§ 2.45 p.m.
Lord InglewoodMy 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 why the Research Study No. 10 of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedures entitled Prosecutions by private individuals and non-police agencies, published by HMSO, should include prosecutions by the British Transport Police and how this force differs in standards of recruitment, training, responsibilities and pay from those of county constabularies.
§ Lord SandysMy Lords, this is not a matter for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible, but page 5 of the Research Study discusses the problems of terminology and explains the authors' choice of title, while Chapter 7 describes the status, powers, and size of the British Transport Police. Broadly, the force, whose members receive the same pay as the civil police, and are recruited and trained in much the same way, possesses powers limited to property used by the British Railways Board, London Transport Executive, British Transport Docks Board, and associated undertakings.
Lord InglewoodMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the full reply. Bearing in mind police loyalty and pride in their service, would not the noble Lord agree that it is not much of a compliment, nor much help to morale, to bracket the achievements of a fine force with more exacting initial training than any other force in this country, under a heading, Prosecutions by private individuals and non-police agencies?
§ Lord SandysMy Lords, I do not agree with what the noble Lord says because the Government have great respect for the efficiency, morale and discipline of the British Transport Police. The Question refers to prosecutions, and as the Research Study shows, the British Transport Police prosecutes its own offences in much the same way as the civil police, although, unlike most civil police forces in England and Wales, it has no central prosecuting solicitors' department; so this is a technicality.