted by the Committee of the whole House, we could clarify the powers of British Transport police officers outside of railway premises. The police officers who are at the sharp end would welcome clarification of their powers.

I take a great interest in uniforms, regalia and cap badges. When I left St. Stephen's entrance recently I saw a British Transport police officer. To an ordinary member of the public he was simply a police officer. Most members of the public would have assumed that he was a member of the Metropolitan police. Had there been an incident outside St. Stephen's entrance, the public would not have paused to consider whether that officer was a Metropolitan police officer or a British Transport police officer. To Joe public, someone wearing a policeman's uniform is a police officer for 24 hours of the day and the public would have expected that officer to respond to an incident in that area. The way things are at present, however, that police officer would have been constrained from getting involved in any incident. Indeed, he would have put himself in jeopardy. He would have had to make a split-second decision whether to intervene, and if he had intervened he would have had only the same powers as ordinary citizens.

I appeal to hon. Members to pause for a moment and consider whether we are doing justice to the police and to the institution of Parliament by treating such a serious matter in what I regard as a flip way in the manner in which the Bill is being pushed through. The Bill must be read a Second time and it must reach the statute book because it is much needed: it is inescapable that the powers must be restored to the British Transport police. But we could have an improved Bill—one which would bring credit rather than discredit to Parliament—if we concluded the Second Reading today and the Bill went into a Committee of the whole House on another occasion or, indeed, was referred to a Standing Committee. Hon. Members and people outside the House could then improve the Bill and, above all, understand its contents. For that reason, I support the Second Reading, but I hope that even at this stage Parliament can be persuaded to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that such an important matter deserves.

6.20 pm

Mr. Neville Trotter (Tynemouth)

I am sorry if controversy has been brought into the Bill, which I thought would commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The British Transport police sets an excellent example to other forces. It is a force some 2,000 strong. It is noted for its efficiency and the calibre of its officers. In its organisation, it was ahead of many of the reforms that are now being introduced by the Home Office forces. It is led by a well-respected chief constable.

The British Transport police have a particular and serious problem in that they are dealing daily with a large number of terrorist threats and suspect parcels left on railway premises, amounting to something like 4,500 incidents each year. Every one of those incidents must be dealt with sensibly and correctly by the officers who respond to them. That is a considerable responsibility which descends at times on the shoulders of junior and young officers. There is more than one explosion every month on railway premises. Apart from their normal task of policing the railways and ensuring the safety and security of passengers and those who work on the railways, the BTP now face a very considerable added burden from terrorism.

I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on one thing at least—the need for the powers of the British Transport police to be extended, especially in circumstances in which BTP officers are the first to respond to a terrorist situation outside railway premises. At Bishopsgate, the first inspector to arrive on the scene was a British Transport police inspector. He did what had to be done but he did not in fact have the power to do it. He got by by using his common sense and his uniform. It is true that to the public the British Transport police are policemen, and all policemen are the same. The issue needs to be sorted out. If it cannot be sorted out in this Bill, which is making a remarkably rapid passage through the House so that it can become law before 31 March, I shall certainly return to it, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Thurrock will return to it as well.

In the past 18 months, we have seen a great deal of uncertainty inevitably as a result of rail privatisation. During that time, my right hon. Friend the Minister and I have had numerous meetings with federation representatives. My right hon. Friend has always been fully supportive at those meetings. He made it clear from the start that he agreed that the force should remain as a national and unified force—there has been no suggestion that it should be split up and its role handed to local Home Office forces.

It is regrettable that we need to spend time today debating the powers of the BTP in this way. It would have been much better if the whole issue had been decided when the Bill went through the House of Lords. However, so many political points were raised in the debates about privatisation that such sensible points were guillotined at the end of the day.

Mr. Wilson

I find the hon. Gentleman's comments absolutely stunning. Is he suggesting that the issues that detained the House of Lords and threw the unwanted legislation into chaos were unimportant? Which issues does he think were unimportant—perhaps the concessionary travel for old age pensioners and the discounted through ticketing? Can he name the unimportant matters that detained both Houses of Parliament? Incidentally, will he declare his interest in the matter?

Mr. Trotter

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that, technically, I have not declared an interest, but it was referred to earlier. Hon. Members are well aware that I represent the British Transport Police Federation. The delays to the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons were often on tedious and irrelevant points. If it had not been for delays on matters of no great moment, there would have been more time to debate the issues of substance.

I shall return to the situation that the BTP face in the changed circumstances of privatisation. The essential factor is that there will be a stipulation that all of those who operate the railways in the future will be required to use the British Transport police force for their principal core police activities. That this stipulation will apply has been amply confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Minister.

I have no doubt whatever that the force will have the same important role to play in the future of the railways as it has had in the past. It will continue to police the railways, to ensure security and safety and to follow up crimes that are committed in connection with the railways. It is important for the BTP to have powers not only on railway premises but also to follow up offences related to the railways in areas outside railway premises. That is what the Bill seeks to do.

In the future, Railtrack will have an important part to play in the organisation of the BTP. I took it upon myself recently to meet Robert Horton, the chairman of Railtrack. I asked him to put in writing what he told me, and it will be helpful to the House if I spell out what he said: I am happy to be able to let you know my views on BTP and my resolve to make sure that they are properly funded and that this is not an 'optional extra' for the franchisees. Representatives of the federation will meet me and Mr. Horton in the near future.

I have no doubt that the BTP will retain their present position as the national force policing the railway system. They will continue to fulfil excellently their vital role, and as a result of this Bill they will obtain the powers that they need to continue in the way that they should. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.

6.27 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

It is worth raising a few points about the Bill before it zips through the House. The Bill is before the House because of an error made by the Department of Transport, the relevant Ministers and the civil service advisers. We shall spend half a day in Parliament remedying an omission in previous legislation.

The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who is a paid representative of the British Transport police, argued that we are debating this Bill because we spent time debating the rest of the privatisation legislation and issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, such as the through ticketing system which will be non-existent, the universal concessions to pensioners and other concessions, and the whole panoply of absurd right-wing extremism which the Bill represents. Two right-wing representatives of the Tories are present in the Chamber—the Minister for Public Transport and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who is grinning. He is a well-known right-wing extremist in the Tory party, and undoubtedly proud of it.

The Bill is one of the consequences of rushing through legislation to break up a national service which is so complex in its application. It is not the fault of the House that the omission of the British Transport police was allowed to go through; it is the fact that we had to spend so much time getting explanations from the Minister as to how the whole thing would work without bringing to a halt the railway service in one or more parts. I predicted then, and I predict now, that privatisation of the railway will do just that. It is not the House's fault; it is the Government's fault in producing such absurdly complex legislation, which will have the effect of producing a deteriorating standard of service.

