Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Public Bill Committee, 13 February 2003.

Standing Committee D

Clause 29 - Jurisdiction

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We had a good discussion about the expression ''in the vicinity of'', a phrase that left me dissatisfied about the more general matter of jurisdiction. Under the present law, British Transport police officers have the powers and privileges of other constables to enter premises and to inspect various parts of rail property. The Under-Secretary of State and I had a jolly afternoon yesterday in another Committee. As he is aware, we are hoping to obtain a commitment from him today about the extent of the police powers, a point to which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has alluded, and, more particularly, how they relate to the powers of the rail accident investigation branch.

We want a commitment from the Government that, when carrying out investigations, the inspector and investigator will be accompanied by an officer of the British Transport police. Will the Under-Secretary explain the current powers of the aviation accident investigation branch when one of its inspectors seeks evidence? Are those inspectors always accompanied by a police officer? When undertaking a rail inspection under the current law, are representatives of the Health and Safety Executive always accompanied by a police officer? I can envisage many circumstances in which it would be helpful to the inspection process and assist the inspector or investigator if their powers under the Bill were exercised alongside those of a police constable.

We need guidance from the Under-Secretary about subsection (2), which sets out extensive powers that go further than the current law. It states:

''A constable of the Police Force may enter property which is or forms part of anything specified in subsection (3)—

(a) without a warrant,

(b) using reasonable force if necessary, and

(c) whether or not an offence has been committed.''

Presumably, under subsection (2)(c), there will have been cause to think that an offence might have been committed and the constable would be anxious to elucidate whether that was the case.

The purpose of the debate is to elicit from the Under-Secretary what the present law is and to receive some guidance about whether the clause extends greater powers and authority to the police. We want to know, in particular, whether the provisions relate to the new powers under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. We now know that that includes

provisions giving British Transport police constables jurisdiction outside the railways in limited circumstances, and providing additional police powers. It was put to me—we have debated the matter—that not including the words ''in the vicinity of'' would curtail the police's powers under the clause. We know for sure now that the Government are not minded to insert that expression. I would like to know that the police powers will be as extensive as they need to be.

We are clearly mindful of the level of the threat and, for understandable reasons, the Government might not be in a position to share all their information with the House. My concern is that we might put all our efforts into the worst-case scenario of an attack on an airport, or an aeroplane being hit on take-off or landing—those are probably the most graphic and vulnerable targets—when the terrorists are looking for a softer target.

Obviously, I have a vested interest, in that my constituents and I use the railways. York station is very busy, and so is King's Cross. Do the powers provided under the clause extend sufficiently for such circumstances, or would the transport police have to seek extra powers? Is the Minister convinced that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, taken in conjunction with clause 29, would be sufficient?

Subsection (3) mentions the following:

''(a) track,

(b) a network,

(c) a station,

(d) a light maintenance depot, and

(e) a railway vehicle.''

Is the Minister satisfied that that is a comprehensive and specific list? Also, might there be exceptions that the Government should have thought of? I am a little concerned that a light railway, tram, trolley bus or other rail vehicle be included in the provisions. It would be helpful to have some guidance from the Minister on the matter.

To sum up, we welcome the fact that powers of the British Transport police have been extended as far as they have been under the 2001 Act. I am particularly mindful of the threat that we face. We would like to know for sure whether the Government are satisfied that the transport police have all the powers that they need. Do the Government envisage that, in most circumstances, a British Transport police constable will accompany inspectors or investigators who are exercising their extensive powers under the Bill? I would also like to know whether, in the Minister's view, subsection (3) covers all the scenarios that we can envisage for the purposes of subsection (2).

Linda Perham (Labour, Ilford North)

The issue of jurisdiction is raised in the clause. Like the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), I raised the subject under clause 17, and the Minister of State said that he would reply at the appropriate time. I shall reiterate the concerns that I raised on Second Reading, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) raised, too. They refer to the extension of the powers of the British

Transport police under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The major concern of the British Transport police is that those powers have to be reviewed within two years, and they are anxious to keep them. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reply to those concerns now.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Good morning, Mr. Hood. I am pleased to be back in Committee. As you can probably tell, I have about 95 per cent. of my voice today, whereas last week I had about 40 per cent. of it. I shall make a few general points about the clause, and pick up the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) and the hon. Member for Vale of York regarding clause 29.

The British Transport police's main duties consist of public policing, exactly like a Home Office police force. However, unlike a Home Office force, the British Transport police have to police and patrol private property, albeit private property to which the public have access—for example, railway stations and trains. Clause 29 gives the British transport police a statutory jurisdiction over railway property throughout Great Britain. Within that jurisdiction the British Transport police constable would have all the powers and privileges of a Home Office constable. The jurisdiction extends outside railway property on matters relating to railways. For example, a British Transport police constable would have jurisdiction to chase someone who has committed an offence on the railway and subsequently tried to escape by running off into the local town.

The British Transport police need to police and patrol the railways on a day-to-day basis. Clause 29(2) and (3) gives the British Transport police constable a statutory right to enter and to police specifically defined areas of railway property. Those are places where the public may be legitimately present, for example at a railway station, or illegally present, for example trespassing on the track or posing a threat to rail safety. We have consulted widely on creating a statutory right for British Transport police constables to police such places. That proposal has received broad industry support.

In other areas of railway property, such as a train company's head office, the British Transport police constable is subject to the same restrictions that apply to a Home Office constable. A British Transport police officer would therefore be unable to enter a head office to investigate a rail ticket fraud, for example, unless invited to do so, holding a search warrant or exercising some other statutory right of entry.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the rail accident investigation branch. Some of those points were dealt with during the debate on clause 7. The rail accident investigation branch's powers are modelled on those of the aviation accident investigation branch. A representative of Her Majesty's rail inspectorate would not always be accompanied by the police—nor would an air accident inspector—but a rail accident inspector

would need to provide evidence of identity before entering railway property to carry out appropriate investigations.

Clause 29 dovetails with powers defined under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act that allow British Transport police to operate outside these areas on non-railway matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North asked a question regarding that Act. The sunset facility within the Act would only take out matters that were no longer relevant. A strong case has been made in this Committee for keeping the power of the Home Office police to ask the British Transport police to be involved in an investigation outside their normal area of jurisdiction. That is a matter for the review, which I cannot pre-empt, but we have taken note of the comments that have been made during this debate.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about light railway, trams and trolley buses. That is a sub-group of railways and as such it has no defined separate legal meaning.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to hon. Gentleman for his reply. Both the hon. Member for Ilford, North and I have highlighted our concern about implications regarding the sunset provisions. We must ensure that the British Transport police have all the powers that they need during a heightened state of alert. As the Minister said, the clause ensures that the powers of British Transport police officers are as extensive as those currently enjoyed by constables appointed by the Home Office, which should satisfy the Committee.

The Minister does not seem to like me referring back to trolley buses and trams, but I was rather taken by our discussion. I referred to clause 7 because I cannot emphasise strongly enough our belief that inspections would be helped were a British Transport police constable to accompany an inspector when appropriate.

In the consultation, concern was expressed about the proposal that the branch be given the power to undertake an investigation on the network, track or rolling stock of a railway. A tramway is a transport system using another mode of transport that is not a trolley vehicle system. The specific concern was that the investigative procedure for the London underground and other metro systems be dealt with explicitly.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North on voicing her concern on behalf of her constituents about the accident on the Central line. We should focus more strongly on what would happen in the event of a disaster, which may not necessarily be a terrorist attack. I am always mindful of the devastation that was caused by the King's Cross fire and in the Moorgate disaster. We must take on board the concerns expressed by the police force and the railway industry.

I note the extensive powers in the clause and it is good to know that the Bill sits comfortably with the additional powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Will the Government assure us that the House will be consulted about the sunset clauses prior to undertaking the review? Perhaps a note could

be left in the Library. Otherwise, I anticipate a flood of parliamentary questions on the subject from all parties.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

As always, I would be delighted to deal with a trickle or a flood of parliamentary questions from the hon. Lady. We should clarify one point. For an inspector always to be accompanied by a British Transport police constable would be unduly restrictive and unnecessary in many circumstances. The powers have been well set out in the early clauses of the Bill and we would not want to place too many restrictions. In certain circumstances, it may be totally unnecessary for a constable to be present. To clarify a point that was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, the London underground does not need specific mention. It is a railway, so it is therefore covered by the powers of the rail accident investigation branch.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have one remaining question about the position of technical evidence under the jurisdiction of clause 29. What is the position of technical evidence held by the police, the investigation branch and the Health and Safety Executive? I understand that the joint protocols proposed in the consultation process to deal with how technical evidence would be treated by the various authorities are thought to be essential.

The British Transport police produced a draft protocol to part 2 of the Ladbroke Grove inquiry on the proposed relationship between the rail accident investigation branch, the Health and Safety Executive and the British Transport police; this harks back to the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath. That is very constructive, subject to a number of points on which the train-operating companies would differ. In particular, it identified three categories of information obtained. In the case of all three, there was a presumption that the information should be disclosed for safety purposes. With regard to information with significant safety implications, that presumption could be displaced only by exceptional public interest. In the case of all three categories of information, the British Transport police proposal was for the final decision on disclosure to rest with the RAIB.

This is my question to the Minister: at what stage would the Government be minded to consider through protocols and memorandums of understanding to take on board the viewpoints of the industry, the British Transport police and the Health and Safety Executive, and to address what the relationship between them would be? That would fall neatly in clause 29. Jurisdiction and how the evidence in an inspection might be dealt with are still outstanding issues.

I do not wish to labour the point, but there are circumstances in which it might be helpful for a police constable to be present—for example, if a branch investigator or inspector hopes to visit a private property or dwelling house where there is an aggressive person. The worst-case scenario would be if a police constable were to accompany an inspector on every occasion: that would take up a lot of British

Transport police time, and I would not recommend it as it might be going too far. However, the Bill does not describe the circumstances in which it might be advisable for a police constable to accompany an inspector. It would be helpful if those issues were addressed.

I turn to the monitoring process. When consultation was taking place, it was thought that the head of the RAIB would report periodically to the Secretary of State to assess the effectiveness in practice of the protocols that I referred to earlier. In its submission to Lord Cullen, the British Transport police stated that it thought that it had no technical expertise in this field and that therefore other bodies should take the technical lead. The Bill is silent on that, and the Government would be well advised to say more about it.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Lady gave circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a British Transport police constable to accompany an inspector, but decisions about such matters will be made by those who produce the RAIB protocol. That is being worked on by the industry group, but it wants to hear the chief inspector's views. Someone is on the verge of being appointed to that post, and when that happens, the protocols will be worked up. I do not want to pre-empt what they will contain.

On the sunset clauses, it is important to re-affirm that the British Transport police will continue to have anti-terrorism powers, and that they will remain on the statute book unless the Privy Council review states that they should be removed. Even if that were to happen, the decision could be overturned by Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

For good order, I make the following suggestion to hon. Members. When I use my discretion to allow a stand part debate, hon. Members' contributions should relate to the clause, and not be a line-by-line speech. I do not want to hear 20 speeches about 20 individual lines in the clause. If the clause has not been amended, a stand part speech should relate to the clause as a whole. Hon. Members should not make five or six speeches on clause stand part. If something needs to be clarified from the Minister's responses, that is a different matter. I make that point to be helpful.

We now reach clauses 31 to 41. Would I be ambitious in putting the Questions on them together?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Yes.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I shall not be ambitious then; I shall call the clauses separately.Clause 30 Prosecution

Clause 30 - Prosecution

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Good morning, Mr. Hood. I shall be extremely brief. You have generously selected several amendments in my name to clause 39

that relate to vandalism. For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that under clause 30, the police force that investigates

''an offence in the course of the exercise of its functions''

will also consider vandalism and trespass? If the answer is yes, what are the Minister's feelings about the discretion that the clause gives to the chief constable to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the offences?

Although I shall talk about the issue at greater length later, I should point out that there were 15,075 reported vandalism offences in 2001–02, but only 2,200 prosecutions. There were 15,395 reported trespass offences, but only 903 prosecutions. Does the Minister agree that those figures show that trespass and vandalism are not taken seriously by the BTP, or is there a different explanation?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My understanding is that the law of trespass does not apply in Scotland, and I wonder whether that will pose an interesting conundrum under the Bill.

