HC Deb 14 February 1997 vol 290 cc574-83

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

1.27 pm
Sir Raymond Whitney (Wycombe)

I should like to offer a few words of general introduction to the clause and the Bill.

The Bill is a relatively simple measure that seeks to place police officers, special constables and police cadets in the same position as other workers under health and safety legislation. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 does not apply to the work of police officers, unlike the work of police civilian support staff. That is because their employment status does not fall within the Act's definition of employment. That follows decisions in the courts, which have held that persons who hold the office of constable are not employees but are appointed as members of their police force and attested. The provisions of the 1974 Act, which depend on the employer-employee relationship, do not therefore apply to police constables.

Since the mid-1970s, however, police forces have sought to apply the Act's protection to their officers, but on a voluntary basis. The Bill is a response to representations from the Police Federation and other bodies that represent the police. They believe that the extra discipline that comes from statutory compliance will lead to improvements in the health, safety and welfare of police officers. In recent years, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has allocated substantial resources to giving officers the equipment they need to protect themselves against violent assault. The service has welcomed the new batons, the protective clothing and the CS spray. The Bill will complement those resources and will make police managers more aware of their responsibilities for the safety of the officers whom they command.

The Bill would empower the police representative bodies to play an important role in appointing safety representatives and establishing safety committees, which are the essential components in the effective management of health and safety. The Bill also enables the health and safety legislation of Northern Ireland to be amended to apply to officers, cadets and special constables of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In anticipation of the new legislation, the Home Office and the police service have prepared a package of practical guidance that will help forces to comply with the Bill once it comes into force.

The move from voluntary compliance with the spirit of the health and safety legislation to compliance on a statutory basis should not impose additional costs. In the longer term, safer and healthier systems of work will provide the possibility of savings.

I emphasise that the Bill has the strong support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the national associations of police superintendents, the Police Federation and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The real beneficiaries of the legislation will be the officers who patrol our streets, investigate crime and carry out many hazardous duties on behalf of their communities. The House will always wish to accord a high priority to their health and safety.

As I have said, the essence of the Bill is found in clause 1. It will insert a new section 51 A into the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to extend its provisions to apply to police constables, including special constables and police cadets. The new section provides that a person who holds the office of constable or police cadet shall be treated as an employee of the relevant officer. In the police forces that are established under the police legislation, that officer will be the chief constable or the Commissioner in the case of the Metropolitan and City forces.

After the enactment of the Police Bill, the clause will provide for the relevant director general to be the employer of constables serving in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. In the case of all other police forces, such as the British Transport Police or the Ministry of Defence Police, the employer will be the person who has the direction and control of the constables or cadets in question. The Bill will also apply to officers who are seconded to work in central service, for example in the national directorate of police training or with Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

The clause also provides for functions conferred on recognised trade unions by regulations made under the 1974 Act to be exercised by the national police federations and any other police representative body. That is needed because police officers are not allowed to join trade unions. The effect will be that the representative bodies will enjoy the rights to appoint safety representatives and to sit on safety committees. That is an important provision, because employee-employer co-operation and consultation is the basis of good health and safety.

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)

The Bill is unique, because its notes on clauses provide more illumination than the Bill itself. I have always complained that notes on clauses for Government Bills usually do not tell us anything more than, and sometimes use the same words as, the actual Bills. I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) or the Minister will be able to clear up one puzzle for the House. The Bill is in essence a Government Bill, although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman takes full responsibility for it. The legislation has, however, been drafted by Government draftsmen and the Government must take responsibility for ensuring that the legislation is right.

Sir Raymond Whitney

I would like to clarify that point. The hon. Gentleman surely knows this, but for the record it is important to make it clear that those of us who are fortunate enough to come high in the ballot for private Members' Bills are deluged with proposals for new legislation, and that it is up to each individual Member to select what seems to him or her a good idea. The Bill certainly struck me as a good idea. Of course, I remain grateful to the Home Office and its officials for their assistance in its drafting.