I want to raise some points in relation to the transport police. It is not only the serious and dramatic incidents of potential terrorist activity and the planting of bombs on the railway system which are of concern. The British Transport police must police 11,000 route miles, and it also polices the retention of the protection on both sides of the track, which makes 22,000 route miles of fencing.

British Rail, unlike continental railways, was established not with open access, but with the requirement that people should be shielded from access to the railway by two lines of fencing. Therefore, the British Transport police have a duty and an obligation to try their level best—it is difficult in the present circumstances—to reduce the amount of vandalism, which can be sometimes encouraged by the lack of maintenance to fencing on either side of the track.

The Government are the pillars of capitalism and they impose their philosophy on the public sector willy-nilly. They impose what they call efficiency, and their efficiency is sacking as many people as can be sacked. That is why 4 million people have been on the dole in about 10 of the 15 years that the Government have been in office. Vandalism has increased on the railways. Signal boxes have been closed, and stations are unstaffed.

We heard earlier this afternoon at Question Time that 80 per cent. of the 1,000 stations in London are unstaffed after 6 o'clock. That means that, in winter, the stations are unstaffed after dark, and that is clearly an encouragement to vandalism. There are hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of our cities. Some of them are homeless because of the Government's housing policies, and some are wandering the streets because they are unemployed and have nothing to do because of the Government's wretched and wicked philosophies. Those philosophies are all about putting people out of work and imposing so-called efficiencies—which are really false efficiencies—on the public utilities and elsewhere. The British Transport police have an important and enormous day-to-day task in trying to preserve life and limb by ensuring that people cannot get on to the railways, which can represent an enormous danger.

What about developments which have taken place? It is curious that the legislation, provides that a British Transport police constable can act as a constable only to the extent that he is acting as a constable in pursuance of a transport police services agreement"; and that he shall … only so act in accordance with the terms of that agreement. One of the ways that British Rail has tried to reduce the financial burdens which have been placed upon it by the Government is to get rid of the obligations of maintenance of overhead bridges. If it can get rid of an overhead bridge by transferring it to either a private body, if it is an access bridge, or a public body such as a local authority, it does so. It has been encouraged by the Government to do just that. Maintenance will be carried out by the local authority under the terms and conditions which have been laid down by the civil engineer of British Rail.

What happens when somebody on a bridge is throwing obstacles at a train, either to encourage a derailment or simply to hit the driver? That is not unknown. That bridge, and the local authority which is maintaining it, presumably must be subject to an agreement for the British Transport police constable to have jurisdiction. If there is not a service agreement in existence, the constable will merely be able to stand to one side and say that he has no jurisdiction. Under the legislation, he will not be allowed to intervene as he is not a police constable in transport terms on the bridge. That bridge is owned by a private organisation because British Rail has sold it to get rid of the statutory obligations; and the Government want them to do that anyhow.

A number of intriguing circumstances could arise. What about the miles of desert which have been created by all the clever people at the Department of Transport who love road transport so much and have denigrated and denuded a fine railway system? Freight depots and marshalling yards have been closed, and British Rail has been encouraged to sell them off. It has relied on the selling of assets for a significant percentage of its revenue.

All those assets must now be subject to an agreement if British Transport police officers are to have jurisdiction over those assets in relation to the track which runs alongside, between or through them. If there is to be comprehensive policing alongside the 11,000 route miles—over and above the 11,000 route miles where trains run—it is possible that we will need a large number of service agreements to make sure that constables have adequate jurisdiction where railways have some access and where sections of land have been sold off as a result of pressure from the Government.

My hon. Friends have raised an important matter which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides—except, curiously enough, the hon. Member for Tynemouth, who is a representative of the British Transport Police Federation. The hon. Gentleman simply accepted the legislation, and did not think anything about it. He believed that the House should rubber-stamp the Bill and pass it, in spite of the difficulties which will be created by the legislation for the operation of the powers of the British Transport police.

We should debate the matter so that the Minister can give us a comprehensive answer. There are other areas in which the British Transport police operate well away from operating lines, and there is the question of vandalism by children where a special duty of care applies to keep people off the railway tracks.

When the franchise holders take over, will Railtrack be encouraged to contract out such requirements as the statutory obligation for the maintenance of fencing? Will that create a greater burden on the transport police through children having access to tracks and creating difficulties for drivers? The Minister knows that British Rail has to run what are called Q trains to catch trespassers and warn them of the dangers. Trespassing can result in rapid injury and death because of the pace of trains, particularly the electrified trains which are much quieter than their steam and diesel predecessors.

Lastly, I want to raise the question of sections of former British Rail property which are well away from the railways. For example, if a preserved viaduct is taken over by a preservation society, it can at the moment be supervised and guarded against vandalism by the BTP. What happens if there is an agreement, as there is in one case, about a viaduct which has been refurbished and preserved? The example to which I refer is a grade 2 listed monument in Cumbria.

What happens when a structure such as that is taken over by a trust to look after it and to give people the opportunity of looking at a great architectural structure? Does there have to be a separate agreement for the BTP to operate in an area where a private organisation is involved in the maintenance and operation of the viaduct, albeit a public trust? The trust is dedicated not to profit but to the retention of the viaduct for public access in conjunction with a nature reserve.

The more one thinks about it, the greater the potential for these agreements to be combined into one huge volume. A transport constable will look at a situation, and he will have to turn to page 1,035 to check whether the area is subject to an agreement before he can take action. By the time he has looked up the relevant page and clause, the people will have disappeared. So the constable will not be so effective.

I regret to say that the paid representative of the British Transport Police Federation has departed the Chamber—[Interruption.]—and has returned perhaps to take part in the debate, having arrived late in any case. I wonder whether the British Transport Police Federation thinks that it is getting value for money. I can say with confidence that, if there is a cause for anxiety, Opposition Members will take it up without being paid to do so.

I hope that the Minister will give us some answers. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). He asked why the Bill was being pushed through in such a short time. The Minister is surely a little trusting to present to the House the notion that the business managers alone determine the way in which business is conducted. Do not Ministers have some comment to make when a proposal is made? Do not they say, for example, that they would like longer or that the amount of time is all right because a measure will go through on the nod?

Surely Ministers are not so completely remote from the business managers that they cannot say, "We have made one terrible error already. This legislation is the result of that error. Should not we linger over it a little longer to allow more time for amendments to be tabled so that we do not make any errors the second time round?" I do not believe that the Minister could not make such representations or that the Leader of the House would ignore them if he did. So I believe that the Minister is content at his own risk to push the Bill through in the most rapid time that he regards as convenient. The House is not here to be convenient for the Executive. The longer that we take over examination of the Bill, the more likely it is that it will be better legislation.