The clause is clear that the chief constable may institute criminal proceedings in respect of a criminal offence. Clause 32 creates a new civil offence for which the penalty will be a fine. Which body will prosecute such a civil offence?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

At present, British Transport police frequently prosecute those who infringe railway byelaws. The clause will allow the BTP to continue to do so. It will be fairly apparent that the BTP does not and will not have the resources to mount large-scale prosecutions for serious cases. I hope that I help the hon. Member for Vale of York by telling her that such serious cases are dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service, and I would expect that to continue.

The hon. Member for Bath asked about vandalism. The BTP would and could investigate vandalism. It keeps an eye on the railways in case of trespass but I understand that trespass is a civil offence. No other piece of legislation clearly states the role of the British Transport police in investigating criminal actions. It uses the Crown Prosecution Service, under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, to prosecute offences on the railways. The clause would allow the British Transport police to prosecute a number of minor offences that the CPS does not currently deal with and, as I understand it, there is no need for a similar provision in Scots law. In answer to the hon. Member for Vale of York, who asked who would prosecute, the CPS would bring the case to court.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Police services agreement

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I rise just for clarification. The annual report of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions refers to a number of service agreements. Will the Minister tell us whether the clause sets out a new police services agreement or whether provisions are being made for the existing police services agreement to be enshrined in the Bill? Does the police services agreement, as set out in the clause, provide a means of setting a target and will such a target be set against the benchmark of a specific sum of public money? The customer is presumably the railway industry, and I understand that it is most likely that the train operating company will specify the sums provided for. I wonder what the relationship will be. It will be apparent why that is relevant when we consider clause 32.

I have already made the point that the industry is being asked to fund the provisions. What will be the relationship between the police and the train operating companies? Should there be some disagreement about which objective plans and targets they would prefer, would they appeal to the Secretary of State? The Department must have some responsibility for the matter. The clause is not perhaps as clear as on that point as it might be. It would be helpful to know what expense was envisaged in respect of the police services agreement and whether that was substantially increased under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I shall say a few words on the clause, because it leads us into some later clauses.

The clause provides for a system of police services agreements, which will act as the means by which the financial arrangements between the Authority and railway operators are calculated and set out. Police services agreements are contracts between the body that is responsible for a police force and an individual company that allows a police force to provide its services to the company.

The British Transport police undertakes the policing of the railways through a series of police service agreements. Those agreements are made between the Strategic Rail Authority and individual railway companies. The existing police service agreements have two functions. First, they serve as a financial agreement between the SRA and the railway company to allow the company to pay for the British Transport police services that it receives. Secondly, they enable the British Transport police to provide police services to the company. Most importantly, the agreements allow the British Transport police to police a company's property. That in effect provides part of the British Transport police's jurisdiction over railway property.

The system of police services agreements will be retained under our proposals, but they will be only financial agreements between the authority and the railway company. Providing statutory jurisdiction for the force under clause 29 will mean no longer having to rely on police services agreements to police publicly a railway property.

I think that there was some confusion about public service targets, which will be agreed between the

Department and the Treasury. The police services agreements are simply financial agreements between the companies and the British Transport police.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I seek clarification? The Minister said that under clause 31, the police services agreements mean that the force has the jurisdiction under clause 29? Does that change the way in which the BTP goes about its business? That question arises from one of the notes that the Minister helpfully clarified a moment ago. Will he repeat the relationship between the police services agreement in clause 31 and provisions in clause 29?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Nothing will change substantially. The hon. Lady asked what would happen if the relationship broke down, and we will cover that when we move on to clause 33.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The debate has been immensely helpful and shows why we should have the opportunity to hear about the clause from the Minister. I want to put down a marker to show why I am worried about the clause and why I shall return to the matter. We have established that the clause is necessary in order to develop and agree police services agreements. I do not want to pre-empt what I shall say about clause 48, but that clause will give great power to the Secretary of State to set the police authority a set of objectives for policing the railways during the financial year. The clause says that before giving such directions

''the Secretary of State shall consult . . . the Authority, and . . . the Chief Constable.''

It is curious that the clause omits a provision for any form of consultation with the railway industry, although the industry will be asked to pay.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I congratulate the hon. Lady on teasing some information from the Minister. Does she share my anxiety that we have not yet heard from the Minister a clear statement of why it is necessary to have such a complex and bizarre form of funding for one police service when all the Home Office police forces are funded directly through taxation? The businesses and members of the public that are served and protected by those forces are not expected to enter into such agreements. Why is there a different arrangement for the railways?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

One hates to put words in the Minister's mouth, but I am sure that the industry would say that the reason is that it is being asked to pay. That is the key difference between the BTP and the regular police force—the Home Office bobbies.

I would not want to admit to being over-anxious because that might make the Committee overly apprehensive and I do not want to take it down that path. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Bath. Part 3 of the Bill is deeply confusing. I am not an expert in this field, but if I find it confusing, the industry—and the parties to it—must find it equally so. Perhaps there could be an easier and clearer way of doing this?

The industry is a poor third party here. The Government are party to the agreement, as it has

been approved in writing by the Secretary of State, and the police forces are party to it, but the poor relation is the industry, the very companies which are being asked to pay for it. An alarm bell starting ringing for me when the Minister mentioned the sunset clauses of the 2001 Act. Those will be repealed only if there is a review, but how will Parliament be informed of that? I assume that we will not be informed of the detail of the police services agreements after the Bill has left Committee and become statute. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath that there must be a clearer and easier way of acting. At the end of the day, the buck stops with the train companies, and they are shabbily treated by the agreements.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I apologise for detaining the Committee. A sedentary comment from the Minister caused me to rise: he asked whether I was suggesting that the taxpayer should pay for the police? I am prepared to be convinced that police service agreements are the way forward in funding the British Transport police, but there is an onus on the Minister to make that case.

All other police forces are funded directly by taxpayers, and they provide the service of protection in their areas. The British Transport police protect members of the public that travel on our railways, and the employees of the railway companies. They are of benefit to the various train companies—train operating companies, rolling stock operating companies, Network Rail and so forth. The situation is unique. We expect those companies to employ their own police force, even though it serves the public at large.

The Minister asked if I wanted the taxpayer to pay instead? He may smile, but he knows that the taxpayer pays anyway, through the funding we provide to the train operating companies. We have recently seen the Government give an extra £58 million to one train operating company—Connex—in order to keep it going, and in addition to all the other sums that it has already received.

The taxpayer is paying already, and now has to pay through the complex mechanism of the Bill. Despite the Minister's claim to the hon. Member for Vale of York that matters are not changing significantly, they are changing dramatically. The railway companies' side of the deal has been removed. They cannot specify how policing takes place, nor the premises on which it will occur. The jurisdiction now given to the British Transport police is covered by earlier clauses.

What we now have is merely a funding mechanism. That is a significant change from the previous arrangements, and it is a complex arrangement. Why is it necessary to act in that way, rather than employing the arrangements used for all other police forces.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The Government's policy is that the British Transport police should continue to be funded by the railways industry. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Bath that the Government supports the British transport police indirectly through subsidy and funding for the industry. Obviously, the industry likes that method of funding, and is not keen

for change. That method has worked well for the last 10 years, and we understand the value of continuity. I would be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that a separate, discrete force, directly paid for by the taxpayer, would be more appropriate, although I know that he did not say as much. We think that the new arrangements are the most appropriate.

The services agreements will be drafted with reference to the objectives, plans and targets for policing. The train operating companies—which are, after all, private companies—will then learn what they get for their money. On the issue of whether there are similar arrangements for other forms of transport, other transport industries pay for policing. Airports do so, for example.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Compulsory police services agreement

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My next point follows on neatly from the issues raised by clause 31. Under clause 32, the Secretary of State may, for the first time, make it compulsory by order for a train company to

''enter into a police services agreement''

with the British Transport police. I understand that that is quite a significant change. For the first time, failure to enter into such an agreement will become a statutory offence. We are told that the company will be subject

''on conviction on indictment, to a fine.''

The fine may be small or large. It would help to have guidance on how the fine will compare with those for offences under existing legislation.

To my limited knowledge, there is no such provision for constables under the Home Office remit. The issue is greatly exercising the minds of train operating companies. Clearly, it is in their interests to enter into a police services agreement. The Minister will understand that the railway industry is under extreme pressure, even without the current increased terrorism threat security alert and, as I have mentioned, trains and stations are something of a soft target. Also, companies are undergoing significant refranchising negotiations, and if they do not negotiate a successful franchise, they will no longer be players.

This is a very difficult time for train operating companies, and I wonder whether it sends the right message to make failing to enter into an agreement a statutory offence. The industry put that argument to me; I am not a great expert in the field, and if the Minister were to contradict me, that in itself would be helpful. The industry's understanding is that the clause will create a new statutory offence that is subject to a civil penalty in the form of a fine. A large fine would

make it even more difficult for train companies to operate.

Perhaps the Minister can envisage circumstances in which it might be difficult for a train operating company to reach an agreement with the police. In what time frame do we imagine the train-operating company will have to come to such an agreement? I am sure that the Committee would find it helpful to know the philosophy behind that. I think that companies have had to enter into police service agreements in the past. Have there been particular difficulties? Have the Government experienced intransigence?

Last year's annual report does not appear to state that this has been a problem that the Government have had to tackle. I wonder what message that gives to the train operating company and its passengers—my constituents and me—about the circumstances that may arise or have arisen to create difficulties that would prevent the conclusion of such an agreement. I share the concerns of the industry and the train-operating companies about why it has been felt to be necessary to make this a statutory offence. How much time will be allowed? What has been the thinking behind this decision?

I cannot speak for the train operating companies, although Committee members will remember that I have an interest in First Group, which still has a franchise and some buses. I should not have mentioned that because, knowing the Minister, he will now ensure that it does not have a franchise.

The clause could prove regrettable, and I wonder whether the Minister would like to take this opportunity to justify it. I am unaware of any circumstances that have created difficulties in the past. Why do we need the clause? I cannot see how it takes us forward. It would be putting it too strongly to say that it is getting the backs of the industry up, but it is another little niggling thing for it to worry about at what is already a very difficult time.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Taken as a piece, clauses 31, 32 and 33 demonstrate the Government's thinking about how the British Transport police will be funded. When we debated clause 31, we discussed the British Transport police authority entering into agreements with various train operators and other industry bodies. Clause 32 states that the

''Secretary of State may by order''

require various categories of person to enter into such agreements. Why is the word ''may'' used? I am aware that that word is part of parliamentary language, but can the Minister confirm that even if it is correct in the context, ''may'' should be interpreted as ''will'' because everyone will be required to enter into such agreements? The various rail industry bodies might extend the details of their agreements and pay the British Transport police more for a gold-plated service, but they will in any case be required to offer the basic service, so ''may'' is a strange word to use.

The hon. Member for Vale of York shares my concerns about the unnecessary complexity of these

arrangements and has rightly asked why an offence has to be created in the way that is described. I wish to suggest an alternative way forward that would avoid that problem, and to ask the Minister why the Government have not followed that route. Would it not be possible to impose as a franchise requirement on, for example, a train operating body the requirement that it has a police services agreement? That would remove criminalisation.

When we start to think about it, the whole scheme seems to be nonsense. When we come to address clause 33, we will probably discuss the arrangements for arbitration by the Secretary of State in relation to disputes that may occur: through nobody's fault—simply because there is a need for arbitration to resolve a disagreement—there will be periods when a police services agreement is not in place, yet during that period I assume and hope that the British Transport police will still operate in the premises and vicinity of the train operating company that still has to finalise an agreement. The reality is that the British Transport police will continue to operate even on occasions when the PSA is not in place. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Clause 32 gives the Secretary of State power to make orders requiring certain railway operators to enter into police services agreements. Such operators will commit an offence and be subject to a fine if they provide railway services without having entered into an agreement. The British Transport police authority will be under a duty to take reasonable steps to facilitate compliance by those required to enter into police services agreements and the Secretary of State will consult with those on whom he is considering imposing a requirement before he imposes it.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the fine. It will be limited to the statutory maximum of £5,000 unless the company is convicted on indictment, when the fine could be unlimited. The fine is to ensure that the train companies take the need to enter into the agreement seriously. Of course, without that, the British Transport police could not be funded.