Mr. Michael

The hon. Gentleman put that beautifully. Everybody wants the Bill to go through, but there are questions that need to be answered, and it is right for the House to scrutinise it. The difficulty when a Government Bill is adopted by a private Member is that one is questioning two targets—the Member in charge of the Bill and the Minister—at the same time. I am becoming rather adept at that now, because we have had a lot of experience of it this Session. Almost every private Member's Bill seems to have been adopted after having been, shall we say, "produced" by the Home Office—I was almost drawn into questions of parentage then, but I resisted the temptation.

What drew my attention to clause 1 was the passage in the notes on clauses that says that subsection (4) of the proposed new section 51A enables the regulations made under section 2(4) of the 1974 Act to specify as a recognised trade union any other recognised body representing the constables and cadets in National Crime Squad, NCIS and non-home department police forces. The hon. Member for Wycombe mentioned that, and I know that there has been considerable discussion about it. It is a long-standing anomaly that the police have not been covered by health and safety legislation, as is envisaged in the Bill, so I must make it clear that we welcome the measure. It will assist in providing a better and safer environment for police officers to work in, and has the potential to reduce injuries and accidents at work, to the benefit of all concerned within the police force, and of the public at large.

Clause 1 will introduce a new subsection 51A to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which will mean that the Bill will cover police officers, special constables and police cadets. It then says that police officers seconded to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad are to be covered by health and safety at work legislation. The clause is less clear about the position of other central service officers. Will they be similarly covered by health and safety legislation?

Concern has also been expressed by the Police Federation because its position as a representative body in relation to NCIS, NCS and officers of other central service is not made clear in the Bill. The proposed subsection 3(a) says that for the purposes of health and safety legislation, the Police Federation for England and Wales shall be treated as a recognised trade union recognised by each chief officer of police". The hon. Member for Wycombe made that clear. But no similar passage defines the position in respect of NCIS and NCS, unless the phrase each chief officer of police includes the heads of those two organisations.

I look to the Minister for clarification. There is certainly a good argument in favour of their being covered, but the Police Federation seems to believe that they are not included as chief constables. There is a requirement that the heads of those agencies should be chief constables, but they are not designated as such in that role. That may be the source of the confusion.

Even if NCIS and the National Crime Squad are included, by being defined within the reference to chief officers, that would not work in respect of other central service officers. Their position requires clarification.

Clauses 3 and 4 give police officers the right not to suffer detriment in health and safety cases, and provide limited access to industrial tribunals. Again, questions have been raised about that by the Police Federation.

Clause 4 gives the right of access to industrial tribunals to officers who have been dismissed on certain grounds relating to health and safety. In the original Home Office brief, access to tribunals was to have been limited, and would not have included circumstances in which police officers were dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank. The reasoning is that in those circumstances police officers have the right of access to a police appeals tribunal. The Police Federation is concerned to see that the right of access to industrial tribunals does not change the situation in respect of police officers' rights to access police appeals tribunals. That issue will not be new to the Minister. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been approached on the subject by representatives of police organisations in their area, so the Minister should clarify the issue for the record.

Those questions do not detract from my welcome for the Bill, and I congratulate its adoptive parent, the hon. Member for Wycombe, on bringing it before Parliament. Perhaps at some point its natural parent might clarify the issues so that we know exactly where we stand and so that the officers who have concerns and seek assurances may be satisfied.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) on introducing the Bill. I have talked to him about it, and I know how much work he has done and how committed he is to this sensible measure. As the grandson of a police sergeant, I am happy to support the Bill. We should welcome any measure that would assist the police in their duties and ensure that they are compensated properly.