6.41 pm

Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South)

We have been far too beastly to the Minister. We should thank him for giving us the opportunity to debate a subject rarely debated in the House—policing outside the Home Department police forces. Perhaps that was his motive. Perhaps he wanted to give us that opportunity.

I did not serve on the Committee that considered what became the Railways Act 1993, section 132 of which says: The Secretary of State may make a scheme". When I read that, I wondered what it reminded me of. It occurred to me that it was obvious. Yesterday I had the privilege of attending a rally in Birmingham that was led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It was hosted by Tony Robinson, who plays the part of Baldrick in "Blackadder", who always says something like, "I have a scheme" or, "I have a cunning plan." The element of farce in the Bill is obvious.

This is the time for apologies. I must apologise to the Minister for missing his speech. He has apologised for missing the British Transport police. As I am deeply interested in history, I looked up the history of the British Transport police force. I found that it went back to the 1830s and the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company. The officers appointed had constabulary powers. One would have thought that the 160 years or so since the origins of the British Transport police would have allowed our scintillating civil servants, known to be the best in the world, the opportunity to learn about the powers of those officers. If the civil servants were not aware of the powers of the transport police in England, they could have looked more closely at the powers of the transport police in Scotland or other non-Home Department police forces. Therefore, the error was inexcusable.

That error illustrates the contempt of the Executive for the legislature. The Executive say, "It does not really matter. We can make legislation swiftly, the legislature is not up to it. After all, half the Committee will be placemen from our side. All they are interested in doing is their correspondence or their crosswords. As for the Opposition, they are not smart enough to spot our errors." In many ways, the House has been reduced to the level of the old eastern European rubber-stamp legislatures.

The Government's reputation for political competence is in tatters. Their reputation, if they have any left, for administrative competence is even more shredded. This little error has been exposed not as a result of internal examination but by people on the outside saying that the Government have got it wrong. If the error had not been corrected, the transport police would have been in a bizarre position after 1 April. A couple of British Rail transport policemen running to apprehend an alleged criminal who was leaving British Rail premises would have panted to each other, "Do we have the power to pursue? Yes, we have the powers of the ordinary citizen." While they were debating their constitutional position, the hood would have made his exit. Perhaps 1 April has an element of farce about it.

We are having to debate the Bill rather swiftly. On Friday only a photocopied Bill was available to us. It is rather embarrassing and humiliating that the House of Commons, given two or three days to investigate a failure of drafting, is sent a photocopy and has to wait until the day of the debate to have a proper copy made available to Members.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

Has my hon. Friend thought that the last Bill that went through this place at exactly this speed was the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, which is not exactly noted for being the most beautifully crafted piece of legislation that the House of Commons has ever accepted?

Mr. George

Those who are aggrieved by the Opposition's guerilla warfare in protest at the contempt with which the Executive has treated the House—not only the Opposition—must accept that the Bill is further evidence of the need to bring it to the attention of the Government that they must treat the House with rather more respect than they have shown so far. We have an opportunity now briefly to discuss policing outside our Home Office police forces.

What has happened with the Bill has shown elements of farce and a lack of political and administrative competence. It is an example—this is my crucial point—of the indifference bordering on contempt that the Government have shown not just to the House but to the non-Home Department police forces. We forget about them. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that people did not know the difference between transport policemen and other police officers. They look alike and they dress alike. Their vehicles are similar. They have somewhat similar powers. They are trained in exactly the same way. They have, at least until the Bill is passed, more or less analogous powers and they are exceedingly competent.

Non-Home Department police forces are suffering because some of their responsibilities have been eliminated as a result of the collapse of industry and because the Government are intent on privatisation. The Government's mania for privatisation is manifest in industry, but they have had to develop a more cunning plan to deal with the health service—witness trusts. They have had greater difficulty in dealing with the military, but they are privatising in the best way that they can.

The Government are privatising police forces. That process will continue. The Home Office is defining core police functions. I am sure that they will be the responsibility of the police and everything else will be up for grabs by the private sector, which will muscle in. What is more, that will be an unregulated private sector.

Mr. Mackinlay

Has my hon. Friend noticed that it is intended that as from 1 April the British Transport police will be vested in Railtrack and that the Government have announced their not medium-term intention that Railtrack should be privatised? Is not that a matter for grave concern to the British Transport police and other non-Home Office forces who are threatened by the Government with privatisation?

Mr. George

One of the advantages of the absurd timing is that I am able to give some publicity for a conference that I am organising in Committee Room 14 on Monday, which will consider the future of policing, public and private. It is fortuitous that one of the speakers will be the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police, who will speak about the future of the non-Home Department police forces. I do not know what he will say; I am only the organiser of the conference. The content will be entirely his. However, in my opinion, the future of the non-Home Department forces—if the Bill is anything to go by—is uncertain, at least during the next two or three years. It is uncertain because the Government cannot even draft the legislation properly when they deal with it, and they are privatising where they can.

There is an even greater threat to the Ministry of Defence police. As a result of the Blelloch report, they will apparently be replaced by redundant service men. It seems patently bizarre—I know that I use that word frequently —if, to deal with redundancy in one sector of the Ministry of Defence, one creates redundancy in another sector, but that is an example.

The Government do not like the non-Home Department police forces. I am worried about the transport police. There may not be a direct threat to them now, but I know exactly what will happen once privatisation takes hold. The privatised entities will say to the Minister, probably unofficially, "This is very expensive. After all, we are paying full policing rates for these guys. They are going through so much training. Surely we can train them less effectively than the training college that the fools have to go through to become as competent as police officers. It is much too costly. Minister, can't we find a way to reduce our costs?"

Obviously the Government are intent on doing that. It has happened in the Ministry of Defence with the royal ordnance factories, and the sidelining of the Ministry of Defence police in many areas. It is a continuation of the mania for cheap policing, but cheap policing is poor policing. One may appear to gain, looking at a balance sheet, but I can say, with some experience, that one will not gain if policing and security personnel are not trained to a level that is commensurate with the growing threat from the criminal and from terrorism. The international situation will deteriorate so that there will be more targets, static and mobile, requiring better, not deteriorating, policing.

I believe that there should be a future for the transport police. They should not have to look behind them to see whether private companies are muscling in on the work that they do. There is an enormous vacuum in the Home Office's knowledge of policing and it appears to be indifferent to the way in which the contract security industry is evolving. There is no regulatory system for guarding, for private investigators, for retail security. That requires investigation, as does the way in which the Home Department police forces, including the transport police, operate.