Let me clarify the point about the existing situation. At the moment the rail regulator cannot grant a licence to operate a railway asset unless the operator has a police services agreement with the employer of the British Transport police—that is, the Strategic Rail Authority. Any company that operates a railway asset without a licence—unless there are circumstances that exempt them—could receive a maximum fine under the circumstances that currently apply.

The hon. Member for Bath asks why it should be made an offence not to have a police services agreement via the licence? The simple answer to that is that it is already an offence. The hon. Member for Vale of York used the expression ''not to worry'' as advice to the train operating companies. There is no need to worry, because the situation has not changed materially—but the Bill must set that out clearly. She asks why that has to be enshrined in law and if there have been any difficulties with setting up the agreements. I do not know of any difficulties that have been created up to now, but she will appreciate

that the law has to anticipate every circumstance. As an advocate herself, the hon. Lady will know that the law has to look towards any circumstances that may arise in the future, and not restrict itself to those of the past. That is why the matter has been contained in the law.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Again, the clause stand part debate shows why it is important to tease out information from the Minister. I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Bath, but I am not convinced that the provision is necessary. It could amount to more than a niggle to the train companies. Under current circumstances, they pay for the British Transport Police and are the main beneficiaries of its work. The provision could lead to difficulties in relations between the British Transport police and train operating companies. The Minister dismisses that concern, saying that the law must have regard not only to what has happened in the past, but to circumstances that may arise in the future. I submit that we ought to wait until such time as that has become an issue; there is not an issue at the moment.

For the first time, we will have a situation in which an operator will be required to enter into a PSA and if it fails to do so, it will commit an offence if it then provides railway services as defined in clause 72(2). That is highly regrettable, and I think that we shall return to the matter.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I must be going deaf—the remaining 5 per cent. of the Under-Secretary's argument has not reached me yet. I have not yet heard an answer to my basic question. Arbitration under clause 33 could be lengthy, given that the matter could be taken to the High Court.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. The Committee is discussing clause 32.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

My point is that, during an arbitration period under clause 33, a PSA will not be in place, which is required under clause 32. Will the British Transport police continue to operate in those circumstances? I need a simple yes or no.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

As there is an obligation under the licence for a police services agreement to be in place, negotiations would take place before the company could operate. If the company were already in operation, a PSA would exist. If discussions were taking place about a new agreement, the existing agreement would hold until the new one came into force.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Arbitration by Secretary of State

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I want to tease a little more out of the Under-Secretary. He is wriggling in his seat, and I hope that that is not a sign of discomfort. We established, under clause 32, the potential for an offence. The explanatory notes from the Library state

that not all providers of rail services will be obliged to enter into such an agreement. However, providers such as London underground, Croydon tramlink, the docklands light railway and Eurostar will be obliged to enter an agreement. Presumably, a dispute for the purposes of clause 33 does not relate to the fact that a company has failed to enter into an agreement because, since that is a civil offence, it cannot be classified as a dispute.

Will the Under-Secretary clarify the nature of a dispute? How will the remit of the Secretary of State compare with his present remit? Clearly, he or a nominated person will have the power to give the party in dispute the opportunity to make representations? To what extent does Parliament have the power to oversee the work of the Secretary of State? Must we wait for the annual report to alert us to the fact that there has been a dispute? Is that the traditional way in which such disputes are dealt with? Will there be an independent body to which the parties could turn? We are told that if there were a dispute on a point of law, recourse would be made to the relevant court in England or Scotland. Will the Minister set out the current arrangements? What will be the exact remit of the Secretary of State? What power will we, as elected parliamentarians who have an interest in railways, have to oversee the Secretary of State to keep him on the right track?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Clause 33 refers to a dispute between the British Transport police authority and the person who has entered into a police service agreement. We are discussing an agreement that has already been reached, but over which there is a dispute about the way in which it operates. The problem is that I do not understand why the clause does not cover the problem of parties unable to reach agreement on the introduction of a police services agreement. If there is disagreement, how will such matters be handled? Do we simply rely on clause 32, which states that people must enter into an agreement anyway, and that if they do not like it, there is no opportunity to do anything about it?

Clause 32 suggests that people are required to enter the agreement whether or not they like the

''terms construction or operation of the agreement''.

Do they enter into it under clause 32 and then, under clause 33, immediately have a dispute about it? That would be bizarre.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Clause 33 provides for the Secretary of State to determine disputes relating to a police services agreement between the authority and the operator. The clause also provides a means of appeal to the courts on the Secretary of State's determination, but only on a point of law. That places in legislation the current informal arrangements for dealing with disputes involving the Strategic Rail Authority, as the employer of British Transport police.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether operators were required to enter into the police services agreement. Some operators might argue that

it is not essential to enter into the agreement—a freight depot employing its own security staff, for example. The Government would consult the operators before requiring them to enter into an agreement, but most are likely to be required to do so. The hon. Lady asked how disputes will be dealt with. They will be handled in exactly the same way as they are now. I emphasise that clause 33(1) is about

''the terms, construction or operation of the agreement''

and not about whether a person should enter into the agreement.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Bath, there is no question that operators should have to enter into the agreement. When a dispute about the terms has not been resolved after the police services agreement has been established, the Secretary of State, or someone appointed by him, would resolve the dispute.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I can see that the Minister is fed up with my pressing the point, and I apologise if I am offending him because I have no desire to do that. I merely seek clarification. It is clear that clause 32 may impose on a railway industry body the requirement to enter into a PSA. The

''terms, construction or operation of the agreement''

are subject to discussion between the various parties.

At the end of the day, however, the railway industry body has no choice and must accept whatever is put before it. Clauses 31 and 32 include no opportunity for arbitration if there is disagreement at the stage of trying to agree the details of the PSA. Am I right in thinking that, in those circumstances, people have a gun pointed at their heads and have no choice but to sign? They have met the requirement of having entered into the agreement and must then go through the arbitration procedure. Is there no mechanism for arbitration in reaching the agreement in the first place?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

No. There is no choice about entering into the agreement, but it must be approved by the Secretary of State under clause 31(2), which ensures that the agreement is not one-sided. If the parties have still not made an agreement, it is up to the Secretary of State to arbitrate formally, which is exactly what happens now.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The clause goes much further than we might think. Subsection (6) states:

''The Secretary of State or his nominated person''

may vary the terms of the police services agreement. That seems expensive. I listened carefully to the Minister and did not hear him say that we parliamentarians would be involved in the process at all. I do not seek to usurp the role of the Secretary of State—that would be beyond me. However, this is no small cheese that we are talking about. We are told that the policing costs will be split between Network Rail, train operating companies, independent train operators, open-access operators and London Underground. The British Transport police's annual budget was £125.8 million in 2001–02, which was the last full financial year for which we have figures. The train operating companies funded the lion's share,

paying £61.1 million. Railtrack provided £35 million and London Underground £30.9 million.

The clause is powerful and it has to be included for the reasons that the Minister set out, but I seek clarification on subsection (6)(b), which would vary the terms of the police services agreement. The worst-case scenario is that a train operating company would be put into a difficult position. It could be committing a civil offence under clause 32. It might enter into an agreement and find that under the clause the terms of the agreement are varied through the arbitration process. I seek further clarification from the Minister.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

There is not much more that I can add, although I say to the hon. Member for Bath that I am certainly not annoyed or even mildly offended by anything that he said. He was quite properly asking questions as he always does, and I am sure that he will continue to do so during our debates. In the event—albeit an unlikely event—of an agreement not being struck, there must be a final arbiter, which is the Secretary of State or a person whom he appoints to do that job.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York, the Secretary of State is accountable for all his actions through Parliament and he must account for them through all the means and methods that we have of bringing a Secretary of State to account. The clause provides the ability for any decision made by the Secretary of State to be judicially reviewed if it were thought to be unreasonable. If a party felt aggrieved, that further avenue is open for them to take the matter forward, should that be necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Police regulations: general

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I would hate to disappoint you by not rising to speak to the clause, Mr. Hood.

This is an expansive measure, which covers various substantive clauses that relate to the regulations of police forces. I understand that the Home Secretary has powers under the Police Act 1996 to make regulations by order regarding the Government's administration and the conditions of service of police forces. Those regulations relate to and make provision for rank, qualifications for appointment and promotion, probation and voluntary retirement, conduct and efficiency, including the maintenance of dismissal, suspension, maintenance of personal records, duties that are to be performed by members of the force and duties that they should not do, hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances, design and performance requirements of equipment provided or used for these purposes, and the issue, use and return of equipment.

I understand that the Home Secretary will also have powers to make regulations for the government, administration and conditions of service of special constables and cadets. I am sure that the Minister will

explain that the reason for the provision is that the regulations that the Home Secretary may make on regular police officers, the constitutional proceedings of the Police Federation of England and Wales and attendance at federation meetings, do not currently apply to the British Transport police. Presumably, therefore, the regulations are part and parcel of putting the British Transport police on a statutory footing—a codification and revision of legislation, which we welcome.

I understand, too, that the Strategic Rail Authority is regarded as an employer of the force. Again, it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Bath is not present because I know how close an interest he takes in the subject. He is lucky that he can slip out of the room.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Lady can go too.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am sure that the Minister would like that.

The clause demonstrates why the protocols are so important. We have heard from the Minister, even during this morning's proceedings, that the protocols are under discussion—no doubt as we speak. I would find it very helpful to see and consider the protocols. That would help us understand this complicated and technical part of the Bill. The SRA is the force's employer, yet as we have learned it is paid by the industry. The SRA as employer has in the past applied legislation to the British Transport police through devices such as conditions of employment and force general orders. Will the Minister confirm that those orders will lapse once the Bill becomes law, and be replaced by regulations drafted under the clause?

The first option outlined in the consultation paper was to amend the Police Act 1996, setting the British Transport police alongside Home Office forces for the purposes of the legislation. That option may have been attractive to the hon. Member Bath, although since he is still not with us, we do not have to worry too much about what he thinks. The second option was that the Department for Transport adopted a parallel role to that of the Home Office and by order made regulations on the British Transport police that were based on previous Home Office regulations.

The third option was to improve BTP regulations within the present process, amending them when required. The fourth and final option was to enable the British Transport police authority to make regulations reflecting Home Office regulations. It would be helpful to know why the fourth option has been chosen. Will the Minister confirm that the fourth option has been chosen because it will broadly duplicate the present position, substituting in legislation the British Transport police authority for the SRA as the employer? The clause therefore reflects quite a substantial change.

I assume that the Government will say that the switch of employer from the SRA, which applies regulations to the British Transport police, to the police authority, which will make regulations for its police force, represents a significant improvement in public accountability. The authority would become the BTP's employer and legislation could include a

requirement for the authority to make regulations for the BTP that are consistent with Home Office regulations, unless no regulations exist. How do the regulation provisions in the clause relate to Home Office regulations? Are they identical and, if they differ, will the Minister tell us in what ways?

I understand that an attraction of option four is that it would leave the British Transport police authority free to adapt Home Office regulations for the BTP as they are issued. It could be a requirement for the Secretary of State to confirm any regulations made by the authority before they come into effect, which would be a safeguard against the possibility that the authority's adaptation of Home Office regulations could lead to distortion. It is not immediately clear in the clause that the Secretary of State will be given the power of confirmation. Will the Minister explain whether the Secretary of State has the power to confirm regulations?

