HC Deb 13 February 1998 vol 306 cc729-35

Order for Second Reading read.

1.58 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

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

I am pleased to introduce the Bill to the House. I say, by way of introduction, that I have been interested in police history and insignia for some time. Soon after my election as a Member of Parliament, my interest led me to being introduced to a number of police forces and their representative bodies and federations. I am pleased to have had friendships with the federations of the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police, the Atomic Energy Authority police and many others. I mention that because, a long time ago, I was referred to as a consultant to the Atomic Energy Authority police federation, and I want to make it clear that I am not—my association with it is one of friendship and common interest in police matters.

I was also prompted to pursue the matters that are set out in the Bill because the Port of Tilbury police are based in my constituency. Their genesis was hundreds of years ago in a police force that predated the Metropolitan police; indeed, they claim to be the second oldest police force in the United Kingdom. The Port of Tilbury police were part of the Port of London police, who were a substantial police force until a score of years ago.

The Port of Tilbury police are a proud, albeit small, force, and I pay tribute to the existing residual force and the people who have served in the Port of Tilbury and Port of London police over the decades. I am pleased to have a close association, as a friend, with their small federation.

The Bill would do a number of things. First, it would place a long overdue statutory protection on the terms "police", "police force", "constable", "constabulary" and other related titles. Parliament should jealously guard the use of those words; the custodianship of the application of those terms should be vested in the Home Secretary.

There is a danger that a plethora of individuals or organisations will describe themselves as police officers or police forces, or will use the term "constable", but have no real mandate to do so. I do not need to spell out the dangers if those terms are used lightly and devalued through flippant use. It is time that the provisions outlined in clause 1 were enacted, so that the use of the important descriptions and titles was restricted.

Clause 3 would require, for the first time, that the many police forces that are not what are collectively known as "Home Office police forces" be listed. I include in the category of "Home Office police forces" the Scots constabularies and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Other police forces, some of which will be well known to hon. Members, have proud traditions and are much valued by the public, with whom they have a considerable interface. I refer to the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police, the Atomic Energy Authority police and the Royal Parks constabulary. Within a stone's throw of the Palace of Westminster, one could meet constables in uniform from three of those forces. The schedule lists those bodies that contain officers who could be described as police officers.

Part II of the schedule lists a number of other police forces, many of which are very small numerically, but, in almost every case, wear traditional police officers' uniforms. We must limit the number of names that could be included in part II. I am not saying that there should be an embargo on the number of police forces, but I want the Home Secretary to be able, for the first time, to control the growth of police forces and to use his good offices to ensure that certain standards apply, and that there are proper inspections and management and professional controls.

The independence of the individual sworn constable should be guaranteed regardless of the commercial interests of the owning body. I say that deliberately because a number of the forces are in private ownership and are owned by companies. I very much regret that. It is not appropriate for police forces to be in private ownership, but I do not want to labour that point today. Parliament has dealt with it, most recently in the case of the British Transport police, who are largely owned by the various private railway undertakings, and so forth. Many of the harbour and ports police, who are sworn in under pretty old, Victorian legislation, are in private ownership, as are the Northern Ireland Airport police, based at Belfast international airport.

I am concerned that there is a disparity in standards. For instance, the Port of Tilbury police are subject to the work of the Police Complaints Authority and so, I understand, are the Port of Liverpool police. However, there is no logic to this as Dover Harbour Board police—not an insignificant constabulary—is not. I should have thought that the Home Secretary would want some consistency throughout police forces.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael)

My hon. Friend makes some good points about consistency, but I must ensure that he is not under a misapprehension on one point. He referred to the British Transport police being owned by a variety of private organisations. In fact, the British Railways Board continues in existence solely to act as the police authority for the British Transport police. Money goes to the board to run that authority, it acts as the single overseeing body and that is where ownership lies.

Mr. Mackinlay

I am obliged to my hon. Friend and stand corrected. Nevertheless, other forces are in private ownership and commercial considerations can sometimes impinge on the role and duties of the constable. That is what the Bill would avoid.