I hope that, as a result of receiving this little slap across the wrist from the legislature, the Minister will take the transport police more seriously than his Department has done hitherto, and his colleagues will take the non-Home Department police forces more seriously. Morale is a subject that we must all, including the Executive, tackle. What will be the future of those forces? Is there a real future for them? Is their future merely to await the time when the private sector is able to move in and take over? We know exactly what will happen unless that private sector operates under a system of regulation. Standards will deteriorate and standards of security will diminish even further.

If British Rail or what succeeds it moves as swiftly as the Government have moved with this legislation, we should see trains moving far more swiftly. I hope that the Minister will be mindful of the criticism to which he has been subjected and that the drafting process will be improved. I hope that hon. Members will develop the enthusiasm to challenge the Executive and to provide a better system of scrutiny.

If one thing emerges from this farce, it is that Parliament's capacity to scrutinise is woefully weak. Should that continue, we shall be replacing the old Supreme Soviet in the legislatures of eastern Europe as the superfluous Parliament in the western world.

6.54 pm

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

Tonight we must learn the lesson that when Governments legislate in an autocratic and hasty way, they soon regret it. Few Bills have been more deeply unpopular than that which became the Railways Act 1993. It was condemned by the Transport Select Committee unanimously, by members of all parties, and many Members of the House have the right to claim that we were wise before the event.

So unpopular was the Bill that at one time the Transport Select Committee sought from extremist organisations, such as the right-wing think tanks, support for the Government's intention. The Committee went so far as to take the unique step of advertising in the press for anyone who was willing to support the Government's plans, and no one came forward to support them. Throughout the long hours on that Committee, the only people who said anything in the Bill's favour were those who had a vested interest in its outcome.

The 1993 Act is an atrocious piece of legislation. We all remember the comments that were made in the House when the Act went through. The resistance from the other place and this House was deep and serious. The Government chose to ignore it and behaved like an elective dictatorship.

Another argument is going on at the moment about decisions taken by another organisation that is a union of countries—the European Union. The Government are pressing for a blocking motion on that by 27 members or 23 members, which amounts to 34 per cent. of the membership of that organisation. I have asked the Prime Minister, in my usual helpful, constructive way, whether he would support in the House a blocking measure on Bills if it were supported by 34 per cent. of Members of the House. His answer, which I have just received, was disappointingly brief and consisted of one word, which was no.

As a democracy, we are in serious trouble because if there were such a blocking motion in the House as the Government are demanding in the other union of nations, the European Union, we would have far better legislation. The Government would have to persuade the Members of the House of the wisdom of their policies. We would not have had the Railways Act. We would not have had the poll tax. We would not have had all the other damaging pieces of legislation. We have a Government who have managed to be popular for a few days every five years, following which their popularity disappears rapidly for a long period.

We have had two Bills recently that apply to my country, Wales—and Wales only. Eighty-four per cent. of the elected Members for Wales have opposed those Bills, yet they have passed through the House, pushed through by elected Members from other parts of the United Kingdom, who have no interest in those Bills, who do not understand them and whose constituents will not be affected.

We are here tonight to mark a major error by the Government. Although I apologise for not being here to hear the Minister's statement, unfortunately I would not have missed an apology by the Government. They should apologise to the House for that major error.

6.58 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

We are discussing a rushed piece of legislation, introduced with 10 days to go before the unwanted fragmentation of our railways, to avoid leaving the British Transport police virtually bereft of powers. The sole reason for that state of affairs is the Government's failure to deal with the issue during the progress of that demented and discredited piece of legislation, the Railways Act 1993, which poses such a threat to the future of our rail network.

I put that statement of fact on the record because, listening to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), one might have had to suspend disbelief. He appears to regard it as an irksome necessity to drop in occasionally to earn his consultancy fees. First, he objected to this matter being treated as controversial. He expected us to turn up, vote the Bill through and go home. Ten days before the unwanted upheaval in the British railways system, no legislation is on the statute book to give the British Transport police, which the hon. Gentleman is supposed to represent in this House, the powers which they need. We have before us tonight a Bill with which the British Transport police are not happy and the hon. Gentleman wonders why we must waste more than 20 minutes discussing it. He wants us simply to wave it through and go to dinner. I hope that the British Transport police read the transcript of these proceedings.

The hon. Member for Tynemouth then suggested that we need not be here at all. The matter could have been dealt with months ago, had not all the footling other matters for which he is not the paid consultant had to be dealt with in this House and the other place.

I invite the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to the issues that took the Government to the wire on the Railways Act. I do not know whether he has received letters from railway pensioners or whether he has railway pensioners in his constituency, but my hon. Friends and I and many Tory Members who are missing from those Benches have received hundreds of letters expressing genuine concern that the Government are seeking to use the mask of rail privatisation to get the Treasury's hands on the railway pension fund. That issue exercised the House night after night and encouraged Members on both sides of the House of Lords to try to force Ministers, until the last possible moment, to rescind their policy and accept railway pensioners' rights. A few short months later, the hon. Member for Tynemouth has the cheek to make a brief appearance in the Chamber and say that this matter could have been dismissed lightly for his convenience and that of the Minister.

Only one set of people is responsible for the fact that we are back here tonight. Those same people are responsible for this legislation in the first place and for trying to perpetrate that dreadful act against railway pensioners—the Government, represented tonight by the Minister for Public Transport. I do not recall the hon. Member for Tynemouth, in defence of the interests of the British Transport police, British Rail pensioners or those of our rail network, questioning or voting against a dot or comma of the Railways Act. For him to complain that it is the fault of anyone but the Government that we are in this position is offensive. With his throw-away remarks that we are wasting our time here and could have rubber-stamped the substance of tonight's Bill months ago, he has introduced an element of controversy into tonight's debate.

Many serious questions must be asked about the Bill. Most of them centre around the phrase in line 29 of clause 1, "transport police services agreement". The hon. Member for Tynemouth probably thinks that it is a wonderful idea that, instead of one integrated British Transport police serving every element of the network, it should be like catering contracts put out to Macdonalds with the transport police obliged to seek service agreements. Each component part of our fragmented rail network will have to make those agreements with the British Transport police.