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bath has resumed his place, and I could go through the whole thing again for him—[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I hope that the hon. Lady is not checking her pager while she is addressing the Committee.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am trying to ensure that my pager is off, Mr. Hood, so that it does not distract the Committee.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am glad that the hon. Lady is keeping in order.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The hon. Member for Bath will also be interested to know that the clause transfers the employer formally. I hope that the Minister will confirm that my understanding is correct that the SRA will cease to be the employer and the British Transport police authority will become the employer. Will he clarify the implications of that change because I am sure that they will be extensive? It would be helpful to know whether the Secretary of State has the power to confirm the regulations in the same way that the Home Secretary has the power to confirm regulations for the regular police force? If the Secretary of State will not have the power, why did the Government decide not to allow him to confirm the regulations?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause replicates the Home Secretary's powers to regulate other police forces that are contained in section 50 of the Police Act 1996. As the hon. Lady said, they cover the government, administration and conditions of service of police forces. They include consideration of ranks, promotion, retirement, discipline, suspension, hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances, special constables and cadets.

Regulations made by the Home Secretary do not apply to the British Transport police. At the moment, the Strategic Rail Authority, as the force's employer, applies similar provisions to the British Transport police through other devices, notably its conditions of

employment and force general orders. In that way, the Strategic Rail Authority and the British Transport police have replicated the internal governance of the Home Office police forces. However, it is important to note that, in most instances, the Home Office regulations have to be modified to suit the needs of the British Transport police, because British Transport police officers, unlike Home Office constables, are and remain employees. I hope that that answers one of the hon. Lady's questions.

The Bill provides an opportunity to improve and regularise the position, and any solution should be simple to operate, without unnecessary bureaucracy. It should also demonstrate clearly that the British Transport police is a bona fide police force, subject to the same or equivalent police regulations that apply to Home Office forces. I hope that that covers another of the hon. Lady's points.

Our proposal was endorsed in the consultation process, and in the response of the Association of Police Authorities and the British Transport police and its federation. The clause will enable the authority to make the non-statutory regulations, which must be consistent with the Home Office regulations. They may differ from those regulations only to meet the specific needs and circumstances of the British Transport police. If the Home Office regulations change, it will be the authority's responsibility to ensure that the non-statutory British Transport police regulations change to fit it.

There was slight confusion on the issue of protocols that the hon. Lady raised. The rail accident investigation branch's protocols have nothing to do with the regulations made by the British Transport police authority. The hon. Lady asked whether the SRA would be the employer. The answer is no; the new employer will be the British Transport police authority.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I will, although the hon. Gentleman was not here for the discussion.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I apologise for that to the Minister and to you, too, Mr. Hood.

The Minister has rightly said that there will be a transfer of responsibility from the SRA to the new authority. Will he give some idea of the savings to the budget of the SRA as a result of the loss of that responsibility?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Funding essentially comes from the operators, so I do not think that there will be a change in the SRA's funding arrangement. The funding is just transferred through the customers. We shall refer to that later in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Vale of York also asked whether the Secretary of State would confirm the regulation. With that question, we are perhaps getting ahead of ourselves, because clause 38 in part 2 affirms that he will.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, and for giving us the background. That is very helpful. I am a little confused, but accept that that is entirely my fault; I do not attribute it to the

Minister. Can he tell me what the status of British Transport police constables will be under the new provisions? I think that the Minister said that Home Office-recruited constables are, and will continue to be, deemed employees. In the past, the British Transport police have been deemed to be employees of the SRA, but now they will be appointed by, and regulated under, regulations applied by the British Transport police authority. Are they therefore deemed to be employees of their authority, or self-employed? I might have misunderstood what the Minister said. Who will be their employers, and what will their status be?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We ought to clear this up, as the hon. Lady is talking about self-employment. Home Office constables are officers of the Crown; they are not employees in law. The British Transport police constables are officers of the Crown and, currently, employees of the SRA. Assuming that the Bill receives Royal Assent, they would then be employees of the British Transport police authority. That is how it has always been. There will be no change in the definition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. It has been brought to my attention that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) may be reading a magazine or a newspaper, and that is against Standing Orders. If he is, will he desist from doing so?Clause 35 Police regulations: special constables

Clause 35 - Police regulations: special constables

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I shall try to grip the attention of all members of the Committee, so that no one is minded to break your strictures, Mr. Hood.

Clause 34 does not apply to special constables or cadets, which is obviously why clause 35 was drafted. Will the Under-Secretary of States confirm that special constables will be recruited under conditions similar to those of their equivalents? I understand that specials are retained under different conditions and that most are voluntary. Presumably, that will apply to British Transport police as it does for Home Office-recruited special constables.

As we do to regular officers of the British Transport police, we owe our thanks to special constables of whom great demands are made. It is not a full-time occupation for them, but they put themselves at risk, especially in the present circumstances. I pay tribute to them.

I gather that the existing police force regulations may be modified. Can the Under-Secretary elucidate on the proposed modifications, or will it be left to the authority to determine them? How will the terms and conditions of the special constables differ from those of regular constables? I understand that, for the most part, they are voluntary. Is there any difficulty in recruiting specials? Many of us will support our regular police forces in their recruitment drive for special constables this weekend. Has the alarming

trend in the recruitment figures been reflected in the regulations?

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

My hon. Friend was correct to point out the shortage of special constables in the British Transport police. Apparently, there are only 68 of them. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State pays particular attention to their recruitment.

Clause 35(2) refers to the reflection of the structures and circumstances of the police force in the regulations. The guidance notes amplify that and refer to the special needs of the British Transport police in the making of regulations. Can the Under-Secretary explain a little about the structures, circumstances and special needs and about the regulations that he envisages making?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause replicates the Home Secretary's powers to regulate the conditions of service for special constables under the Police Act 1996. I, too, pay tribute to the work of special constables. They are few in number, but they provide an excellent back-up to the work of the British Transport police. The regulations must be consistent with Home Office regulations, and they may differ from those only to meet the specific needs of the British Transport police. If the Home Office regulations change, it will be the authority's responsibility to ensure that the non-statutory British Transport police regulations change to fit them. Unlike the Home Office forces, the British Transport police is a national specialist police force; its officers are employees of both the British Transport police authority and holders of the statutory office of constable.

Home Office constables, however, are only holders of the law, as we indicated in our debate on the last clause. The British Transport police are also funded by the railway industry, whereas Home Office forces are funded by direct grants from home Departments and local taxation. The draft legislation cannot be identical in every way to the Police Act 1996, but on the whole that is because of variations for technical reasons, rather than because of their effects.

I am not aware of particular difficulties with recruitment. There are presently difficulties with recruitment in many areas, but the effort is being been made to recruit the people who provide such a valuable service. I assure the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) that that will be reflected in our thinking and in the thinking of the British Transport police authority.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether the regulations would be the same for the specials—clause 35(1)(a) makes it clear that they would be the same.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Police regulations: cadets

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The subject of this clause is not covered by clause 34. Presumably, any difference in the regulations on the recruitment of cadets will relate purely to the fact that they have to be transported. I omitted to say that special constables are volunteers and that if they are travelling by train it may take them some time to get back. I do not know whether that poses a particular problem.

Is the Minister concerned about the recruitment of cadets and will the regulations reflect any potential difficulties? What has the trend been during the past five years? We welcome the way in which cadets are recruited by the police force. I mentioned that during the debate on clause 25, but it is equally significant in respect of this clause. It would be interesting to know the average length of service of those recruits. I assume that some may be as young as 16; perhaps the Minister could confirm that. What is the average number of cadets recruited every year, and what is the average length of service? I understand that regulations will limit maximum service to 30 years. That would mean that recruits could retire and look in comfort for opportunities elsewhere. Is that what generally happens, or do cadets tend to remain in post for only five or 10 years and then seek other employment?

I am mindful of the Minister's comment on a company operating a transport depot. Potters, based in my constituency, has two such facilities—one in Selby and one in Ely, near Cambridge. The Minister was clear that if such firms had private security for those sites, they would not be required to enter into a police service agreement. There is clearly a big and attractive market in private security firms for which people might leave the police service to earn higher salaries. Has there been a tendency to poach young cadets after five or 10 years?

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, the Minister said that there was difficulty in recruiting specials. Is there such difficulty in recruiting police cadets? If so, will that be reflected in any regulations that the authority would hope to make under the clause? How many cadets on average join the British Transport police, and what is their average length of service? I would imagine—I am guessing—that they would wish to stay in the force for the full 30 years.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I want to raise one issue, on which I am sure there is a simple answer. I should be grateful to find out what it is.

The clause and the preceding one make no specific mention of Scotland, even though the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 rather than the Police Act 1996 is applicable. I understand that the Government have tabled amendments to clauses 42 and 43 specifically mentioning regulations applying to Scotland. I wonder why there is no such mention in clauses 35 and 36.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Clause 36 replicates the Home Secretary's powers under section 52 of the 1996 Act to regulate the conditions of service for police cadets. It enables the authority to make non-statutory regulations for the British Transport police's cadets. They must be consistent with Home Office regulations; they may differ only in order to meet the transport police's specific needs. As I said in the previous debate, if Home Office regulations change, it will be the authority's responsibility to ensure that the non-statutory BTP regulations also change to fit as appropriate.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked a number of detailed questions about the present arrangements for cadets. I imagine that anyone who had been a cadet for 30 years would no longer consider themselves to be one. The job is mainly intended for younger people, so the idea of retiring after 30 years would not apply. One would have thought that they would before then have joined the main service or become a special. Perhaps I should have spared the hon. Lady the agony of asking all those questions, as the Committee will recall from the debate on clause 25 that there are currently no BTP cadets. We were therefore unable to make the comparisons that she sought.

Clauses 35 and 36 allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that will apply to clause 34. Clauses 42 and 43 allow us to make regulations under the 1996 Act. We will need to make it clear that they are UK-wide, which explains amendments later in the Bill.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but it does not answer my question. Why do clauses 42 and 43 specifically refer to their applying in Scotland when clauses 35 and 36, which also apply UK-wide, do not? The Minister will be aware that the Home Secretary does not have powers in Scotland to make regulations in relation to police matters.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I shall look at that matter in more detail and will take written advice. I would like to come back to my hon. Friend and give him a full and proper answer later.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - British Transport Police Federation

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The British Transport Police Federation has a key role in determining the morale of the police force. Police officers welcome the provisions relating to jurisdiction being placed on a statutory, rather than a contractual, footing. They believe that an independent authority will help to address perceptions of partiality, and of whether the force is too weak or too tough on the industry.

When we considered the previous clause on terms of employment, concern was expressed about the British Transport police becoming subject to increasingly demanding work, given the level of terrorist threat and security alert. We will be making more demands on them, and that will be important in our

consideration of the British Transport Police Federation's role. I referred to concern expressed by officers currently employed by the British Transport police regarding pensions. We have already debated that and can look at it further under the relevant clause.

What regulations can the authority make under the clause? In setting up the British Transport Police Federation, are the Government doing anything other than putting matters on a statutory footing and recognising that the British Transport police authority becomes the employer?

The welfare and efficiency of the British Transport police is a matter of great concern. Low morale is often reflected by people taking sick leave. When I first represented the Vale of York in 1997, the force there had one of the worst records of sick leave and early retirement of any in the country. I am pleased that the situation has changed because of a succession of chief constables. I must be getting long in the tooth as I am on to my third chief constable in only five years. I am speaking only for myself, Mr. Hood, when I say that the police seem to get younger, while we get older. We cannot underestimate the role that the federation will play. I am sure that the Minister will keep a watching brief on sick leave and early retirement, which are a significant drain on resources. In my own police force there are fewer operational officers than there are on deferred or actual pensions.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, especially in connection with sick leave. A comparative study could usefully be made between the British Transport police and other specialist forces, such as the Ministry of Defence police. The Minister may wish to know the reasons for any differences between the forces.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am told that that subject is risky territory because existing officers of the British Transport police believe that there is a likelihood of being linked to the Ministry of Defence police. My hon. Friend's comments are especially appropriate and perhaps the Minister will recall this more clearly, but I understand that the MOD police were rebuffed about two years ago when they sought wider jurisdiction in an appeal to the House of Lords.

Officers from the British Transport police would wish to record that they differ substantially from the MOD police, as we have already heard in our discussions on the Bill. Does the Minister agree that, especially following the passing of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, we are likely to make comparisons—wrongly, the Minister would probably say—with the work of the MOD now that British Transport police officers have been given extra jurisdiction?