I also want to ensure that there are proper training standards. Some of the forces listed in part II of the schedule receive from their owning bodies—both in the public and private sector—diligent and proper training to a Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 standard. Some do not.

The Bill would give the Home Secretary sufficient leverage to ensure that all constables were trained to a certain standard. The term constable—a proud office—should encompass training to a minimum standard laid down by the Home Office. The Bill would enable the Home Secretary to do that and to ensure that if any organisation wanted to add to the list of police forces set out in part II of the schedule, it could do so only after they had been inspected and the Home Secretary was satisfied about management controls, training and so forth. It is not improbable that a number of applications could be made. Indeed, the Greenwich Parks police, the Wandsworth Parks police and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Parks police are sworn in under London local government legislation and, in theory, there could be 32 parks police in London. I think that that would be unhelpful and unwise; it underlines the fact that we need to take control of the matter.

I am not opposed to parks police in London boroughs, but if there is significant growth of such forces, there is a case for a single London parks police whose services could be hired out to boroughs. I do not want to discuss that now, but to point out that we could have 32 parks police in London. If parks police are good for London, why not for the rest of the country? We must recognise that that could happen soon. There is an urgent need for control.

I am a member of that minority that takes great interest in insignia. I look at the plate badges of police officers. The majority of people, on seeing a police officer's uniform, cannot distinguish between the Metropolitan police, the Port of Tilbury police, the Royal Parks constabulary and the Wandsworth Parks police. They see only police officers. We have a duty to ensure that they are all to a certain standard.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

Clause 1(2)(iii) appears on cursory examination to prevent police authorities from using the word "police". I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. Police authorities are a key part of police governance. If they are no longer allowed to use the word "police" in their titles, an amendment may be necessary.

Mr. Mackinlay

I am sure that that is not so. Clause 1 refers to the Police Act 1996, which allows the use of such titles, but adds that their use should also be extended to the bodies listed in the schedule. If I am wrong, that is a point of detail which could be cleared up in Committee. Home Office forces clearly have such a right in existing legislation. I want to move on because several hon. Members, including Front-Bench spokesmen, have kindly given their time to be here today. I am grateful for their consideration of my Bill.

Clause 2 is important. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you and I walked down Whitehall, we might bump into a British Transport police officer. If we witnessed a crime, the officer would have no more competence or jurisdiction to deal with it than you or I. Outside the curtilage of railway properties, such officers have no more than the common law powers of every citizen. If we continued down Whitehall to the Ministry of Defence opposite Downing street, we would probably bump into MOD police officers, whose uniforms are almost indistinguishable from those of Metropolitan police officers except for their cap badges. Again, they have no competence in the street other than as ordinary citizens. If we went through Horse Guards into St. James's park, we might meet, perhaps in Birdcage walk, members of the Royal Parks constabulary, who have competence only within the curtilage of the royal park.

Life is not simple. Things requiring the attention of police officers often occur just outside the curtilages wherein these important and professional police officers have competence and jurisdiction. Of course, they do not stand by the rulebook in such circumstances, but use their common sense to deal competently with incidents. Nevertheless, the situation is unfair to police officers, who may not be insured or who could be the subject of challenge in the courts. My Bill would mean that, in the absence of a Metropolitan police officer or a "Home Office police officer"—in the vicinity of, say, Sellafield, where the Atomic Energy Authority police patrol—officers covered by clause 1 would have the powers and competence of a constable. They could act in support of police officers drawn from the Metropolitan police or one of the county constabulary when necessary, and do so with the full knowledge that they had the powers of a constable.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can solve a mystery for me. One day last summer, outside this very building, a police officer was directing coaches that were parking opposite Abingdon green. Noticing the unusual badge on his helmet, I asked him which force he belonged to. He said that he belonged to the Royal Parks constabulary. Apparently, Abingdon green is a royal park.