Opposition Members and the British Transport police are concerned about the word "agreement". Will the Minister explain much more clearly whether that implies that two parties must agree on something, or whether it is an obligation? Is there an obligation to have an agreement and accept what is in that agreement? Is there a fixed set of terms within that agreement or is it literally a case of bargaining in each specific case until an agreement is reached? The only guidance which we have from the Minister is in his letter of 21 March—today's date—to David Rayner, chairman of the British Transport police. But it does not resolve the ambiguity, because it says: Since all licence holders referred to above must have an agreement approved by the Secretary of State for the provision of core police services determined by the Police Committee, you have my assurance that the Secretary of State will ensure consistency of agreements. In particular, he will seek to ensure that provisions in the agreements, which might affect the jurisdiction of constables, are consistent so that British Transport Police constables can have a clear and unambiguous understanding of their jurisdiction. So many questions are raised by those two sentences that I might have expected the paid advisor of the transport police to ask some of them but, as he did not, it has been left for my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and others to ask them.

The Minister is aware of the difference between precise and imprecise language. What does "consistency of agreements" mean? Will agreements all be the same? Will they be a matter of negotiation? The Minister's letter says that he will "seek" to ensure that provisions in the agreement are consistent. What does "seek" mean? To anyone who uses the English language normally, it means that he will have a go and try to encourage the parties to come to an agreement. But if the parties say that they do not want that agreement, the search might be in vain and me Minister may have to seek again next year or the year after. The language is imprecise about whether there will be an element of compunction within those agreements or whether they will be negotiable.

What the Minister has told us tonight and the transport police in that letter does not answer the question but opens up new questions. Either there is an obligation on licence holders—the companies that will be established by the Railways Act—to enter into obligations to use the British Transport police on certain terms, or there is not. If there is no such obligation, there will be massive uncertainties and precisely the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred will arise. Depending on which fragmented element of the railway the British Transport police are working for at any time, they will have to check the handbook to see whether the terms of that agreement are what they understand them to be. If that is what the Minister is offering the House, it is inadequate. He must understand that as well as any Opposition Members, but will he admit it?

Will the Minister clarify the term, "licence holders"? This is an exploratory question and I might be going up the wrong alleyway. To what extent is the term cross-referrable with the Railways (Class and Miscellaneous Exemptions) Order 1994, which has not yet been agreed to on the Floor of the House or in Committee? It contains a large number of exemptions from the requirement to hold a licence. Many are perfectly understandable, such as exemptions for steam railways and certain maintenance depots. Even within the context that we are discussing tonight, some exemptions would be understandable. But is an exemption from the requirement to hold a licence under the Railways Act translatable as being not subject to the provisions of this Bill? If a company is not a licence holder, must it still use the British Transport police?

The Minister will understand that my concern about that matter is strengthened by the repeated use of the phrase "licence holders" in his letter to David Rayner.

I reserve the right to return to this question, but an intervention from the Minister would be very welcome. The hon. Gentleman could bring the debate to a conclusion right now. If licence holders are the only operators or companies to be covered by the legislation, the Minister may—totally inadvertently—have been a little misleading in replies to questions that I put to him earlier. He may wish to clarify his thinking, especially in respect of the channel tunnel and the Heathrow express. At this stage, what we need is clarification—very important clarification, I suggest.

We are dealing with a world that will begin to develop only on 1 April. I hope that it will not go very far, but it may go a little further than I should like. Some very undesirable operators may be brought on to the scene. Mr. James Sherwood, the man who bought and sold Sealink and British Transport Hotels, is on record as having said that the last thing he wants to do is employ the British Transport police. We are not dealing here with something hypothetical; we are dealing with Mr. Sherwood and, I believe, with other operators, one of whose early aims is to get rid of the British Transport police and employ private security firms. Thus we must know how strong are the guarantees concerning retention of the services of that force.

We must know also who will determine how much has to be paid for those services and how the money will be collected. Once again, is it a matter for negotiation, or is it a question of somebody—I shall come in a moment to the question of which somebody—being able to lay down the charges and then, in effect, precept the companies, saying, "These are the charges, and you will pay them as a condition of continuing to operate services or any other function of the railway"? Who will lay down the charges, what rights of enforcement will there be, and what will happen to a franchisee who fails to pay up? It is very important that these questions be answered.

I should like to deal now with the question of jurisdiction. If everyone thinks that the way in which things work in Scotland is right, that there is no need for new legislation for Scotland, where the British Transport police have the right to pursue and investigate in a more liberal way than in the rest of Britain, why in heaven's name should not we use the opportunity of this legislation to create uniformity throughout the country?

In his letter to David Rayner, the Minister says: It was never intended that the Bill would do other than address the defect in the Railways Act 1993. Jurisdiction in respect of non-railway activities is a separate issue, which is not the subject of this legislation. Fair enough, but why? When next will the House of Commons deal with legislation dealing specifically with the British Transport police? If we agree that there is a better legislative model in operation elsewhere in the United Kingdom, why should not we incorporate it in the Bill? I hope that in the course of tonight's debate the Minister will look sympathetically at that argument. There is no case against uniformity.

On a specific point of detail, it has been suggested to me that I should ask the Minister who is on the police committee and how future membership will be determined.

Mr. Mackinlay

As I am confused, I should like to underline my hon. Friend's request. We need to be told, not only for our own sake but for the sake of officers of the British Transport police, whether it is the intention that, on a day-to-day basis, this body will be under the control and stewardship of Railtrack—I believe that to be the position—or at arm's length from Railtrack.

I should like to return to a point that I flagged earlier: the Government's expressed intention to privatise Railtrack. Whether or not the British Transport police are to be under the control of Railtrack from 1 April, what would be the position if the Government were given an opportunity to put privatisation legislation through the House? The threat of privatisation, either in whole or in part, of the functions of the British Transport police is felt by every police officer. We need and have a right to know what the Government's intention is.

Mr. Wilson

The Minister will have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. On the question of the privatisation of Railtrack, we shall cross that viaduct when we come to it. However, I do not think that that will happen this side of a general election, unless the Government are taking the suicide pills again. My hon. Friend's question concerning structure is one in respect of which I should value more elucidation. My understanding is that the British Transport police continues to be a subsidiary of the British Railways Board—and that much I welcome—but, with regard to the precise relationship with Railtrack, I understand that body to be a client of the British Railways Board in securing the services of the British Transport police, much along the lines of any of the other entities being created by the Railways Act. No doubt the Minister will fill us in.

I do not want to detain the House, but these are immensely important questions concerning not just matters of detail but the basis of the Bill and the extent to which it will meet the very legitimate concerns of the British Transport police and the public. Eventually, as in the case of everything to do with this legislation, it is the public who should be borne in mind. A shocking proportion of crimes of violence are committed within a very narrow radius of railway stations. There is enormous fear, particularly among women using railway stations late at night. That, as a by-product of this legislation—a short Bill to be rushed through 10 days before it takes effect—the powers of the British Transport police are to be seriously diluted is an unacceptable proposition and one in respect of which the Minister must answer much more satisfactorily to the House.

