|
Clause 51
Supplementary powers of the Secretary of State, the NDA and the UKAEA
Mr. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in
clause 51, page 43, line 16, at end insert
'but shall not do so without first consulting the NDA.'.
Mr. Robertson: The amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the NDA before entering into agreements for the purposes of accepting or imposing contractual obligations. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is not necessary, but a requirement to consult the NDA before entering into those agreements seems slightly lacking from subsection (1).
Mr. Timms: When the Secretary of State uses the powers here in relation to a transfer scheme involving the NDA, I agree that the NDA should be consulted and that is exactly what clause 41(3) provides for. It imposes a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the NDA before making any transfer scheme that involves the NDA or is connected with the NDA carrying out its functions. The power in clause 51 may also be used in relation to transfer schemes that do not involve the NDA and are not connected with it carrying out its functions. If the Secretary of State decided to privatise parts of a new BNFL or UKAEA, that would be done by transfer schemes. In those cases, I do not think that the Secretary of State would need to consult the NDA, because it would not have any direct or indirect interest. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that when the NDA has an interest, it would indeed be consulted, but the requirement for it to be consulted in other circumstances is unnecessary.
3.30 pm
Mr. Robertson: The clause refers in subsections (2), (3) and (4) to agreements that the NDA and the UKAEA may enter into, so I suppose it is somewhat
Column Number: 224
confusing, but I accept the Minister's explanation for why it is not included at that particular point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 52 to 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 55
The Civil Nuclear Constabulary
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Norman Baker: This takes me back to the time I spent discussing such matters in relation to the Police Reform Act 2002. Clearly, there is some crossover between the proposed civil nuclear constabulary, the normal police forces and the Ministry of Defence police, some of whose duties might overlap. Can the Minister comment on subsection (2)(b), which gives the constabulary the duty to safeguard nuclear material in Great Britain and elsewhere? A number of issues arise from that, which I would like briefly to explore.
The first issue is that nuclear material may not simply be on licensed sites; it may, for example, be transported across the country by road, rail or air. Will the proposed constabulary have the authorisation to accompany nuclear material when it is being transported, and how will that power link in with that of British Transport police? Have British Transport police been consulted on this and is the Minister confident that there is no overlap of responsibility, or indeed potential duplication of effort, from those movements?
The second question relates to the work that might overlap with the MOD police. The Minister will be aware that the MOD keeps nuclear material on its sites, and the MOD police have their own regime under which they operate. Is it anticipated that the civil nuclear constabulary will safeguard nuclear material in Great Britain and elsewhere on MOD sites? I appreciate it is called a civil nuclear constabulary, but on the other hand the terms of subsection (2)(b) do not specify nuclear material that has arisen through the operation of civil nuclear facilities. Therefore, I take it to mean that that could apply to MOD material. Will he clarify that for me?
Thirdly, can the Minister clarify the purpose of the phrase ''and elsewhere'' in subsection (2)(b)? Is he suggesting that the civil nuclear constabulary will have authority to act outside the borders of Great Britain? That seems rather odd to me. Does that refer to British territories overseas, or does he anticipate some other purpose?
Mr. Timms: The clause requires the civil nuclear police authority to maintain the civil nuclear constabulary, and it sets out the constabulary's
Column Number: 225
primary functions. The hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in subsection (2), and, if I have written his questions down correctly, the answers are as follows.
The members of the constabulary can accompany nuclear material when it is in transit; that is the intention of the clause's drafting. British Transport police have been consulted on these arrangements, and I am satisfied that there is no unnecessary duplication between the duties of the civil nuclear constabulary and others.
The duties of the civil nuclear constabulary would not extend to the protection of MOD sites, which answers the hon. Gentleman's second question. Thirdly, it is envisaged that there will be occasions when members of the civil nuclear constabulary will safeguard material outside Great Britain—for example, when there is a shipment they will be able to accompany the material and provide protection in that way.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
jurisdiction of constabulary
Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in
clause 59, page 48, line 25, at end insert—
'(5A) Where a member of the Constabulary has been requested by a constable of—
(a) a police force for a police area in Great Britain;
(b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
(c) the Ministry of Defence Police; or
(d) the British Transport Police Force,
(''the requesting force'') to assist him in the execution of his duties in relation to a particular incident, investigation or operation, members of the Constabulary have for the purposes of that incident, investigation or operation the same powers and privileges as constables of the requesting force.
(5B) Members of the Constabulary have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that police area—
(a) in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence, or
(b) if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or to prevent or minimise personal injury.
(5C) But members of the Constabulary have powers and privileges by virtue of subsection (5B) only if—
(a) they are in uniform or have with them documentary evidence that they are members of the Constabulary, and
(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that a power of a constable which they would not have apart from that subsection ought to be exercised and that, if it cannot be exercised until they secure the attendance of or a request under subsection (5A) by a constable who has it, the purpose for which they believe it ought to be exercised will be frustrated or seriously prejudiced.'.
