|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have the authority from the Cabinet sub-committees to state that we have made a decision. We have not. That is the plain fact of the matter. To be honest, a previous Minister ought to know better than to ask such a question.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, under Section 11 of the Police Act 1996, a police authority may call on a chief officer to retire in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. Under Section 42 of the Act, the Secretary of State may require a police authority to
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reading to the House the part of the Act that I had discovered for myself. Does the Minister agree, first, that it was extremely bad management not to afford the Chief Constable of Sussex at least the courtesy of meeting him personally ahead of his leaving the force? Secondly, is it not also very bad form to issue a press release ahead of a decision being taken either by the chief constable or by the authority?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Home Secretary does not employ chief constables. The Home Secretary wrote to the police authority, as he is entitled to do. All he did was to remind the authority of its statutory duty in this respect. I do not know the consequences as regards when the press release was issued, or, indeed, when the letter was published. However, this is a major issue of public policy, which the Home Secretary was quite entitled to draw to the attention of the police authority so as to enable it to consider whether or not to make a decision. In the event, the policy authority did not: the chief constable chose to retire.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the incident that led to the retirement of the Chief Constable of Sussex came about as a direct result of the investigation that was carried out by the Police Complaints Authority which recommended particular disciplinary action that was subsequently taken by the Sussex police authority? Can the Minister tell the House what additional ground the Home Secretary had which enabled him to recommend to the Sussex police authority this retirement, bearing in mind that such disciplinary action had already been taken?
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the letter was quite unique? Was it really possible either for the Chief Constable of Sussex to stay in position or, if he did so, for the police authority not to get rid of him after the letter written by the Home Secretary had been released?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. The letter probably is unique. There have not been many occasions when chief officers have been required to resign; indeed, I believe that there have been about three such cases in the past 25 years. That does not include the present case, because matters did not progress to that stage. It is possible that the force of the questions in the letter--there were no instructions--left the authority with a course of action that it was sensible to take. It was a strong, powerfully-worded letter that simply asked the authority to take account of its statutory responsibilities, and to consider all the circumstances. I believe that the Home Secretary was entitled to do that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Home Secretary write a similar letter on every occasion when the conduct of a chief constable is in question? If that is not the case, does the Minister agree that this was a very clear directive, even if not expressed as an executive order?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I suspect that the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is no; that is certainly not so. But let us face the facts. There was an inquiry into the original shooting that raised considerable questions about the corporate governance of this police force. Therefore, the Home Secretary was entitled to take the view that he adopted.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I return to the letter in question. Does the Minister agree that the letter that was sent out would have been a matter for the Home Secretary, the police authority and the chief constable had it not been for a press release that was issued simultaneously and which was extremely provocative in its wording?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, although I remember seeing the press release I do not have a copy with me. I do not apologise. This is not something that we were doing behind closed doors. We did not make any point about doing this behind closed doors. It is a matter of public policy as regards the police service in this country, the family involved and the people concerned in the incident. The matter is not closed. Some officers are still under suspension and subject to disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it would be unwise for me to deal any further with such issues.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of a police authority. Can the Minister say whether there are any plans to amend, or in any way to change, the conditions of service of chief police officers?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. However, it is fair to point out that we believe that there should be clear and objective procedures for assessing the personal performance of chief officers. We are in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the information is not available in the precise form requested. I can tell the House that 38 per cent of passenger trains do not discharge sewage on the railway track, either because they have toilets that drain into retention tanks or because they do not have toilets. It is estimated that from passenger trains with toilets that do not drain into retention tanks approximately 4,000 tonnes of raw sewage is discharged on railway tracks every year.
Baroness Wilcox: I live in Cornwall and travel each weekend to St Austell in old rolling stock--a journey of 300 miles, both there and back. Given that the Minister has just referred to the fact that only 38 per cent of passenger trains do not discharge sewage in this way, it fills me with horror to think that there are 947 million passenger journeys taking place on national railways in Great Britain. That gives us some idea of the size of the problem. Does the Minister agree that the present state of affairs is not very satisfactory? My biggest worry is that those who are looking after our interests while working on the tracks are being exposed to danger. Therefore, can the Minister say whether the Government have a policy for urgently securing improvements in this area?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, a code of practice was adopted by the rail industry in 1996. It stated that all new rolling stock with a toilet should also have a retention tank installed underneath its frame. By December 2004, all the older rolling stock on London commuter services will have been replaced. Therefore, the vast majority of London commuter trains will have retention tanks by that time. It will
The noble Baroness expressed concern about those who have to work on the tracks. The danger that arises in this situation would obviously be worse for those who actually work on the underside of carriages that have toilets, but no retention tanks. A study was carried out some years ago which indicated that the risk of infection associated with working on vehicle underframes is insignificant, provided that normal hygienic precautions are observed. It also found that the level of risk is similar to that of changing a baby's nappy.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page