The federation may wish to consider whether officers should be armed. They are not armed at present. As we know, they routinely inspect and police public areas, as opposed to MOD police who, by definition, inspect military bases. I understand that British Transport police train at Home Office rather than MOD establishments and are full members of the

Association of Chief Police Officers. We must be careful not to draw too close a comparison and it is not a path that I would seek to go down.

We are obviously conscious of the increasing terrorist threat. Has the Minister been approached by a representative of the British Transport police? I understand that they are all unarmed. Has there been a request in the past two years, especially since 11 September 2001, for certain members of the British Transport police to be armed? Clearly, from the public's point of view, it would be an alarming development.

Although I do not understand the terrorist or criminal mind, if we put all our efforts into securing airports and planes, by definition, we make railway stations and property more vulnerable. They will be perceived to be weaker targets. Have the Minister or his ministerial colleagues been approached by the federation or any serving British Transport police officer requesting a higher security presence?

Like the twin towers, Big Ben is our national symbol, and it is meant to put us at ease to see large numbers of police walking around in flak jackets and carrying semi-automatic rifles. I am not sure that seeing them when I come to my place of work has the desired effect. Obviously, if a missile is launched at us, I do not think policemen with flak jackets and machine guns will be of much assistance in defending either themselves or us. However, I can envisage circumstances imminently when it may be in our interest to consider such a request from the British Transport police. Their officers may wish to remain unarmed for the same reasons that the general police force wishes largely to be unarmed. I understand that the federation welcomes the statutory basis that lies behind the Bill, and its recruitment and employer changing. It welcomes that the legislation places the pay and conditions of the British Transport police within the regulatory framework that is governed by the Secretary of State as a helpful move to support the force to modernise and to achieve comparability with the Home Office police forces. I also welcome that because it must be good for the force's morale.

Circumstances can arise that dent the morale of the police force—for example, if someone is promoted who is deemed by their peers not to be eligible for such promotion, or if a member of the British Transport police is thought to have been disciplined incorrectly. Does the Minister have examples of such circumstances in mind? I can think of one example that we do not like to discuss in north Yorkshire. It led to a large pay-out—£1 million—to a lady constable in a town in the region. Therefore, I am aware of how greatly morale can be dented. It would be helpful to know that the regulations that we are told can be laid under clause 37 to set up the British Transport police federation are exactly the same as those that currently exist, or if there are any differences.

There is a concern in certain quarters of the British Transport police that the police authority might attract criticism in the future. The Metropolitan police authority made overtures that it would like to take over the policing of the London underground. I hope that the Minister will clarify today whether there

is any chance of that happening. If the British Transport police achieve an authority of their own that sets up a federation under this clause, does the Minister share its concern that it may attract criticism as a result of the fact that it has become the employer?

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

The federation is effectively the trade union for the British Transport police and it is always important that trade unions are consulted when legislation is brought forward. Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary say to what extent it has been consulted and whether there have been any sharp differences of view between what the federation would like and what the Government are proposing?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause establishes the British Transport police federation on a statutory basis and allows the authority to make regulations regarding the federation. These provisions are modelled on sections 60 and 61 of the Police Act 1996, which establishes the Police Federation of England and Wales. The purpose of the British Transport police federation will be the same as that of its Home Office counterpart. It will represent British Transport police officers in matters of welfare and efficiency, except in promotion and discipline matters.

The hon. Member for Vale of York referred to an individual case. It would be inappropriate for the federation to be involved in an individual disciplinary case rather than in general matters of welfare. That is the difference between the federation's role and that of the trade union.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) that the current British Transport police federation has been widely consulted on these matters. It is proper that they should be and I understand that it broadly supports the proposals that are being made.

The authority will be given powers to make non-statutory regulations concerning the British Transport police federation. As with other regulations, they must be based on the equivalent regulations made by the Home Secretary under powers in the Police Act 1996. They may only be different to meet the specific needs of the British Transport police. If the Home Office regulations change, it will be the responsibility of the authority to ensure that the non-statutory British Transport police regulations remain consistent. As with the main Police Federation, the British Transport police federation will be prohibited from being affiliated with other organisations unless the Secretary of State approves.

I am not sure whether, during the short exchange between the hon. Members for Westbury and for Vale of York, there was a suggestion that there might have been a merger of the British Transport police with the Ministry of Defence. It is an issue that has been raised occasionally. Perhaps the hon. Member for Westbury was alluding to the benchmarking of one authority against the other. However, perhaps it would be inappropriate for me to engage in that debate now.

The hon. Lady raised the matter of the excellent and demanding work of the British Transport police.

It undeniably plays a vital role in our transport system. As in all matters of criminality or terrorism, our transport system is vulnerable. She asked whether the British Transport police should be armed. At present, they do not have powers to carry guns and there are no proposals to change that. I am not aware of any proposal or approach by the federation to that end. The British Transport police can carry CS gas for use in appropriate circumstances.

I sympathised with the hon. Lady when she said that she has dealt with three different chief constables since she was elected. In the Home Office police force in my area, not only have we had three chief constables, but now I find that the new chief constable is considerably younger than me. That is of increasing concern when we have been in this place a certain length of time. Promotion and discipline in the British Transport police are based on the same procedures as in the Home Office police force and that will continue to be so under the Bill.

There was a question about the London underground area and how that will be tackled. The Government have been looking at ways to improve further the close co-operation between the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police in that regard. The merger of the British Transport police London underground area with that of the Metropolitan police authority was one of several possibilities explored in conjunction with the British Transport police, the Metropolitan police and Transport for London.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

At column 158 of the Hansard report of our deliberations earlier this week, the Minister of State sadly failed to give a direct answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about whether there were any proposals for the Metropolitan police to take over responsibilities currently carried out by the British Transport police. In the Minister of State's reply to the hon. Member for Vale of York, he said that discussions had taken place, but he did not tell us what the outcome was. Will the Under-Secretary confirm once and for all that it will not happen?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The outcome of those discussions was that there should be closer co-operation between the police forces in tackling crime on public transport and around other interchanges.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

There was one question that I omitted. I apologise to the Committee, to you, Mr. Hood, and to the Minister for that. In his helpful replies to my questions about the clause, he touched on the possibility of the Met and the British Transport police merging with regard to the London underground area. The question of airport policing has also been exercising the minds of the British Transport police. They have not given detailed consideration to the possibility of policing all airports, but they would argue that clear benefits could emerge from that.

The Wheeler report—I am not sure in which year that was adopted—identified shortcomings in the security arrangements at airports across the UK. The

report referred to the need to improve co-ordination, consistency and clarity. Perhaps, given today's activities at airports, it is appropriate to consider that in relation to the British Transport police's suggestion. A single police force with national responsibilities could assist in achieving the goals of the report and provide a simple mechanism for speedily implementing national policy.

Airports are transport hubs. In most cases, they are lucky enough to have train access. That is not true of Leeds-Bradford international and Teesside international airports, but I am making representations on the matter, and I take the opportunity to do so now. If the Minister has a little money left, it could perhaps be used on railway connections to those two airports. That would be helpful. Underground and mainline railways are often a key method of access to airports. Although there is good co-operation between the British Transport police, who police the railways, and the Home Office forces, who police the airports, it could be argued that a single force with overall responsibility would remove that boundary, which could result in different responses to threats in proximate geographical areas.

The geographical boundaries are often indistinct. There is direct access to Heathrow via the Heathrow express and the London underground, and to Gatwick via the Gatwick express. Airports pay for policing, and that is a substantial cost, particularly at present. The British Transport police are familiar with that commercial interface and operating environment. Have the Government considered whether a national police force would fit well with a national airports authority? I am just probing the Minister; I am not saying that the Conservatives are calling for that. I understand that the present arrangements are working extremely well, but I am mindful that we do not know whether the terrorist threat will concern an airport or rail access to it.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

There are no proposals for the British Transport police to work at airports. Obviously, there is an interface, as forces work in co-operation with each other. Of course, the British Transport police can police airports if they are requested to do so, as is provided for under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. However, that would not be the norm.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Regulations: approval in draft

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have a small, probing question. The authority can make regulations under clauses 34, 35, 36, and 37 only if a draft has been approved by three parties:

''(a) the Chief Constable,

(b) the staff associations, and

(c) the Secretary of State.''

I shall play devil's advocate for a moment. We have established that the British Transport police's funding comes from three sources; the cost is substantial. Primarily, the transport police are paid for by the train-operating companies. The rest of the funding comes from Railtrack and London Underground, which give broadly similar amounts. Would it be appropriate for those paying for the service to be consulted, or has that never been considered a good thing? Are there specific reasons why the Minister did not consider that? Does he feel that it would be inappropriate?

The hon. Member for Luton, North referred to the federation as a trade union. I have always considered it to be more than a trade union. I have enormous regard for the British Transport police federation.

Many of us had contacts with our own branches of the Police Federation during the recent pay review. I do not want to stimulate a great debate on the issue, but the federation plays an important role and it often faces rebuffs.

On clause 38(5), what is meant by staff associations, and how do staff associations—one hates to use the term ''trade unions'' in this regard—fit in with the federation? Being simple-minded, I would like to know the difference, for the purposes of the clause, between the police federation and a staff association. To get answers to those two questions would be helpful.

Have the Government ever considered that it might be appropriate to pass the regulation by those who provide the funding? In most circumstances, the body that provides the funding cannot technically be considered as the employer. I accept that the British Transport police authority will be the employer, but if the employer were the Strategic Rail Authority, I imagine that the industry might be consulted on the regulations. Will the Minister clarify whether it is a change, or whether it has always been the case? Will he also confirm what constitutes a staff association?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The previous clauses would provide the authority with the powers to make regulations for the administration of the British Transport police. Those regulations must be modelled on the equivalent regulations that have been made by the Secretary of State in respect of the Home Office police forces. The regulations will govern how the British Transport police operate internally. It is, therefore, essential that the chief constable, the British Transport police's staff associations, the British Transport police federation, the Police Superintendents Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers be consulted during the drafting process. The difference is that the setting up and role of the federation have been defined in the Bill. However, members can still join other associations if they are of the appropriate rank.

The regulations will require the Secretary of State's prior approval. In most cases we would expect the authority, the chief constable and the staff associations to reach agreement on the regulations. However, if there is a dispute between them, the Secretary of State will be able to allow the authority to dispense with the need to obtain the agreement of the chief constable and of the staff associations. Before he does that the

Secretary of State would consult the chief constable and the staff associations to ensure that they were both aware of the proposals. He would allow them to present their cases. We do not expect that facility to be used frequently, but it would be needed to unblock the process if a dispute arose.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked why the regulations in clause 38(2) should not be approved by someone from the industry. The industry is a member of the authority—it will have four members—and that body will bring forward the regulations. It would be curious if we went round in a circle and consulted the same people again. It would be inappropriate for the train-operating companies to be able to give any consent to the regulations, because those relate only to the police constables, to their rank, promotion, retirement and other arrangements. As they already have members on the authority, no purpose would be served by their having to give approval under this part.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary of State. He has been extremely helpful. [Interruption.] I welcome the Minister of State to our proceedings.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am sure that I did not miss anything.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister will be able to read the report of our proceedings.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am sure that the Minister does not intend to disrupt the Committee.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Thank you, Mr. Hood, for your guidance.

I asked a question earlier to which I did not receive a reply. If the Under-Secretary of State would find it helpful, I can remind him of it. He said that four members of the train-operating companies—the employers of the industry—will sit on the authority. The point that I am about to make means a great deal to those companies. Am I right that that number will decrease from four out of 11 to four out of 13, 15 or 17? That will be a significant reduction in their representation. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that that is worrying the companies, given that they are picking up the bill for such matters.

In the financial year ending in 2002, the figure was £126 million. The companies are not complaining about having to pick up the bill; they understand that they are beneficiaries of the service provided by the police. However, they are worried that their level of representation will decrease. That is a genuine cause of concern, and we have great sympathy with it. Will the Under-Secretary of State review the matter and ensure that the level of representation of the industry on the authority increases? The industry is funding the authority; it will run to a large amount of money out of its budget. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath is about to intervene and say that the companies are being subsidised by the taxpayer.