Column Number: 226
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Provision of assistance to other forces—
'(1) The chief constable of the Constabulary may, on the application of the chief officer of any relevant force, provide constables or other assistance for the purpose of enabling that force to meet any special demand on its resources.
(2) Where a member of the Constabulary is provided for the assistance of a relevant force under this section—
(a) he shall be under the direction and control of the chief officer of that force; and
(b) he shall have the same powers and privileges as a member of that force.
(3) Constables are not to be regarded as provided for the assistance of a relevant force under this section in a case where assistance is provided under section 59.
(4) In this section—
''chief officer'' means—
(a) the chief officer of the police force for a police area in Great Britain;
(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
(c) the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force; or
(d) the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;
''relevant force'' means—
(a) the police force for a police area in Great Britain;
(b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
(c) the British Transport Police Force; or
(d) the Ministry of Defence Police.'.
Mr. Key: Chapter 3, which sets up the civil nuclear constabulary, is more important than we might think. It is a quirk of our constitution that this police force is answerable to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and a number of other police forces are in a similar position. What we decide today will be important to every police force in the country, every Home Office constabulary in our constituencies and the other police forces, including the MOD and the other military police forces.
It is part of our history that sometimes we find a police force accountable to a local police authority and sometimes to a Minister and to Parliament. When Samuel Pepys set up a security force for the royal dockyards, little did he think that one day in May 2004 the consequences of that action by the Government of the day would still be important, but that is when it all started. Pilfering from the royal dockyards was a serious problem, so he set up the Admiralty constabularies. They predate anything that we would recognise as a Home Office constabulary today.
So it continued for many years. The Pepys bobbies were part of the establishment until the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. I served on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill, which was important because it transformed the MOD police from special constabulary gatekeepers into full constabulary officers trained to the same standards as any other police force in the country.
The 1987 Act was reformed by the Armed Forces Acts 1996 and 2001. I served on both Standing Committees. Under those Acts, the Secretary of State for Defence is responsible to Parliament, but now there is a new police authority, giving a modest
Column Number: 227
measure of independence. We shall shortly reconsider those slightly arcane procedures under the promised new tri-service Acts.
Most nations have decided that there is a need for an armed civilian police force. Some countries, such as France, achieve that by having a police force and a gendarmerie. Other nations, such as the United States, have county and federal police as well as a national guard. Most of us have our county constabularies. I am proud to have in Wiltshire the oldest as well as the best police force, hence its motto, Primus et Optimus.
The Home Office said many years ago that it did not have responsibility for policing the railways and that it did not know much about rolling stock, so British Transport police were established, answerable to the Secretary of State for Transport and accountable to Parliament. In 1992, when I was a Minister at the new Department of National Heritage, I was responsible for the Royal Parks police, who have full constabulary power. They are not and never were park keepers, and a Minister is still accountable to Parliament for them. The current process of integrating them with the Metropolitan police seems to have ground to a halt. In 1954, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary was set up as an armed police force.
So, we have four police forces in this country that are accountable to Ministers. They are not subject to any direct democratic accountability, although the Metropolitan police are very indirectly accountable through the Mayor of London. Most of us have county constabularies. The UKAEA constabulary has about 500 officers and is accountable to Parliament through the Department of Trade and Industry. The Bill proposes a completely new structure, most of which is very welcome indeed. The problem is that it does not go far enough, which is what I wish to address.
The Bill transforms the special constables into full constabulary officers, but their power has been severely limited, such that the UKAEA Police Federation believes that there are consequences for national security and that they must be addressed. It has written to me to say that there must be concessions on powers so that its members can act in an emergency properly to carry out their duties. The general secretary of the federation said:
''It is imperative that we achieve this concession for various reasons, foremost of which is the fact that we have an enormous responsibility in our area of work. Without this fundamental requirement, when we encounter policing needs in areas where we would not normally have constabulary powers, we are helpless to react. Moreover, we have examined case studies and scenarios where the absence of such emergency powers could have dire implications and consequences for national security.''
Clearly, the matter must be taken seriously.
The federation also argues that emergency powers are required for the simple reason that members of the public expect all police officers, especially those in uniform, to act in an emergency and protect the public interest. It is strange that the Government have recently granted British Transport police and MOD police exactly those powers. The federation would like identical concessions to be made for its constabulary.
Column Number: 228
The matter was addressed during the Bill's passage through another place, but pretty perfunctorily. I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, who will have to answer these questions. He did not volunteer to be responsible for a police force, let alone learn about the complexities of it.
The debate in the other place was extraordinary. When it was put to the Minister, Lord Triesman, that the police federation's request was sensible and should be granted, he stated:
''While we know that there has been support in some circles for the proposition, there is not widespread support for the proposition from the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is not at all clear that such a proposition would be welcomed by all bodies involved in public policing.''
I find that extraordinary, because I have a letter dated 9 February 2004 from the chief constable of Staffordshire, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers chief constable with responsibility for this matter. He wrote to Mr. Keith Latham, the assistant director of the nuclear regulatory branch of the DTI, to say:
''There has been extensive debate around the wider police family. Concessions have been made in terms of police powers to the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police to act in an emergency, particularly when they come across something in an area where they would not normally have Constabulary powers.