All of this is a product of rail privatisation legislation. In particular, it is a part of the fragmentation of the railways, which almost literally nobody, except the 300 Tory Members of Parliament who voted for it, wants.

7.16 pm

Mr. Freeman

By leave of the House, I shall seek to respond to the questions that have been addressed to me.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), opening the debate for the Opposition, raised two points for response. He referred to the possibility that members of the British Transport police would have to carry in their backpack an index to all the various agreements being entered into on the new railway system. That is not the case. The core policing responsibilities that will be laid upon all those who are licensed—Railtrack, the train operators, those who operate light maintenance depots and those who operate stations—are covered. It is the intention of the police committee to draw up a standard specification of responsibilities of the British Transport police for what are called core services. I read into the record at the beginning of the debate the definition of core police responsibilities. It is clearly sensible that the chief constable be able to refer to a standard, almost boilerplate, set of responsibilities of the police in relation to any part of the railways.

I accept, and have always accepted, the argument that one cannot have different core policing responsibilities for different sections of the railways. That would cause confusion. No doubt the chief constable will ensure that there is a clear standard set of instructions and guidance for all transport police constables in the exercise of their duty.

With regard to non-core activities—and here we are talking at the margin—there may well be certain guarding responsibilities that neither the British Transport police wish to discharge nor rail operators wish to place upon the shoulders of the British Transport police. Core policing activities constitute the vast majority of the responsibilities of the police. Law and order issues throughout the railway system—whether passenger or freight—will be clearly specified and will be standard and consistent as between different licensees.

Mr. Dobson

If all these agreements are to be identical, why do we need lines 28 to 31 at all? They are utterly superfluous. Why do we need to say that a constable will be able to act in accordance with the terms of that agreement"? Unless the agreements are going to be different, there is no need to include that line in the Bill. If the agreements are to be identical, the Minister can scrap those four lines, and then we shall be rather more satisfied with the Bill.

Mr. Freeman

There are two reasons why the agreements might vary. The first is the duration of an agreement. If a franchise is to run for seven, 10 or 15 years, that needs to be written into the agreement. Secondly, the charge paid by the user of the British Transport police will vary according to the size of the rail operation. Those two conditions, which have nothing to do with what I call the boilerplate core policing arrangements, will have to be included in an agreement.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras looks incredulous at this explanation, but he should allow me to complete it. I think it important that everyone involved in the running of the new railways should have, set out clearly in an agreement, precise obligations. That is well precedented, and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—who also looks incredulous, but who has long experience of the operation of the railways and who will know full well that all the legislation of the past 10 years has included the idea of specific agreements between undertakings and the BTP—will recall that this has been true of light rapid transit and of parts of London Regional Transport. It is certainly important to specify obligations and rights.

Mr. Dobson

The right hon. Gentleman has given us two reasons why he wants separate agreements to be brought to bear on a constable going about his duties. The first is that such agreements will be for different lengths of time. Surely at any given moment an agreement will be in place covering a premises or a company: either it will exist, or it will have run out, and the owners will no longer be the owners.

As for the different charges, is the Minister suggesting that the charges might affect the amount of effort put in by a constable or the extent of his jurisdiction? That is blithering nonsense. There is no good reason to keep this part of the Bill.

Mr. Freeman

I have been accused of many things in my time, but never of talking blithering nonsense—

Mr. Mackinlay

You have now.

Mr. Freeman

There is always a first time. It stands to reason that a police services agreement will specify for a franchised train operator or station operator precisely what the obligations in addition to the standard core policing obligations are.

Mr. Cryer

The Minister keeps referring to a standard core obligation on the police. Can he confirm that there is no statutory obligation on any party involved to impose such a core service? If any party to an agreement dissents, then the chief constable will be in no position to override that party. That provides the necessary condition for a wide variety of agreements—it is what the Bill will entail.

Mr. Freeman

Not so—the police committee appointed by the board of British Rail will be responsible for drawing up a precise definition of the core policing responsibility of the BTP, and it will be imposed. Indeed, it will be a condition of the licences issued to everyone—apart from those who are exempt—running the railway. A preserved railway would be a good example of such exemption. The rail operator does not have the option whether to accept the remit of the BTP: it will be imposed on him. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Railways Act every operator requires a licence. The police committee determines the core policing arrangements, and the chief constable sits on that committee.

Mrs. Dunwoody

I hope that the Minister understands that the real problem is that the House suspects that the implication of his reiteration of the phrase "core policing" is that he envisages two levels of policing. He may brush that aside by claiming that in some instances guarding can be done by security men, but the fact remains that, once the House suspects that he is introducing a two-tier system of policing, we will have grave doubts about whether the British Transport police will remain the same or whether they are to become an ever smaller part of a different system in which their duties will, perforce, be changed.

Mr. Freeman

The hon. Lady may not have heard my speech at the beginning of the debate in which I defined core policing responsibilities. Those responsibilities are very broad. I offer two examples of activities in which the British Transport Police themselves might not be interested in engaging. After all, the chief constable wants to use his constables in the most effective possible way. The first example is guarding cash or other items of great value when they move, say, from a ticket office to a bank. I should have thought that a private sector security firm would be better able to provide that service. If the hon. Lady doubts that, she should talk to the chief constable who, like any other sensible chief constable, needs to use his limited manpower to the best possible effect.

A second example might be the guarding of a free-standing freight facility or yard—that is not a job for policemen, whose job is to ensure that law and order are preserved on the railway and that terrorists are defeated. I really do not think that the difference between core and non-core functions is relevant; nor is the hon. Lady's concern shared by the chief constable.

Mr. Dobson

Would the Minister apply the description "free-standing freight yard" to any of the Euro-terminals that he proposes?

Mr. Freeman

I did not say yard, I said facility, by which I meant a depot. It is not the job of a policeman on static guard to make sure that a facility is not broken into. If the chief constable and the police committee want to give an independent operator the flexibility to provide such a service, that is only sensible.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) asked me two questions. I can assure him, first, that light maintenance depots will be covered because they must be licensed. He asked also whether pre-emptive responsibilities could be placed on the BTP for dealing with people coming from outwith the rail estate on to a railway. The answer is yes; the Bill provides the appropriate jurisdiction for that.

Mr. Harvey

To return to the Minister's earlier point, how long an agreement may last or how much it will cost are points of no relevance to the jurisdiction of the police carrying out an investigation. Coming closer to the nub of the argument, however, about core services and services which might, in some circumstances, be carried out by a private contractor, I suggest that the idea advanced by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—that police officers would need a manual about their person to tell them whether private contracts with security firms were in place—will turn out to be true after all.