The Government welcome the Bill. On 16 October 1996, the Minister of State at the Home Office announced at a seminar for chief officers that the Government intended to extend the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to police officers, cadets and special constables when a proper opportunity was found to do so. This Bill provides that opportunity. In anticipation of the Bill's introduction, the Home Office police policy directorate published three volumes of guidance, entitled "Police Health and Safety", in October 1996. The purpose of the documents is to assist chief officers and their senior commanders in reviewing their force health and safety arrangements in the light of the Government's decision to enact legislation to extend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to police officers. The Act does not currently apply to police officers as they are not classified as employees—a peculiarity of historical incident—but are persons appointed as members of police forces and attested as constables. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe takes a keen interest in European issues, and he will be pleased to learn that his Bill brings British legislation in line with that of the European Community, so there is no risk of conflict. The general principles of EC health and safety law are set out in the framework directive 89/391 which, like the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, contains provisions of a general nature and is supported by so-called "daughter" directives dealing with more specific matters, such as personal protective equipment.

United Kingdom implementation of the framework directive took the form of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations SI 1992/2051, which came into force on 1 January 1993. Both the Act and the EC regulations place some duties on employers to ensure that their undertaking does not prejudice the health and safety of persons not in their employ.

The police health and safety notes to which I referred state that, when the Act came into force, the home Departments made it clear that police officers should, wherever possible, be given the protection that it afforded. In that spirit of voluntary co-operation, the enforcing authority, the Health and Safety Executive, monitors the health and safety arrangements of police forces. When the legislation is passed—as I hope it will be—visits by HSE inspectors will be on a statutory basis.

I address a question to my hon. Friend, which perhaps the Minister will comment on also. I have always understood that the Act does not apply within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. Therefore, will the health and safety at work legislation that we are presently contemplating apply to those policemen whom we meet frequently in the Palace of Westminster? I warmly support the Bill and wish it every success.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)

I, too, broadly welcome the introduction of the Bill and believe that it will be welcomed by the general public as well as by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) said, it is certainly welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation. Having said that, I do not wholeheartedly welcome the Bill in that I have a couple of reservations on which my hon. Friend might be able to reassure me.

The first is that the Bill incorporates a derogation. I shall quote The House Magazine, in which my hon. Friend wrote about the Bill saying: Another important provision will be the incorporation of a derogation taken from the European Framework Directive on health and safety management. Briefly paraphrased this will provide that the legislation will not apply in circumstances when there is an inevitable conflict between police operations and the health and safety legislation. I am concerned that there have been instances in the not too distant past of the European Court of Justice deciding that, although Britain had thought legislation might be limited in its application, particularly when it originated in Brussels, the Brussels impact was much wider. I would not want to think that this legislation, which we are introducing under the derogation, might be affected by any future judgment of the European court. The operational aspects of the Bill also concern me, but I will mention those when we debate clause 2.

1.45 pm

The other area that disturbs me is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office is reported, in an article published in the Scotsman on 16 October 1996, as telling a seminar: One of the difficulties in moving towards a statutory regime"— such as this— has been the fact that policing duties and the environment in which they are carried out are so different from those which generally apply in factories, offices and other static premises. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) also pointed that out. My right hon. Friend went on to say: The difficulty has been compounded by the absence of any guidance which expresses the health and safety provisions in terms which can be seen to be relevant to the operational work of police officers. As I said, that concerns me deeply, but it probably applies more to clause 2, so I will not progress the argument until we reach that clause. That question must be dealt with, however, as it is at the heart of the Bill.

The same article states that Bill Spence, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the chief constable of Tayside, while generally welcoming the Bill, would be concerned if the cost of implementing the measures meant that officers had to be withdrawn from duty. I listened carefully and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said in his introductory remarks that he believed that there would be no additional costs. I doubt that. When I was in business before 1992, I found that compliance with Health and Safety Executive regulations could be a costly exercise. My reservation about the Bill is that it could be a costly exercise for the police, which might have consequences for police manpower on our streets.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) for his clear explanation of the purpose of the Bill and the content of the clause.