Mr. Mackinlay

Abingdon green may well be, but I am not sure that the highway is. I bumped into a British Transport police officer outside St. Stephen's entrance. Although he was clearly off duty, if an incident had taken place there he might have been the first police officer available, without having the powers and competence of a police constable. My Bill seeks to remedy that.

Hon. Members will recall the news footage of the poll tax riots a few years ago, when a scaffolding bar was pushed through the windows of a police car in the vicinity of Trafalgar square. It was a British Transport police car. A couple of years ago, riots in Northumberland avenue were instigated by—supposedly—football fans following an international competition, and a Ministry of Defence police car was attacked.

The forces defined in part I of the Bill are highly professional. In some parts of the United Kingdom, MOD police are invariably armed, and the force is substantial, comprising some 4,000 officers—much more than some "Home Office police" forces. The Atomic Energy Authority constabulary is also very much an armed police force, which obviously means that we trust its members and recognise their professionalism and competence. The British Transport police are much valued by the public, and are seen every day to be carrying out their duty of maximising public order, assisting the public and, in some instances, having to arrest people. The Royal Parks constabulary also does a very professional job, especially in maintaining security and ensuring that ceremonial events are properly policed—along with other agencies.

This is a timely measure. The forces specified in part I should be given the full powers of constable where that is appropriate and necessary, in extremis. I hope that the House will also be persuaded of the need for some capacity to control standards and the growth of other smaller police forces to be vested in the Home Secretary.

2.17 pm
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on securing the debate. With typical resilience, he has pursued the issue for several years. I agree with him that there is an issue; I am not persuaded that this is the right time or the right way in which to address it, but no doubt the Minister will say something slightly more official on behalf of the Home Office.

The issue has arisen before. The hon. Gentleman and I both commented on it in the Standing Committee considering the Bill that became the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. I suppose that anyone outside the House who heard what the hon. Gentleman has said today would think, "This seems an awfully good idea; what is the stumbling block?" When we were in government, there was always a Home Office Minister on hand to tell us what the stumbling block was, but we are now in opposition, and I have sought no official advice from the Home Office. What I shall say is entirely my own reaction to what I read yesterday when the Bill was available for the first time in the Table Office.

I do not mean to disparage the hon. Gentleman in any way, but this is not the first time in recent weeks when, at around 2.15 pm on a Friday, we have found ourselves discussing a Bill that was printed only about 36 hours earlier. It does not help us to prepare or to consult organisations that would clearly be affected by the Bill, were it to be given a Second Reading.

The issue is perhaps more relevant to police forces that are listed in part I of the schedule—particularly the British Transport police and the Royal Parks constabulary—than to those in part II. I know that the hon. Member feels equally strongly about the Ministry of Defence police, but the British Transport police do an excellent job and there is an issue as to what needs to be done, if anything, about their powers and the exercise of control over their function. Clearly, however, there are some major problems with the House accepting the Bill.

Arguably, there is an issue about whether certain police authorities should call themselves police, as they are not police in the conventional sense of the word. I do take issue with the hon. Gentleman, however, on clause 2, where he seeks to give the powers of a constable to constables in these other police forces. The powers of a constable are unique and historic. It surprises people that many of the powers that constables exercise daily are the powers that are invested in the citizen. The police whom the hon. Gentleman seeks to bring into the ambit of the Bill are able to operate for that reason; they are trained to know just what citizens' powers are available to help them with their work.

I ask whether a sufficient case has been made about the mischief that the Bill seeks to address. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that, given the growth of the private security industry, we would not wish to have a plethora of other police forces, but all the existing police forces work in either public or extremely tightly controlled areas such as docks or Atomic Energy Authority establishments. Doubtless, we shall want to have the time and opportunity to delve into the history of all those forces. I am sure that we would find that they are properly constituted.

I could say much more about this matter, but I want to leave the Minister ample opportunity to respond. I am not entirely clear whether this is the view of the official Opposition, but my personal view is that there are issues here that should be addressed. The Minister is likely to agree. It will be for the Government to consider how that might be taken forward. I feel sure that Conservative Members would want to co-operate and to take part in any consultation on these matters which the Government thought fit to introduce.

