| Railways and Transport Safety Bill
|
|
Miss McIntosh: For the sake of clarity, I will return to the point that I made earlier, to which the Minister has blatantly not responded. It seems that although the powers are reserved, they will be exercised by HMIC for Scotland. The inspectorate will be appointed by the Scottish Executive, yet if I have understood the Minister correctly—it is quite possible that I have not—the powers are reserved. Surely, under reserved powers the body that should review the work of HMIC is the House of Commons. I put it to the Minister that we are in a curious position. The Government tell us that the powers are reserved, that they are not devolved from the point of view of being inspected and that those who are inspected will—presumably—be appointed, disciplined or removed from office by HMIC for Scotland. I do not see where the opportunities are for the House of Commons. We are told that Parliament has reserved powers, so it should, therefore, be uniquely responsible for hiring and firing these people. I do not see what powers we have to scrutinise that process, so I do not see how the Minister can argue that the powers remain reserved. Mr. Spellar: Let me make it clear for the hon. Lady that the security of the railways, including the BTP, is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament. The role of the inspectorate is to report on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales. In Scotland, that would be done by the Scottish inspectorate. As I said in a previous intervention, HMIC in Scotland will be given a statutory duty—as opposed to the current procedure—to inspect the BTP and to report to the Secretary of State about how the BTP operates in Scotland. The inspectorate in Scotland will report to the Secretary of State and the financing of the organisation will be dealt with by Scottish Ministers. We are letting HMIC in Scotland inspect the BTP in Scotland. That already happens, so there will be continuity. Column Number: 235 Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.
Division No. 5]
AYES
NOES
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Miss McIntosh: The clause relates to the power to make statutory regulations regarding equipment. Does it relate solely to the issuing of equipment, or does it include the duty of care to maintain it? The Secretary of State has the power to consult both the authority and the chief constable. The Minister may not have heard our concern. Currently, four out of nine members of the authority come from operating companies and others from the industry. This representation will be grossly weakened when the total number of members rises to 13 or more, but the number of representatives from industry remains at four. They regret that while they are being asked to pay for all of this, their level of representation decreases. Opposition Members share that concern. Does the clause relate to the standard of equipment; the issue of equipment; the procurement of equipment; or the regulations by which equipment will be maintained? Mr. Don Foster (Bath): Common sense dictates that there will be occasions when the British Transport police will work in conjunction with county police forces. We have discussed that on a number of occasions. Can the Minister assure us that the Home Secretary will be included in the consultations about making the regulations? Clearly it makes a great deal of sense to ensure that there is commonality on standards and types of equipment between the BTP and other police forces operated by the Home Office. Mr. Spellar: Let me deal first with the issue of representation. I disagree with the hon. Member for Vale of York. She seems to be saying that there will be a confrontational committee with voting blocks, rather than a group of people who have the best interests of policing the railways at heart. As we pointed out, the minimum number of representatives by no means prescribes the maximum number. Some of those covered under other categories could, of course, be representatives from the railway industry. As the hon. Lady knows, we have also undertaken to consider provisions relating to those working in the industry. On the equipment issue, the clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that the forces use equipment that has been approved. That can include vehicles, information technology systems, batons, incapacitant sprays, head gear and protective Column Number: 236 clothing. That power allows for much more interoperability between forces, an exchange of equipment, when necessary, and common training when that might be of mutual advantage. All forces would want to adopt—and spread—best practice for the maintenance of that equipment. The clause enables the British Transport police and the Home Office police forces to use more standardised equipment, with all the advantages that will flow from that.Miss McIntosh: That is helpful, and I am grateful for the clarification. I am sure that the Minister's list was not meant to be exhaustive; I notice that it did not refer to radios. Certainly, in my police force area of North Yorkshire, radio is extremely important, particularly when an officer sets off on his own. I would have thought that the use of radios, when policing moving objects such as trains or people on railway concourse areas, would be extremely important. The Minister missed our debate this morning, which I found interesting and helpful. I confess that I do not have in-depth knowledge of the subject—that is a grave reflection on me—and this is a useful opportunity for us to become fully cognisant of what equipment the Government have in mind. This morning, the Under-Secretary told us that the British Transport police are equipped with CS gas, but the Minister did not mention it just now. I am sure that that was a minor omission. Mr. Spellar: I referred to incapacitant sprays, which I assume includes CS gas, although not all incapacitant sprays are CS gas. Miss McIntosh: Some might say that nasal sprays were also incapacitants, because one has to stop to use them. [Interruption.] Indeed, that is correct, as one athlete found to his and his country's disadvantage this week. In any case, I hear what the Minister says, and I am grateful to him. Would the Government keep an open mind if the British Transport police asked to equip themselves with firearms? I refer to a branch that is trained in that area. I am not necessarily calling for such powers, but we heard today how security has been increased at airports, and the Home Secretary has stated that the Government are mindful of the fact that all transport modes and facilities—transport infrastructure is, I think, the expression that he used—are particularly vulnerable. I commend the Government for increasing security at airports. If, in the near future, the Government are minded to increase the level of security as I urged the Under-Secretary to consider, they must bear in mind that the three London airports are accessed primarily by train. The Chairman: Order. The Bill does not cover airports.
3.15 pmMiss McIntosh: I am coming to the killer point, Mr. Hurst. The Heathrow express, the Gatwick express and the Stansted express take the majority of passengers to the three London airports. If we increase security at airports, we will leave the security aspects on the trains Column Number: 237 and the railway stations more vulnerable. Airport policing is paid for by the airports, and transport policing is paid for by the railway industry. This morning, we discussed which three categories paid for that. If a review were made of the standard of equipment, and a request for firearms were made, would the Minister envisage any difficulties for the transport industry in paying for the equipment? After all, it is operating in a tough climate at present.Mr. Spellar: The hon. Lady will be aware from previous debates that the British Transport police will participate in the new national radio system. The Government have provided BTP with about £2.3 million for its part of the project. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealt with the potential arming of British Transport police and said that we have no plans to do that at present. However, we have not ruled out making such a decision in future. Miss McIntosh: If the level of equipment issued was increased radically and the British Transport police had to be issued with flak jackets and guns, would the Minister envisage the industry having difficulty paying for it? Mr. Spellar: As for the funding of any police force in respect of new requirements under national security, the Government will review the matter when decisions have to be made. Question put and agreed to. Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 13 February 2003 |