Mr. Foster indicated assent.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I did not want to put words into the hon. Gentleman's mouth. Now is a wonderful opportunity for the Under-Secretary of State to confirm that he will reconsider whether the Government got it wrong, and that the level of representation of the industry on the police authority should increase to five or six members out of 13 and more again if the authority membership increases to 17.

The Under-Secretary of State's remarks raised a further question. We have discussed the definition of the British Transport police federation and how that is set out under clause 37. Why are the staff association and the superintendents association not defined in the Bill? Is it because they are a movable feast? Are they not defined because they have not been so previously, or did the Government not think to define them? It would be helpful for everyone, not least for reasons of clarity, if the staff associations were defined, as the British Transport police federation is. I hope that he will give the Committee an assurance that the federation and the staff associations to which he referred will carry equal weight in the approval of the regulations.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The final subsection of the clause allows the Secretary of State to specify by order which staff associations representing the British Transport police should be consulted on the regulations. The British Transport police federation is formally established under clause 37, which we have just agreed. However, there is also the British Transport Police Superintendents Association, which mirrors its Home Office equivalent in functions and duties. That is not a statutory body, but the main superintendents association is recognised by the Home Secretary under the Police Act 1996, so the Secretary of State is likely to recognise the British Transport Police Superintendents Association.

The British Transport police federation represents the majority of constables and that is why that is in the Bill. Others represent a minority, and they are generally described as staff associations.

The hon. Lady asked about the number of representatives on the authority. The current figure is four out of nine. That will become approximately four out of 13 under the new arrangements. The hon. Lady asked if there could be any change to that—if we would review the balance. If we were to do that, there would also be a review of the balance of the others who are represented on the body.

The authority must balance the interests of those whom the British Transport police serve. They have a wider public policing role that impacts directly on rail passengers and the wider community. Passengers, freight customers and the taxpayer ultimately pay the cost of policing on the railways through fares and subsidy. Therefore, non-industry members will have as keen an interest as industry members in obtaining value for money.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Police regulations: direction to authority

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Why do we need clause 39? What purpose does it serve? It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State may direct the authority to make the regulations if they are approved. I would have thought that, by definition, the regulations would be made if they were approved.

Non-statutory regulations proposed by the authority will not differ unduly from regulations made under the Police Act 1996. If the authority is unable to reach agreement with the chief constable and the staff associations, the Secretary of State may direct the authority to prepare draft regulations. In those circumstances, clause 38(3), which we have just agreed, would enable the Secretary of State to permit the authority to dispense with obtaining the prior approval of the chief constable and the staff associations. If that is the case—I understand that it is—I have a difficulty with clause 39. I would have thought that it would be better for all concerned to get the approval of the chief constable. Perhaps this is why chief constables in our respective areas move on rather more rapidly than Members of Parliament in the constituencies that they serve.

I have difficulty with this clause, if it is correct that the Secretary of State will have the power to overrule any concerns of the chief constable, but also of the staff associations, including presumably the federation. I argue that the clause gives extensive powers to the Secretary of State. I hate to suggest that that could lead to a police state, but the chief constable and the staff associations may encounter tremendous problems if the Secretary of State is able to overrule them. Can the Minister envisage the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would be minded to overrule the concerns of the chief constable or the staff associations?

The morale and welfare of police officers could be severely dented if the Secretary of State had the power of direction. Can the Minister tell us what the circumstances leading to power of direction would be?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Clause 39 allows the Secretary of State to direct the authority to make regulations regarding the British Transport police. In exceptional circumstances it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to instruct the authority to draft regulations for the British Transport police. We do not envisage that that power will be used regularly. There may be rare occasions when the authority is unable or unwilling to make regulations but the Secretary of State believes it is important for them to do so.

Regulations have to be approved by the chief constable and the staff associations, as well as by the Secretary of State; that is set out in clause 38. The Secretary of State is ultimately accountable for the authority, and he must have the power to direct it under certain circumstances. Under clause 38, the Secretary of State can dispense with the need to reach approval with the chief constable and staff associations, but we do not anticipate that that would happen frequently and we would certainly need to consult on that issue first. I am unable to give a list of those circumstances. The clause is there in the rare event that that power should be required.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bath is not getting more exercised by this clause, given he is from a liberal background. I am now more alarmed than I would have been had the Minister not clarified the point. It would have been helpful for the Committee—and the British Transport police—to hear precisely what the exceptional circumstances might be. I am disappointed that the Minister failed to grasp my point that potentially it could pose problems for the chief constable and the staff associations to be overruled in that way.

The fact that the clause is included in the Bill tells the chief constable and the staff associations where they stand. It is a regrettable clause, and we shall monitor closely how it might be applied as the Bill progresses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Police regulations by Secretary of State

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My concerns about this clause are similar to my concerns about clause 39. Clause 40 enables the Secretary of State to make statutory regulations in relation to the British Transport police. We are told that the power would be used sparingly and only in certain circumstances, such as when the authority is unable to make the regulations itself. Again, it would be helpful to ask what those circumstances might be. Having considered clause 39, why do we need clause 40? I may be reading them incorrectly, but they seem remarkably similar.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee D

Clause 40 - Police regulations by Secretary of State

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. We shall have withdrawal symptoms from the rigours of scrutinising the Bill next week when we are in our constituencies.

Clauses 34 to 39 would provide the British Transport police authority with the power to make non-statutory regulations for the British Transport police. Those are similar to regulations under the Police Act 1996. We are told that any such non-statutory regulations would require the prior approval of the Secretary of State. I was saying before we adjourned that the concerns that I wish to raise in regard to clause 40 are not dissimilar to those I raised in relation to clause 39.

Clauses 40 to 43 would allow the Secretary of State to make statutory regulations in relation to the British Transport police that mirror regulations in the 1996 Act. However, the Secretary of State would be required to consult the authority, the chief constable and staff associations if such regulations were to be made. Again, we are told that the Government do not envisage that that power would be used widely; that was set out in the former Department's consultation paper, ''Modernising the British Transport Police''. The clause provides an enabling power to make statutory regulations. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in what circumstances the clause would be invoked.

We are told that the power would be used sparingly, perhaps in circumstances in which the authority would be unable to make regulations itself. I do not understand what those circumstances would be, because I am not terribly well versed in the workings of the British Transport police. It would be helpful to have some guidance in that regard. Would the Strategic Rail Authority make such regulations under present provisions? Is this provision similar to that which currently exists? It would be helpful to know what the relevant circumstances might be.

I understand that the regulations would override any incompatible non-statutory regulations that were made by the authority. Presumably, the clause is related to clause 39 and others; perhaps the Minister will explain what that relationship might be. There is clearly a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the authority, the chief constables and the staff associations. Presumably, under clause 39, the Minister will be in a position to confirm that, the

staff associations should take it as read that that consultation will also include the British Transport police federation. We are not involved in the consultation process. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what feedback he has had on the consultation, especially on the clause, from the British Transport Police Federation, the superintendents associations and the other staff associations.

The other related clauses set out what the nature of the regulations will be. Those regulations relate to the disciplinary procedures, equipment, procedures and practice of the British Transport police. I understand that the provisions are intended to mirror similar ones in the 1996 Act. What is the present situation? Would it be for the Strategic Rail Authority to make those regulations, or is the provision new? Is it consequential on the fact that, unlike the part-statutory, part-contractual basis for the British Transport police, the authority is being set up on a purely statutory basis? Does the clause replicate that?

It would be helpful if the Minister explained the relationship between the regulations under clause 40, and statutory regulations. I should perhaps note a difference, as clauses 38 and 39 relate to non-statutory regulations, and clause 40 relates to statutory regulations. I hope that the Minister will specify what the relationship is, and explain what the views of the respective bodies—the staff associations and the British Transport Police Federation—were at the time of the consultation paper.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. We are pleased, as always, to sit under your watchful eye.

The previous clauses provide a system whereby the authority can make regulations for the governance and operations of the British Transport police. Those regulations must be based on the equivalent regulations made by the Home Secretary, and have effect in respect of the Home Office police forces. The British Transport police regulations can differ from the Home Office regulations only when it is necessary to reflect the unique structure and circumstances of the British Transport police as a national railways police force.

By and large, the authority can, with the agreement of the British Transport police, create a modified version of the Home Office regulations that will apply to the force. The Secretary of State has the power to intervene and resolve any disputes in the unlikely event that the process breaks down. The Police Act 1996 established a system whereby the Home Secretary can make regulations for police forces, and it is important that that ability is retained in respect of the British Transport police.

There may be occasions when it is necessary for the Secretary of State to make regulations for the British Transport police, and it would be inappropriate for the authority to make them. For example, the Home Secretary has used his equivalent powers to amend the Police Regulations 1995, SI 1995/215, which provide the primary regulations for Home Office police forces. It may not be appropriate for the authority to

duplicate all those regulations and apply them to the British Transport police. Instead, the Secretary of State would use his general powers under the clause, and specific powers under clauses 20 to 22 regarding British Transport police senior officers, to reproduce the existing Home Office regulations and apply them to the senior staff of the British Transport police.

The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about the staff associations mentioned in clause 40(4)(c). The meaning of the term is set out in section 38, which we discussed this morning. I hope that that clarifies matters for the hon. Lady. She asked about the Home Office regulations. Those regulations are applied to the British Transport police through a mixture of conditions of service—partly made by the SRA, as the BTP's employer—force general orders, and the chief constable. That will change once the Bill comes into force.

The hon. Lady asked about the feedback from staff associations on clause 40. I am aware that the British Transport police federation's response to the consultation was to welcome the proposals. I am informed that the superintendents associations also agreed with the proposals.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister may answer my question in our discussion of clauses immediately following this one, or perhaps it is so blindingly obvious that I cannot see it, but what is the difference between the statutory regulations and the non-statutory regulations under clause 38? The Minister clearly said that the BTP regulations can differ from the Home Office regulations only when it is appropriate to reflect the differences of the transport police. Bearing in mind the SRA regulations, can the Minister give us an example of the circumstances in which the regulations in clause 40 would apply?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We cannot predict the circumstances, but a good example would be when regulations are needed in relation to the disciplining of the chief or another senior officer in the BTP. It would be inappropriate for the authority, which is also the employer, to make regulations on a matter of such sensitivity. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to make those regulations. The hon. Lady will be aware that the statutory procedures that the Secretary of State introduced would be subject to parliamentary procedures.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Regulations: further appeal

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister used a helpful example in his explanation of clause 40. For the purposes of clarification, can he confirm that clause 41 relates specifically to disciplinary procedures? He said that the Secretary of State is being given the power to

make regulations in relation to disciplinary procedure. That is not immediately clear from the Bill. The clause refers to regulations being able to

''confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal.''

If jurisdiction is conferred on a court, that would presumably come under one legal basis—perhaps the Police Act 1996. However, if jurisdiction is conferred on a tribunal, I presume that it would be on a different legal basis. What legal basis would that be?

Which disciplinary tribunal would handle disciplinary action against a senior officer? Does the provision relate primarily or exclusively to disciplinary procedures? What legal basis would confer jurisdiction on a court or a tribunal, and what would be the implications of those two decisions? Presumably, if it were a serious disciplinary offence, the court could hand out a more severe penalty and possibly pass sentence. However, if the jurisdiction were conferred to a tribunal, would the penalty incurred be lower?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The previous clause provided a system whereby the authority could make regulations for the Government's operation of the British Transport police. Generally, the authority would be able to take the Home Office regulations and, with the agreement of the BTP, create a modified version for the force. If necessary, we have the powers for the Secretary of State to intervene if appropriate.

Clause 41 mirrors sections 50 and 84 of the Police Act 1996, which provide for the Home Secretary to make regulations for the process of disciplinary appeals. The Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 establish procedures for cases in which a member of a Home Office police force may be dealt with by dismissal, requirement to resign, reduction in rank, fine, reprimand or caution. As with regulations for police equipment, it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to make the regulations than the authority.