The issues surrounding the legislation are of concern not only to my hon. Friend, but to the Home Office. That is a happy coincidence and it is a reflection of the fact that the Home Office is in tune with the feelings of the people of this country on most matters as well as with those of hon. Members who are lucky in the ballot. I know that my hon. Friend is extremely keen on the issue, and we are keen to oblige him and the House, as well as those involved, and to support the Bill.

The Bill is timely because it coincides with the Government's legislative proposals. Those were announced by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), last October, when he launched a programme to improve health and safety standards in the police service, which is a laudable aim that we should all support.

As my hon. Friend said, his Bill has the strong support of the police associations. The Government share the service's concern to establish the highest standards of safety for police officers. We are ever conscious of the hazards that they face daily in the course of their duties—hazards that, as we all know, are often completely unexpected. That is why we are committed to providing the service with the best possible protection against violent attack: the replacement of the wooden truncheon with modern batons and improved and regular safety training have already done much to increase that protection.

More recently, the introduction of CS spray has proved effective and been welcomed by officers. In collaboration with the police scientific development branch, forces have been developing better standards of protective clothing and equipment, including body armour that is easier to wear.

There is already a strong safety culture in the police service, which is reflected in the guidance issued by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers and in the standards of training provided both centrally and within forces. Forces have been complying with the spirit of the health and safety legislation since the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, but moving to statutory compliance will give an added focus to their efforts.

My hon. Friend has suggested that moving from voluntary to statutory compliance should not of itself impose additional costs and that in the longer term it might even provide the possibility of savings. We agree with that and, with your permission, Dame Janet, I should like briefly to set out our reasoning, as it is an important consideration.

Our assessment is based on several factors. Health and safety is not a new issue in the service. The health and safety at work legislation has of course always applied to the civilian staff, and police officers have benefited indirectly by working in the same premises. As my hon. Friend said, forces have been applying the legislation to officers on a voluntary basis since 1975.

From that, and from the operational imperatives, a strong safety culture has grown. Health and safety issues are already covered adequately in most areas of hazardous police work through, for example, the application of ACPO guidelines. It is also relevant that under civil law chief officers and police authorities have a legal duty of care for police officers and should already be budgeting accordingly.

The Government accept that in the lead-up to the new legislation forces will need to review their present arrangements and that some adaptations will be necessary. In most cases that will involve providing appropriate training for managers, especially in the preparation of risk assessments and in improving accident and sickness management. We have issued comprehensive guidance to facilitate those tasks.

Taking into account the time scale that we are proposing for the introduction of the legislation, we believe that the forces should be able to implement the changes comfortably within their existing budgets. In the longer term, we are confident that forces will reap real benefits. Experience shows that investment in health and safety reduces sickness costs and the civil claims that so often follow accidents. The money saved will be available for fighting crime.

The real beneficiaries of the Bill will be the officers who patrol our streets, investigate crimes and carry out many hazardous duties on our behalf. Their safety and health must always be accorded a high priority.

I wish to clarify our intentions in respect of some of the provisions of clause 1 in response to several concerns raised, particularly by the Police Federation. I have little to add to the explanation of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe of the purpose and effect of the clause. It extends the health and safety legislation to all who hold the office of constable or who serve as police cadets, whether in the so-called Home Office forces, or the non-Home Office forces, such as the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police or other bodies to which police officers are seconded. It is right that for health and safety purposes, their employer should be the chief officer, as he or she is responsible for their direction and control.

In our discussions with the service about the Bill, concerns have been raised about possible conflict between the requirements of the health and safety legislation and operational imperatives. In the course of a riot, it is clearly not possible for a police commander to take account of every regulation that might apply. To a large extent, that is already covered by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The general duties that section 2 imposes on employers are qualified by the phrase so far as is reasonably practical". I am sure that that will please my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant).

Some of the regulations made under section 15 of the 1974 Act are expressed in absolute terms, and in certain circumstances it might not be possible for police forces to comply. For example, officers at the front line at the beginning of a spontaneously occurring riot will not normally be equipped according to the requirements of the personal protective equipment regulations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary proposes to address the matter by making a regulation to the effect that in its application to the police service, the test of reasonable practicability will apply in circumstances where there is an inevitable conflict between the regulation and the demands of police operations.