We are talking about the jurisdiction of the police, in which context those four lines of the Bill seem excessive. We do not want to insist on the BTP duplicating activities carried out by private security firms, but surely we need to give them the right, in the heat of a chase or of apprehending someone, to enter an area that may be patrolled by a private security firm.

Mr. Freeman

Of course the police have that jurisdiction—that is the whole purpose of the Bill. If a criminal leaves the vicinity of a railway station or freight yard, and absconds to some other facility that may be guarded by a private security firm, the British Transport police will have full jurisdiction to enter that property. That is the position and we want it to continue after 1 April.

The hon. Member for North Devon foresees the problem that a policeman will not know whether he has responsibility. That problem already exists for police forces. I assure him that the question of jurisdiction will not arise. If a policeman pursues a criminal or suspicious individual to property anywhere in England and Wales, he will have complete jurisdiction.

Mr. Dobson

In that case, why does the Minister need those four lines in the Bill? That is the reason why we are puzzled. All that we need are the provisions in the earlier part of the proposed subsection. We do not need the exclusion proposals. Does the Minister accept that those four lines crib, cabin and confine constables' jurisdiction? He must accept that they potentially reduce jurisdiction, which will cause confusion and a conflict may arise. The Minister says that there will be core policing and that non-core policing may be undertaken by others. That is of relevance to the terms of the agreement. How will constables know whether what they are doing is within those terms? The Minister has accepted that they may differ.

Mr. Freeman

The chief constable is satisfied that he can issue instructions to his force which are consistent with the Bill's provisions. All constables will know precisely what their core policing responsibilities are and what their jurisdiction will be. The purpose of the Bill is to avoid any possible confusion.

There are two reasons why we need the provisions in those four lines. A precedent has been set in the past 10 years—and perhaps in the years before—that it is important for the undertakings of London Regional Transport, the docklands light railway or companies operating a franchise to include a formal agreement. The companies involved have a responsibility to pay the employer of the British Transport police for their services. That is the position for non-railway services. It is also agreed that the British Transport police should have on file a formal understanding of their responsibilities.

Although the core policing responsibilities will not change, other factors will vary from one user to the next. I have already given two examples of where there might be change. A third example might be that the individual franchisee might be involved in other non-railway undertakings. The British Transport police do not have jurisdiction to deal with crimes committed outside the railway network, which having-nothing to do with it.

Mr. Mackinlay

Does that not emphasise the fact that the Committee stage should be separate from today's proceedings so that those matters can be examined properly outside the House and in Committee?

A British Transport police officer may be operating within the curtilage of the British Airports Authority and Heathrow airport, but just outside the curtilage of London Underground. Unless we take the opportunity to introduce a change today, that officer will not have the opportunity to exercise his powers as a constable. That is an absurdity. I have already given the examples of St. Stephen's entrance and the Trafalgar square riot. There is a void in police powers, which we should take this opportunity to remedy. Heathrow airport is another example of an interface in the region policed by London Underground and the Metropolitan police, where a British Transport police officer could be on wrong side of the line and thus be unable to fulfil his or her duty as a constable, as expected by the public.

Mr. Freeman

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the wider issue of the jurisdiction of British Transport police constables. If an officer happens, in uniform, to be travelling from his home to his police station and a crime is committed that has no connection with the railway, he does not have jurisdiction. The hon. Gentleman knows that. That is a sensible issue for debate, but it should not be discussed during the debate on this Bill and it was not an appropriate subject for discussion during the debates on the Railways Act 1993. I shall be happy to debate the subject in due course, but we need first to continue our discussions with the Home Office and with other home police forces, through the Home Office, to identify what reforms are needed. That subject is not connected with the Bill or with the Railways Act.

I acknowledge that it is a subject about which the British Transport Police Federation and British Transport police chief constable are concerned. The hon. Gentleman referred to a letter that I wrote to him in September 1993. It dealt with that wider jurisdictional matter and not with the lacuna, which was discovered much later, in the jurisdiction of British Transport police constables pursuing crimes committed on the railway.

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) asked me who the employer is. The employer now and after 1 April is the British Railways Board, not Railtrack. That situation will not change until there is fresh primary legislation, and the debate on that legislation will be the time and place to discuss the matter. Railtrack will be an important user of British Transport policemen, but not the employer.

I pay tribute to the achievements of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who spoke earlier. I have been in my job for four years and he has badgered me consistently about British Transport police issues and has brought officers of the British Transport Police Federation to my office on a dozen occasions. Accompanied by my hon. Friend, I have visited the federation's annual general meetings on several occasions and I shall be attending its conference with him this Wednesday. He has been exceptionally diligent in pursuing the BTP's interests.

Mr. Wilson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Freeman

No.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised a number of issues. The first dealt with the wider jurisdictional point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the Government view that that is a separate issue, which needs to be addressed separately. He cited the example of an offence being committed on a bridge owned by the highway authority or by a private sector company above a railway line. In that situation, there is no question of the jurisdiction of the British Transport police being clouded or restricted. They have jurisdiction to arrest and pursue those who are affecting the safety of passengers using the railway.

In his winding-up speech, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked a number of questions and I shall seek to answer them concisely. All those operators who have to have a licence are required to include a provision that there should be a police services agreement. Every aspect of the operation of the railways—where they are open for public transportation of passengers and freight—must be licensed. I cited the only example that I could—the preserved railways. Some other public sector transport undertakings—for example, London Regional Transport and the docklands light railway—are covered separately. The practical effect of the legislation is universal.

I confirm what I said in opening the debate. European passenger services will be included in the proposals because they will have to be licensed. We shall deal with the new channel tunnel rail link separately in a Bill which I hope will be presented later this year. I confirm that what I said about the Heathrow express was correct. If it runs on Railtrack, it will have to be licensed.

Mr. Wilson

I am grateful to the Minister. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I picked up the Minister's last phrase. I asked him whether the Bill's provisions on licensing cross-referred to the Railways Class and Miscellaneous Exemptions Order 1994. From what he said, it appears that they do. I think that the Minister is nodding. That raises many interesting questions on which the Minister should give us more information.

I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to make a lengthy intervention.

Under the heading "Licence exemptions", paragraphs 3 and 4 set out a list running from "a" to "u"—about 22, at the last count. Most, or at least many, are small items which could easily be passed by; item "1", however, states that exemption will apply to any network, station or light maintenance depot comprised in the Channel Tunnel system". We need a brief explanation of that from the Minister. Indeed, I think that we should have a brief explanation of everything in items "a" to "u".