Clause 41(2) could cover a disciplinary offence, but not exclusively; a tribunal such as an employment tribunal might be involved and would handle the matter in a different way from a court.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for that clarification, but I am still at sea regarding the legal basis. Does the Minister propose to draft such a regulation? Is there an existing regulation in force applying to industrial tribunals generally? Is there a tribunal relating to police disciplinary matters? When the hon. Gentleman clarified the matter when we debated clause 40, he referred to ''primary regulations'', as used by the Home Secretary when making regulations for police forces. Will he clarify for the Committee the status of a primary regulation, as opposed to a secondary regulation?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

It would be the regulation that the Secretary of State makes under section 41(1).

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Equipment regulations

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in

clause 43, page 18, line 15, at end insert

'(including in relation to Scotland)'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments No. 38 to 40 and 45 to 47.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The amendments ensure that the provisions in the Bill are clear regarding their application to the British Transport police in Scotland. Clauses 42 and 43 allow the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the equipment used by the BTP and procedures and practices of the force. The regulations will ensure that the BTP conforms in those areas to other local police forces and can play a full role in the British police service. In particular, the clauses aim to facilitate co-operation between the police forces and joint operations.

Amendment Nos. 37 and 38 confirm that the regulations made under powers in the Police Act 1996 will have effect with regard to the British Transport police force throughout Great Britain. The 1996 Act also requires Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to inspect and report to the Secretary of State on the efficiency and effectiveness of all Home Office police forces. Clause 60 now provides for the BTP to be inspected as a statutory duty by her Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

Previously, the British Transport police have not fallen under the statutory remit of the inspectorate, but every three years the BTP committee has invited the inspectorate to undertake detailed assessments of the operational performance and organisation of the transport police. The same standards used for Home Office police forces have been, and will continue to be, applied.

The inspectorate in England and Wales will continue to be responsible for inspections of the BTP as a whole. However, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland will be given a statutory duty to inspect the BTP and report to the Secretary of State in so far as the BTP operates in Scotland. The main difference between the BTP and the Home Office police forces will be that the authority will meet the full costs of the inspections. That is in line with other non-Home Office police forces, such as the Ministry of Defence police force, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary and the Isle of Man police force. Inspections of Home Office police forces are centrally funded by the Government.

Amendment Nos. 39 and 40 ensure that, for inspections of the BTP in Scotland undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, the authority pays Scottish Ministers, not the Secretary of State. That is because the constabulary is funded by Scottish Ministers.

I come now to amendments Nos. 45 to 47. There are numerous references to the British Transport police in current legislation, such as the Police

Reform Act 2002. They are listed under schedule 5. The references often refer to the BTP as a body that was established under the British Transport Commission Act 1949. The Bill gives a new statutory basis to the BTP and repeals the provisions creating the BTP in the 1949 Act. The schedule ensures that the references in current legislation to the BTP and the 1949 Act will be treated as references to the British Transport police force as established under part 3. It provides continuity.

Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 repeal changes made by the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 to the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, so that its impersonation offence applies to British Transport police constables. Similar and indeed wider provision for that offence is made under clause 65(2). The offence will now therefore apply to special constables, too, and to British Transport police constables in Scotland.

Amendment No. 47 ensures that references in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 to the British Transport police are treated as references to the police force established under the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister said that the amendments would repeal provisions of earlier Acts and consequential amendments to those Acts. Amendment No. 40 covers the position in which an inspection is carried out by inspectors. Can the Minister confirm that the Scottish Executive will appoint the inspectors? What will be the relationship between the Bill and the orders that can be made under clause 42? Will they be the preserve of the Government as opposed to that of the Scottish Executive? Why were the amendments tabled? Were such proposals an oversight on the part of the Government when the Bill was drafted? During the consultation period, why did no one bring such matters to their attention? Labour Members touched on such issues in earlier proceedings.

The Library contains a useful book entitled ''Devolution'' in the series ''Modern Legal Studies'', which was written by someone who was a good friend when I was at university. However, as our political differences have grown over the years, we are not in such close contact now. The book elucidates some areas in which there is a distinct lack of clarity. It states:

''Both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have the power to make laws termed, in both cases, Acts. Neither the Scotland Act nor the Northern Ireland Act provides a definition of this term. Nor does the legislation define the term 'laws'.

Apparently that is unsurprising as there is no definition of either term in United Kingdom constitutional law. I should have remembered that from when I studied constitutional law at Edinburgh university. It goes on:

''However, a generally acknowledged distinction is drawn between primary legislation adopted as Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament following 'a series of stages prescribed by Parliamentary Standing Orders' and subordinate legislation (also termed secondary or delegated legislation). Subordinate legislation is defined in the Interpretation Act, 1978 as meaning 'Orders in Council, orders, rules, regulations, schemes, warrants, bye-laws and other instruments made under any Act'. A more general definition

can be given as legislation 'drafted by government departments under rule making powers conferred on a Minister by an Act of Parliament'.''

There is a lack of clarity about what constitutes an Act of Parliament and what constitutes a regulation under that Act of Parliament. Would an Act of Parliament passed by the Scottish Parliament be subordinate to any Act of Parliament or regulation passed by the Westminster Parliament? It would be useful if that were clarified before we go on to discuss the content of the clause. Given that the Government took considerable time over the drafting of the Bill, why have they come forward at such a late stage with these amendments?

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I had intended to intervene on the hon. Lady to ask her to explain succinctly what she was getting at, as I failed to follow her point during her lengthy speech. Can she briefly tell the Committee what is her point?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I thought that my point was clear.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Hear, hear.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Perhaps the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) could explain it to us all.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This is the point: in the context of the Bill, concern has been expressed about the status of certain regulations, orders and Acts proposed by the Scottish Executive and passed by the Scottish Parliament, compared with Acts and regulations or orders made under Westminster legislation—such as that before us, once it becomes enacted. I seek concise and succinct clarification on that.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

My earlier queries were not designed to question the authority of the Scottish Parliament to make laws. It is clear that it can make laws: that is stated in the Scotland Act 1998. My queries were about the relationship between that and this legislation. Why is the hon. Lady concerned that the Scottish Parliament could override this legislation? I cannot see how it could do that.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We come back to the point that has been made by hon. Members of different parties on several occasions. There is a lack of clarity in the Bill. That is demonstrated by the Minister of State's amendments to the clause, which address what is devolved and what is reserved.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) understands the situation clearly enough, I put it to him that as learned a lady as Professor Burrows has elucidated and made a thesis of this lack of clarity, which is why I read that passage from her book to the Committee.

If the House of Commons passes the Bill, I am worried that the powers provided by the amendments will lead to less clarity. The relationship between the Scottish Executive and the House is not entirely clear. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some clarification.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

That was mildly interesting, although I am not sure whether it was helpful in the context of the amendments, which address important but relatively mundane matters. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Scotland Act 1998 makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament cannot make legislation in reserved areas—those are for the Westminster Parliament. For the sake of clarity, we are talking about matters with which the Secretary of State is able to deal. I should make it clear that the inspection in Scotland will be carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, which is appointed by Scottish Ministers. A debate on the constitutional niceties is interesting, but it is not especially germane to the amendments and their effect on the operations of the British Transport police.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

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.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, 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.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

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

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.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I referred to incapacitant sprays, which I assume includes CS gas, although not all incapacitant sprays are CS gas.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The Bill does not cover airports.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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

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.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

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.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

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.

Clause 43 - Regulation of procedure and practice

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I draw attention to the co-operation of the British Transport police with other police forces. I think that the London underground is policed by the Metropolitan police or is that the preserve of the British Transport police?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The London underground is policed by the British Transport police. It is a major part of its operation.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Is the Minister aware that the British Transport police might want to link up with the Metropolitan police? If he and his colleagues were to learn that that was the case, what would be their view?

If the Secretary of State were to be minded to make regulations under the clause, can the Minister confirm that they would simply transfer the legal basis established by the Police Act 1996 and the responsibilities of the Strategic Rail Authority to the British Transport police authority?

Earlier, we tabled an amendment to make it clear that references in the Bill to the police force refer to the

British Transport police force. I assume that that is the case in clause 43(2)(c).

I did not make it up when I said that the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police might be interested in collaborating across certain geographic boundaries. With regard to jurisdiction, the geographic boundaries are becoming blurred. The Bill could clarify that matter, or if it already makes things clear, the Minister may wish to explain how it does so.

Most people use railway links to access an airport: there is no longer a regular bus service to Heathrow. It would be possible to clarify further the relationship between the respective police forces to allay current concerns. Does the Minister see no cause for concern in the blurring of their distinct jurisdictions and responsibilities? Under clause 43, would the Government consider introducing a regulation that specifically sets out the relationship between the respective forces?

This is the most graphic description of the problem that I can think of: I witnessed a theft at Brussels airport after which the thief exited the airport by rail and returned to the centre of Brussels. I think that the Minister can see what I am driving at. If a similar incident were to occur at a London airport—or a worse offence, such as a terrorist attack or a sexual assault—would the airport police be allowed to pursue the perpetrators on to the rail link that takes them back into the centre of London under the current legislation, or would regulations be required?

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The hon. Lady must turn her mind away from airports as much as she possibly can.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Thank you, Mr. Hurst, for that stricture.

I hope that the point that I am trying to make is sufficiently clear: police forces will cross each other's jurisdictions and clarity is required. Does the Minister think that there is sufficient clarity in the present proposals?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

It has been alleged that an alliance has been developing between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats during the Committee stage. I regret that I created a small schism among us by voting in opposition to the hon. Lady a few moments ago. I fear that that schism will grow slightly in view of the hon. Lady's recent remarks.

We debated in some detail this morning the possible takeover of the work of the British Transport police in policing the London Underground. That matter is directly relevant to the clause, which relates to the question of inter-force co-operation. Perhaps it would have been easier to have left the matter alone. I thought that we had had a clear assurance from the Under-Secretary that the issue had been considered, that a decision had been made that no takeover would take place and that there was to be growing co-operation between the two police forces. It might be helpful if that were repeated and put firmly on the record.

During lunch, it was drawn to my attention that a transport scrutiny committee of the Greater London

Authority has, in the last few days, proposed that the Mayor should consider making a proposal on such a takeover. It will consult the Government in due course. It would be helpful, and it might save the Mayor a lot of time, if the Minister could put it on the record that were the Mayor to bring that forward, the Government would rebuff him firmly. However, the issue of inter-police co-operation is important in transport matters.

The hon. Member for Vale of York raised some interesting points about co-operation between the Metropolitan police authority and the British Transport police, between the Metropolitan police authority and the airport police and between all three forces. We could go further. I have been impressed by what I have learned about the work that the Metropolitan police are doing to try to reduce crime on 25 selected bus routes in London. That stems from work to which the Government committed themselves after their attention was drawn to the increasing problems and dangers faced by bus drivers. The issue of co-operation draws into stark relief the rather peculiar situation of all the modes of transport—air, bus, tube and railway—being dealt with by the different police forces that are assigned to them. The clause is important because it enables those bodies to co-operate. I was pleased on behalf of British Transport police to hear from one of the officers who worked on the London buses project. His firm view was that the British Transport police are better equipped, better qualified and better trained to carry out that work. Praise should go to the BTP for that.

We support the clause, and we hope that the Minister will say clearly that any talk of a takeover of the British Transport police's work on the London Underground can be got rid of, dispatched and forgotten because it is not going to happen.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

In answer the hon. Lady's question about the rights of police to act in various circumstances, protocols issued under Home Office circular 25 of 2002 make explicit how and when BTP and local police constables should act.

I understand that my colleague the Under-Secretary dealt with the matter of British Transport police and the Metropolitan police this morning. I reiterate that the Government have been looking at ways to improve the already close co-operation between the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police.

The merger of London Underground with the Metropolitan police was one of several options explored in conjunction with the British Transport Police, the Metropolitan Police and Transport for London. The Government have certainly been pleased with progress towards operational integration made this year and with the closer co-operation achieved between police forces. We are considering the situation and neither ruling out nor pursuing any particular option. Of course, in the event that any changes were proposed, such as in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), by the GLA or by Transport for London, they would be subject to wide consultation with all interested parties. Those would include not only the bodies that I mentioned but rail industry passenger groups, policing agencies and

groups outside London that have a considerable interest in policing in London, as well as in the British Transport Police nationally.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Clearly, this is a matter for debate because we have stimulated the hon. Member for Bath into pursuing it.