In bringing the Bill into force, the Home Secretary also proposes to make regulations under section 2(4) of the 1974 Act on the arrangements to apply with regard to the recognition of the police representative bodies as trade unions in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. That was raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). This will apply also to the non-Home Office forces. In the case of the new services, subject to consultation with the respective directors general and the Health and Safety Executive, the intention of policy will be to provide that the national federations and the police representative bodies are deemed to be recognised trade unions for the purposes of the regulations.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that the Palace of Westminster is not covered. The issue is under consideration and being discussed with the unions and the House authorities.

As provided by clause 7, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make an order to extend the health and safety legislation of Northern Ireland in the same way as the Bill provides for Great Britain. The aim is for the order to come into force on the date determined by the Home Secretary for the Bill to come into operation. That date will be determined in consultation with the Associations of Chief Police Officers.

Mr. Michael

I apologise if the Minister is about to come to this, but will he comment on representation in NCIS, the National Crime Squad and in respect of other central functions?

Mr. Kirkhope

I wanted to return to that issue in the debates on later clauses where it is more applicable. If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I shall comment later.

We are aiming at a provisional date of late spring 1998 for the Bill's commencement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe for promoting the Bill. I commend the clause to the House.

Sir Raymond Whitney

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for clarifying the points raised in the debate. They were legitimate points and I am grateful to the hon. Members who raised them. I am grateful also for their support for the general principle of the Bill.

Mr. Michael

I confess that I was surprised that the Minister did not respond to my point because I thought that it came up under clause 1. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with it, or the Minister may like to intervene. Clause 1 (3)(a) provides for chief officers in England and Wales to recognise the trade union status of the Police Federation for England and Wales. The interpretation appears to be that that does not cover NCIS or the National Crime Squad. I asked whether the wording covered the chiefs of those organisations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman or the Minister can clarify that, and also the point in relation to the central services. The matter arises under clause 1—not later, as the Minister suggests.

Sir Raymond Whitney

It is my understanding that that is the case, but I will ensure, in conjunction with the Home Office, that it is clarified. My hon. Friend the Minister may have a further comment to make at this stage on that important issue.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), whose views on the European Court of Justice may not precisely coincide with my own, that I have every optimism that there will be no problems with the ECJ. The Bill is highly beneficial for all concerned.

A potential conflict remains between the requirements of health and safety and the operational requirements of the police service, but that is well understood by all parties. I am optimistic that those conflicts will always be resolved in a sensible manner against the background of the statutory provisions in the Bill.

2 pm

Mr. Kirkhope

I thought that I had covered the point a few moments ago, but I am clearly being told that I did not. I thought that I said clearly that arrangements would be made for recognition of the police representative bodies as trade unions in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. If I have not covered that point, perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth can explain—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I realise that he cannot do so because I am intervening in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney). In any event, I thought that I had covered the point. If I have not, I will return to it in due course.

Sir Raymond Whitney

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is facilitating a useful discussion. The fact that a body will be recognised as a trade union in respect of NCIS and the National Crime Squad is clear. That will presumably also apply in respect of other central functions. What is not clear is the position of the Police Federation. The position is made clear in respect of the Home Office forces, as the Minister described them—the police forces of England and Wales—but it is not made clear in respect of NCIS or NCS. That is the point that I want the Minister to clear up.

Sir Raymond Whitney

It is certainly my understanding that the representation will be the same. The point will have to be considered carefully again as the Bill proceeds, we hope, to the other place. Any possible lingering uncertainty—I believe that the points have been clarified—should be resolved.

Mr. Kirkhope

I understand that the position for NCIS is that representation of the federation and other bodies will be covered in regulations under section 2A of the 1974 Act.

Sir Raymond Whitney

I am most grateful for that further clarification.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to