§ 3.6 p.m.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have consulted or will consult Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary regarding the setting up of a Joint River Police Force to patrol the upper reaches of the Thames (i.e., from Staines towards Lechlade) to curb increasing hooliganism and vandalism on and alongside the river; and whether steps are being taken to urge (a) the Police Committee's concerned to supply the necessary boats and (b) the Chief Constables affected to provide the requisite staff, bearing in mind too the valuable assistance that could be given by special constables.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT)My Lords, the policing of the upper reaches of the Thames has been given close attention by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary in consultation with the chief officers of police concerned, and the conclusion is that the circumstances do not warrant the establishment of any kind of joint force. In the upper reaches of the river, offences are usually committed from along the river banks and adjoining recreation grounds, and, in the view of the responsible officers, can most effectively be dealt with by policemen on foot, rather than by boat patrols. The riparian police forces already co-operate with one another and my right honourable friend does not consider it necessary to urge police authorities or chief constables to take special measures for policing the river.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer, which is not completely satisfactory, may I ask him why it is felt that 368 such policing can better be undertaken from the bank, when in effect I understood my noble friend to say, on May 11 last, that the Metropolitan Police were considering extending their river patrols beyond Teddington Lock to Staines? If they feel that the policing of the river can better be done by river patrols, why is it that other chief constables cannot act in a similar way? May I ask a further question? Is my noble friend aware that, since I raised this matter on May 11, approximately twenty cases of vandalism, mainly between Staines and Wallingford, have been brought to my notice, and could not some start be made in that area to curb this nuisance?
§ LORD DERWENTAs regards the second supplementary question, the number of offences is really not the question under consideration. We are discussing the best method of dealing with them. There is general agreement among the police forces that the most effective method of policing the river for these kind of offences is the foot patrol. Policemen in boats cannot catch offenders on the river bank, and in the upper reaches of the river this is where the offenders almost invariably are. As a generalisation, the further down the river one comes, the more useful boat patrols are—there is more river traffic. The banks are more populated, and there is more scope for co-operation between observers in the boats and those on the shore.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, while I am not against joint action by police forces in appropriate cases, is the noble Lord aware that to compare the provision for the upper reaches of the river with the provision for the main part of the river, down this end, would be a mistake? Would it not also be a mistake to think that everything can be solved by joint committees or joint actions, because joint authorities can be a lot of joint without much authority? I hope the noble Lord will not give way to the principle of joint committees unless there is a good case for it. I agree with him that in this instance there is not a strong case.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, as regards the first question, I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord. As regards the second question, we are not 369 talking about joint committees here, but about co-operation between neighbouring police forces, and that, of course, takes place all the time.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, could I ask my noble friend how a constable on foot can deal with the problem of the cutting of mooring lines to vessels, which has occurred at Windsor, Maidenhead and Henley recently? Also, how can he cope when there is a question of lack of good manners and inconsiderate use of these small drive-yourself powered boats, resulting in some cases in accidents? At Marlow a boat was rammed and left to sink. How could police on land take action in that case?
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I was saying that the majority of cases of vandalism, which is what the noble Lord was talking about, take place on the banks. Mooring ropes can be cut just as well from the bank and, in fact, are more likely to be cut from the bank.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, could I add one point? Is my noble friend aware that a number of outboard motors have been stolen from moored boats at Marlow and Wallingford, for instance? Again, that was done on the river and not on the bank.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, the police officers who have to look after the river and the riverbanks on the upper reaches of the Thames are all agreed that it is much easier to do so from the bank.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the matter would be made much easier if there were a continuous towpath on the Thames, so that a patrol could move at speed and, if necessary, follow people on the water? Admittedly such a towpath could not follow the bank at all places, and some of the old towpath could not be used where there were no ferries. Would the noble Lord not admit that the proper opening up of the towpaths there are would materially help in this object?
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I cannot see that towpaths have anything to do with police duties.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSWould the noble Lord not agree that there must be some way by which a policeman can 370 pursue these people, if he is after them? How does he move along the river if there is no towpath and he is on shore?
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I think the noble Lord is pursuing the question too far.