Mr. Freeman

Anything involving the construction of the new channel tunnel rail link will be the subject of separate legislation. To the extent that passenger and freight services use the existing channel tunnel, they will be covered.

Mr. Wilson

The word "link" is not used; the phrase used is any network, station or light maintenance depot comprised in the Channel Tunnel system". The words "system" and "link" are not synonymous, as the Minister well knows.

If the Opposition had not raised the list of exemptions, the Minister would not have told us about it. He did not intend to tell us about elements of the railway which will not require licensing and will therefore not be required to enter into agreements with the British Transport police. I find that pretty shocking.

Mr. Freeman

I have made the position quite clear. [Interruption.] I have repeated what I said earlier, also very clearly.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North also asked about three other important issues. First, he asked about the police committee. The committee is appointed by the board; that has not changed, and will not change. Secondly, he asked who determines the charges. They will be determined by the board, and collected by it; if there is default, the operator is in default of licence conditions.

Mr. Dobson

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) asked about the Heathrow link. The Minister said that it would be covered by the Bill in so far as it was running on Railtrack. I understand that the part nearest to the airport will not run on Railtrack, but will use a bit of track that it will own. Does that mean that that part of the link will be under a separate and distinct jurisdiction? If so, that will be the vulnerable bit of the system that terrorists would use to obtain access to the whole system. As we all know, if the British Transport police do not have full confidence in the whole system, stations will be closed much more frequently—or there will be explosions, and people will be killed and injured.

Mr. Freeman

The link will doubtless fall into the same category as Heathrow airport itself, where the British Airports Authority ensures that there is adequate, full and comprehensive policing.

The police committee, the chairman of the board and the chief constable are content with the arrangements that we have presented today. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Motion made and Question put, That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House:

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 44.

Division No. 171]	[7.43 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Cran, James
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Amess, David	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Arbuthnot, James	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Dover, Den
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Duncan, Alan
Atkins, Robert	Elletson, Harold
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Fabricant, Michael
Bates, Michael	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Batiste, Spencer	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Bellingham, Henry	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	French, Douglas
Booth, Hartley	Gale, Roger
Boswell, Tim	Gallie, Phil
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Garnier, Edward
Bowden, Andrew	Gillan, Cheryl
Bowis, John	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Brandreth, Gyles	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bright, Graham	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Grylls, Sir Michael
Butler, Peter	Hague, William
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Hanley, Jeremy
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Hannam, Sir John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Harris, David
Carrington, Matthew	Haselhurst, Alan
Carttiss, Michael	Hawkins, Nick
Cash, William	Hawksley, Warren
Chapman, Sydney	Heald, Oliver
Clappison, James	Hendry, Charles
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Colvin, Michael	Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Congdon, David	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Conway, Derek	Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Cormack, Patrick	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Couchman, James	Hunter, Andrew

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Robathan, Andrew
Jenkin, Bernard	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Jessel, Toby	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Sackville, Tom
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Shaw, David (Dover)
Key, Robert	Shersby, Michael
Kilfedder, Sir James	Sims, Roger
Kirkhope, Timothy	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Knapman, Roger	Spencer, Sir Derek
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Spink, Dr Robert
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Spring, Richard
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Legg, Barry	Stern, Michael
Leigh, Edward	Streeter, Gary
Lennox-Boyd, Mark	Sweeney, Walter
Lidington, David	Sykes, John
Lightbown, David	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Thomason, Roy
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
MacKay, Andrew	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Maclennan, Robert	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
McLoughlin, Patrick	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Malone, Gerald	Tracey, Richard
Mans, Keith	Trotter, Neville
Marlow, Tony	Twinn, Dr Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Merchant, Piers	Viggers, Peter
Mills, Iain	Waller, Gary
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Monro, Sir Hector	Waterson, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm	Watts, John
Neubert, Sir Michael	Wells, Bowen
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Whitney, Ray
Nicholls, Patrick	Whittingdale, John
Norris, Steve	Widdecombe, Ann
Oppenheim, Phillip	Willetts, David
Ottaway, Richard	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Page, Richard	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Patnick, Irvine	Wood, Timothy
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Yeo, Tim
Pawsey, James	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Pickles, Eric
Porter, David (Waveney)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Richards, Rod	Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Michael Brown.
Riddick, Graham

NOES
Ainger, Nick	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Lewis, Terry
Barnes, Harry	Maddock, Mrs Diana
Bayley, Hugh	Mandelson, Peter
Chisholm, Malcolm	Michael, Alun
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Mudie, George
Cummings, John	O'Hara, Edward
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Olner, William
Davidson, Ian	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Patchett, Terry
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Redmond, Martin
Denham, John	Rendel, David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Rooney, Terry
Eastham, Ken	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Flynn, Paul	Skinner, Dennis
Foster, Don (Bath)	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
George, Bruce	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Gordon, Mildred	Tyler, Paul
Gunnell, John	Wareing, Robert N
Hall, Mike	Wicks, Malcolm
Hanson, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Tellers for the Noes:
Jamieson, David	Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Mackinlay

On a point of order, Dame Janet. Due to the extraordinary speed at which the Bill is being considered—its First Reading was only last Friday—there has not, in my submission, been reasonable time to scrutinise it. We explored that issue on Second Reading.

I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not select my starred amendments. Because of the rapid consideration of the Bill, I was denied an opportunity at least to have an informal interview with the Chairman of Ways and Means and/or yourself, Dame Janet, to make the case that my amendments fall within the terms of the Bill.

It is grossly unfair to me and to other hon. Members that amendment No. 2 and new clause 1 in my name should not be debated in Committee, as they are within the rules of the House and relevant to the Bill. Amendement No. 2 relates to matters that were the subject of extensive debate on Second Reading. If passed, it would clarify the powers and jurisdiction of police officers, but I cannot even present it to the Committee. I make no criticism of the Chair but of the unreasonable manner in which the Bill is being pushed through the House. The jurisdiction of the British Transport police goes to the heart of amendment No. 2 and should be considered.

New clause 1 is important. I would not lie awake at night worrying if it were not debated but for the fact that it concerns an important point of principle. If new clause 1 is debated and accepted by the Committee, it will clarify the jurisdiction of the police officers in question—that is, that they are British Railways police officers.

As the Bill has been botched by the Executive—there is no adequate description of those officers in their title—I hope that you, Dame Janet, agree that there should be discrimination in my favour to allow me to present my amendments to the Committee and that it should be for the Minister to argue why they are inappropriate, if he sees fit.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes)

Amendment No. 2 goes beyond the scope of the Bill and it is therefore out of order and cannot be debated.

New clause 1 was not selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is not the practice for the Chairman to give reasons in Committee.