We would be content for identical concessions to be made in respect of the UKAEAC because members of the public would expect police officers, especially in uniform, to act in an emergency they happen to come across.''
3.45 pm
That is a strange conflict of opinions. Will the Minister justify not acceding to the federation's request? Under this clause, if a uniformed UKAEA police constable in a marked police car came across a car crash, a robbery in progress, a rape or a murder, they would have to pass by unless they are willing to rely on the powers of citizen's arrest, such as you and I have, Mr. O'Brien. The public will not understand that.
The Minister in the other place also said that the constabulary lacked expertise. He said that the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police have powers of emergency action for two reasons:
''First, they are regularly policing the general public and have developed a level of expertise in dealing with the public across a wide range of incidents and circumstances.''
A member of a police force who constantly polices state property that is proactively and sometimes violently demonstrated against, such as Aldermaston or other bases, would have a good idea of the level of expertise required in those circumstances. Many officers involved in such policing are more experienced than most constabulary officers.
The second reason would be if
''it has been established that the number of situations that have arisen which would require the use of those extended powers justifies their being available in those circumstances, and none of that is true of the UKAEA Constabulary.''
That is extraordinary and means that we will not train people and give them powers because we do not think that certain circumstances are likely to arise. Does that
Column Number: 229
mean that we should not train the Metropolitan police on how to handle a murder because it does not happen often?
The Minister in the other place continued:
''The Government are concerned that the constabulary should not have powers until there is an established operational need—that is the criterion—and constabulary officers will not be in a position regularly to exercise such powers.''
Once again, that argument means that we should not bother to train the police because they will not often have to deal with the hijack of a ship on the high seas. However, the expertise of those police officers is unique in circumstances such as policing demonstrations in international waters or if a ship bearing nuclear cargo enters our territorial waters.
The Minister in the other place went on to say:
''It is a small constabulary and reacting to circumstances and demands from other forces might also divert it from the core tasks of protecting civil nuclear sites and materials.''
That is bizarre. My county constabulary is the smallest in the country, yet it regularly has to police the most densely populated military area in the country. It interfaces with the MOD police and the military police to look after the state's interests at the army's headquarters at Wilton, the country's biggest training area on Salisbury plain, Porton down, Boscombe down military airfield and a number of other installations. Therefore, that argument does not wash.
Another important point is the liability of members of the police who intervene in an incident as a private citizen. If an off-duty policeman comes across a civil disturbance, such as rape, murder, burglary or a car crash, he will make it known that he is a policeman. He will almost certainly be carrying a warrant to prove as much. Knowing that he has full constabulary power, he will be able to take control of the situation and use his training and expertise to regulate it. That power will not be available to any of the police officers we are discussing. I emphasise that they are trained in the same place by the same people and to the same standard as the Metropolitan police and every other county constabulary. There is no difference between them: the quality is the same. Why, therefore, are they not considered appropriate to have the full constabulary power?
My noble Friend Baroness Byford asked about liability in such circumstances; for example, what would happen if one of the excellent UKAEA constables was helping at an incident and something went wrong. A police constable is covered in such circumstances but if he is acting under civilian powers, he can be sued by insurance companies or by the persons concerned. That is a grave disadvantage, but all that Lord Triesman, the Minister in the other place, could say in response was:
''I wish I could give a simple answer. I cannot do that—not because I wish to evade the question, but because the number of possible circumstances is huge and the extent of liability would reflect those circumstances.''——[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 566-567.]
Column Number: 230
Lord Triesman said that he would write to Baroness Byford ''with further indications''. I have not seen his letter, so I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know what Lord Triesman said about the matter.
It is extraordinary that we are asking special police to undertake serious responsibilities, which require a completely different range of skills and knowledge. They are not just guarding gates and checking round the perimeter; they have a specialist knowledge of how to guard very sensitive cargoes. In, I think, 1987, when a nuclear depth charge fell off a lorry outside West Dean naval arms depot, which is in my constituency, I was enormously relieved that members of the UKAEA constabulary were present because they knew exactly what to do. Of course, the chief constable of Wiltshire had primacy, but he was able to rely on their expertise.
The Government should rethink this proposal, which is petty and not in the public interest. Does it protect the Treasury? I do not think so. It makes no difference to the Treasury if an officer has full constabulary power; he is there, on the pay roll, doing the same job, but the Government are depriving him of the influence and status that he deserves.
The Minister in the other place said that he would keep an open mind and be prepared to reconsider what happened here. I know that it is a complicated affair and I do not want to put the Minister on the spot. It is unfair to ask him to respond, and I will entirely understand if he reads out the brief. However, I want him to say that he would be willing to reconsider the proposal and come back on Report, because it is important to get this right. I hope that I have been able to express the frustration of this small but excellent police force in a non-partisan way and that I will have support from both sides of the House for my request that the Government should look at the matter again and table new proposals on Report.
|