2.23 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the jurisdiction of the larger non-Home Office forces. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who has been tireless in promoting and representing the interests of non-Home Office police forces. His persistence in bringing the issue of their jurisdiction to the Floor of the House is legendary and explains all the relationships to which he referred. I remember his energetic efforts in this area during the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act, and I agree that we need to be clear and precise about the issues: who is a police officer, what is a police force and, equally, what is not a police force and who is not a police officer.

During the debates on that Act, a variety of different organisations were referred to and I cannot resist the temptation to refer again to the Barnet Dog Handlers, which, we discovered, was technically a police force, although it did not really exist and it did not have any employees. They do not seem to have been sighted over the past three or four years or, indeed, for several decades before that.

Other forces are clearly part of the police family and observe the same standards, supervision and training. That is especially true of the British Transport police, who deal daily with members of the public, albeit in the limited environment of the railways, and who have to observe exactly the same standards of behaviour and arrest, and so on, as the police generally.

Such non-Home Department forces are an important and intrinsic part of policing and of the maintenance of law and order. Because of the Government's desire to deliver the best policing, we welcome the idea that we should provide an effective and efficient working relationship between Home Department forces and other forces. Therefore, I sympathise with the Bill's good intentions. We are already considering some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised.

We need to balance the desire for an extension of jurisdiction for some non-Home Department forces against the necessity of maintaining clear areas of responsibility and accountability between them and Home Department forces. Above all, we must guard against leaving scope for confusion over responsibilities or for conflict in operations between the forces. The arrangements in the Bill are directed at a clear target on which we are agreed, but they may have accidental and unintended consequences in that they would give jurisdiction in areas where my hon. Friend would not want it. That is the basic problem with the Bill. It attacks a mischief, a problem that needs to be resolved. However, we must make sure that it does precisely what it intends to do and does not accidentally have effects that were not intended.

It is important to bear in mind the fact that any legislation needs to be justified by the facts and to have proportionate objectives. The naming of police authorities has been referred to. There are such residual elements in the context of the naming of joint bodies. The Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Superintendents Association are allowed for by legislation. I am sure that such issues should also relate to joint bodies such as the Police Information Technology Organisation, and so on, to ensure consistency.

The Bill's provisions are the main issue. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, the Bill was published just yesterday, and there has not been time to go through it in detail. I appreciate the reasons for that. It is difficult for a Back Bencher to introduce legislation covering all the bases, but my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has made a brave effort in bringing important issues to the House.

The Bill contains provisions for regulating the use of the term "police" and related terms, and for amending the law on the powers of certain constables. The clauses would radically alter the existing arrangements for the so-called non-Home Office forces. First, they would place new statutory restrictions on the use of some terms describing police officers and forces and, secondly, they would provide for enlarged jurisdiction for constables in non-Home Office police forces so that they could wield their full powers and privileges anywhere in England and Wales. Of course, there are corresponding provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I understand that, broadly, the condition is that the constable must think that the circumstances require him or her to exercise those powers and that either another constable is asked for help or there is no other constable available. The Bill also seeks to regulate the power of the Secretary of State in respect of non-Home Department police officers. I can see the attraction in the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of all constables in non-Home Office forces, so that they can exercise their powers anywhere in England and Wales to assist the public or a local police force. Members of the British Transport police who have left transport territory and are perhaps travelling by car between one railway station and another to pursue their duties could come across an incident and face a problem. The fact that they should be able to give assistance to the local police force because of their experience makes sense, but it is a complex area that needs careful consideration.

The main point is constitutional. The limited jurisdiction of some of the forces reflects their constitutional position. By and large, the non-Home Office forces are not about policing the general public. As I have said, the British Transport police do, but that is not the case for some of the other forces listed in the schedule. Some of them are about protecting private property; some are about protecting specific interests. It would be wrong—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 March.