The Home Secretary briefly referred to the Wheeler report in his statement in the House in response to the urgent question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). This is an area for continuing debate. The hon. Member for Bath disclosed his understanding that the GLA had already gone some way down the road, so the Government should have a view. I am unsure whether the Minister answered the hon. Gentleman's question about what would happen if the Mayor, whose office is coming up for election in the not-too-distant future, were to propose such a change in jurisdiction, requiring a different police force to take over.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Minister did not give us the clear ruling out that I hoped for. Perhaps it would help the Committee if the hon. Lady joined me in supporting the argument that such a move would not be sensible. Were she to do so, she could be confident in the knowledge that the net effect of a similar move in New York was that fewer police patrolled the New York underground than had done before the merger. For the sake of the travelling public, I am sure that she would want to support me in arguing that the move should not take place.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Had the hon. Gentleman been so moved to join me and my hon. Friends in rejecting the dreadful amendment that we considered earlier, we might have had a more open mind towards his attractive proposal. I understand that the issue exercises the various police forces. It is obviously also of interest to the GLA and to the present and future Mayors of London.

I have tried to raise the issue that has been put to me—I am sure that it must also have been put to the Minister and his colleagues—that difficulties arise where there is potential for different responses in geographically proximate areas from which railways access airports. I hoped for some reassurance from the Minister. If he is saying that the regulations will provide clarification, that is helpful. This has been a useful debate, to which we may wish to return in the context of the Wheeler report and any recommendations made by the GLA.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

It is rare for the Government to rule out the possibility of future organisational change. I am unsure what position the Liberal Democrats on the GLA take on the issue—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Bath would enlighten me.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I shall help the right hon. Gentleman with pleasure. When I made my comments about the GLA, I should have pointed that the committee that made the recommendation is chaired by a Liberal Democrat, Lynne Featherstone. However, the Liberal Democrats do not have a majority on that committee,

and I understand—if I am incorrect in this, I will inform the Minister as soon as I know it—that the Liberal Democrats on the committee did not support the recommendation, even though the chair is Liberal Democrat.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

She obviously did not see fit to resign over it. [Laughter.]

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Code of practice: authority

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Under-Secretary may be able to help us. What is the situation regarding the Strategic Rail Authority? Does a code of practice exist? [Interruption] During the extensive consultation period—the results of which I have not had the opportunity to analyse in great detail—were extensive comments made on the code of practice? Is having a code of practice for the authority a new idea, or is it standard practice?

Were the majority of comments favourable to the idea of a code of practice, or were concerns expressed? I note that there are only two codes of practice, and we will consider the second one shortly. What opportunities has the Secretary of State had to review how extensive any present code of practice would be? Is it envisaged that there will be any limits to the Secretary of State's power in developing such a code? Who will monitor it? Will it be the Secretary of State?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The Home Secretary may issue a code of practice concerning local police authorities in the discharge of their functions. For example, a code of practice currently exists regarding financial management in Home Office police authorities. The clause applies that code to the British Transport Police authority.

The British Transport Police authority is slightly different from other police authorities, reflecting its responsibility for a specialist railways police force funded by the railways industry. The financial base of local police authorities is rooted in local government, so it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to modify any code of practice issued by the Home Secretary under subsection (3) before it is applied to the British Transport Police authority.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to issue his own code of practice to the authority. That may be necessary because of differences between the British Transport Police authority and local police authorities, particularly the links that local police authorities have with local government structures.

Under subsection (1), a specific code would be issued to the British Transport police authority only if it were necessary in unusual circumstances. It would

normally be the case that the code as set out in part 3, which would be the modified code of the Home Office, would be that which would apply. Therefore, the code would come to the House only if the Secretary of State took the power to issue it.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that clarification. He used the expression ''unusual circumstances''. It would be helpful to have clarification, because it is much easier to deal with specifics, rather than vague descriptions of what may be usual or unusual. What may seem unusual to the hon. Gentleman may seem perfectly normal to me. Words such as reasonable, normal, and usual take on different concepts and meanings. We are now reaching the core of the code of practice.

The four representatives of the industry out of the nine who sit on the current authority reflect its funding. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which parts of the industry are represented and which parts are not? For example, does Network Rail have a representative? Do the train operating companies have one, or more than one representative, and does London Underground have a representative?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman said about how the Home Office rules on financial management apply to local authority arrangements for funding local police forces. The code of practice will be different only in so far as it relates to a transport police force. I should be interested to hear how the code of practice will apply to the authority. Who are the current representatives from the industry? Does the Under-Secretary envisage any change to the authority's composition, bearing in mind that it will have only four representatives of the industry.

I think that I understand the point that the Under-Secretary made about the code of practice, in that it will differ only in so far as it relates to a different police force, but can he be more specific about how that difference will be reflected in the code of practice? Which parts of the code of practice relating to a local police force would not apply to the transport police?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

As I said, the different financial arrangements with local authorities that would relate to the transport police would be one example. The hon. Lady asked for specific examples when the Secretary of State may issue his code of practice under part 1. It is difficult to be specific in the Bill. It would happen when it was thought that the code of practice that was issued under part 3 was inappropriate. We do not anticipate that that method would be used readily. When the code of practice was inappropriate, the Secretary of State would have that fall-back position.

I did not respond to two points that the hon. Lady made in her previous contribution. She asked whether there was a code under the SRA. No code operates under the present arrangement. She asked about consultation. No concerns have been expressed about it. I hope that I have cleared up the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Code of practice: Chief Constable

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I think that I heard the Under-Secretary say that the provisions of this clause are similar to those in clause 44, although this clause goes further in some respects. I wonder about the extent to which the code of practice already applies to the chief constable. The Minister did not help me much on that matter in his previous reply. Perhaps he would like to send me a letter, if that is in order, to say who the representatives on the authority are, as that would be helpful. However, I know that we have moved on, so I do not know whether that would be appropriate.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am here to be helpful to the hon. Lady. The members of the BTP committee are a chairman, appointed by the Strategic Rail Authority, two people appointed by train operating companies, one person from Network Rail, one from London Underground Ltd., one from a rail passengers committee, one from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and two independent members.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for the clarification. It is disarming that the Under-Secretary is so charming and can so easily find the right piece of paper at the right moment. I shall perhaps in future quote him on what he said about being there to help.

I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can satisfy me as to whether the clause simply transfers a code of practice that existed under the SRA to the BTP committee, or whether it goes further. I fear that it may go further in some regards. As one might expect, I warmly welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will have to lay any code or revision made under the clause before Parliament. I sometimes suffer from short-term memory loss, and this may be one of those occasions, but I have not, in the short time that I have had the privilege to serve in the House, ever noticed a code of practice being laid before Parliament. I wondered what the procedure would be. Would it be introduced by statutory instrument, and if so, would a negative or affirmative resolution procedure be used? It would be of great interest to Opposition Members to have the opportunity to consider any such code. It is extremely important that chief constables, whether of our local police forces or—more relevantly, under the Bill—of the British Transport police, know the code or rules within which they are operating.

Given that we debated the matter this morning, and given the statement made by the Home Secretary this afternoon, it is particularly pertinent that the laying of such a code of practice before Parliament would especially apply when anything in the publication might be considered to be against the interests of national security. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can be a little more specific. He will obviously have detected that the level of security for a form of transport infrastructure that you do not wish me to refer to by name, Mr. Hurst—the Under-Secretary will, I think, have grasped which type—was

a source of great concern to us. Conservatives, led by the shadow Home Secretary, were disappointed that the Government did not voluntarily field a Minister, preferably the Home Secretary, to come and inform us of that.

Being of a nervous disposition, I think that it always puts one's mind at rest if one knows before embarking on a flight—or, obviously, train journey for the purposes of this Bill, Mr. Hurst—whether there is a threat to national security. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary will put our mind at rest. The Secretary of State may be minded to make an oral or written statement on the matter, instead of making it the subject of a statutory instrument. I do not know whether members of the Committee have had experience of the way in which a code of practice works, but it is alarming to think that it could prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, or the prosecution of offenders. I am not sure how such a situation could arise, but I would feel somewhat alarmed if that were the case.

It would be highly preferable that a person's safety was not put in jeopardy. Will the measures envisaged in the clause relate to individuals going about their business on trains or in a railway station, or to the safety of a serving police officer? The Minister has been so helpful this afternoon and it would enable us to have a better understanding of the clause if he could provide such information. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will, as set out in clause 45, lay before Parliament the revision of such a code of practice. I should like to know what procedure will be used, for the benefit of my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom have been around for longer than I have in this place. We await the Under-Secretary's response with bated breath.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I have been beguiled by the hon. Lady's words this afternoon and I shall try to respond to her in kind. The Home Secretary may issue a code of practice concerning the discharge of functions by chief police officers. The hon. Lady asked about the provisions of the code for chief constables. They are brand new and have only just come into force.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am sorry to interrupt the Under-Secretary, but will he tell us which Act or order the new provisions were made under?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I shall certainly do that. I shall complete my point and then return to the matter.

The clause will apply the code to the chief constable of the British Transport police, but with modifications to suit its needs. If necessary, the Secretary of State may issue a code solely for the British Transport police chief constable. It will ensure that the specific circumstances of the British Transport police can be taken into account, but it would be used only when the existing code could not be applied, as modified, to the British Transport police chief constable or when it would be appropriate to do so.

The provision for the Home Office chief constables was introduced into the Police Act 1996 by the Police Reform Act 2002. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is so busy writing that she did not hear me saying that.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am writing down what the Under-Secretary is saying.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I apologise to the hon. Lady. She is paying far more attention to matters than I thought.

No codes of practice are being issued, but it is expected that codes on health and safety and the use of force will be issued in draft later in the year. As for where they will end up, changes will not be made to primary or secondary legislation. The codes will be put in the House of Commons Library, as are many announcements made by Secretaries of State. Because no change will be made to legislation, it would not be appropriate for them to be dealt with by the statutory instrument procedure.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was hanging on the Under-Secretary's every word. To use marketing speak, I am delighted that we heard it here first. The Government will be mindful of the fact that they might have to tweak the code of practice for the transport police.

I was very interested to hear about the mechanism that will be used. The Under-Secretary is right—we would expect that, because he is so well briefed and rehearsed—that Ministers and Secretaries of State frequently simply place things in the Library. Perhaps that is why I find myself fixed almost permanently in the Library, because if one is not there on a particular day one might miss something. Documents mysteriously appear and disappear from various desktops. The Library has four rooms, plus a fifth reference room.

I make a plea to the Under-Secretary. He said that the Government would not propose to change primary or secondary legislation. However, my hon. Friends and I urge the Government to go a little further and use the new mechanism of written statements, although the official Opposition did not welcome the mechanism as warmly as the Government would have liked. That would be helpful, and it was good enough when the latest Strategic Rail Authority progress report on the 10-year transport plan was published. That was a devastating announcement, because it overturned the press statement that the chairman of the SRA made in December about the projected increase of passenger numbers and freight transport. The statement was reversed by two documents that we were informed about on the Order Paper. I was surprised that the Secretary of State felt that the documents were so unimportant that they justified just two lines to say that they were available in the Library.

I took the opportunity to avail myself of the Secretary of State's invitation to purloin the documents from the Library. There was only one document, but being a canny lassie, I decided to make exploratory investigations at the Vote Office. The investigations bore fruit. I obtained two documents—an explanatory document and a main document—from only a cursory investigation of the Vote Office. It is curious that both documents were not available in the Library, as we were told in the written statement.

Although there are defects in the written statement procedure, it is preferable to procedures used previously. However, perhaps the Department would

be minded to make information available through written statements, rather than hon. Members having haphazardly to happen on extremely important documents in the Library.

I listened with great care to the Under-Secretary's reply, and I regret that he was not as helpful as he meant to be. May I give him a further opportunity to help me to understand how the safety of a person—a private person or a serving police officer—might be jeopardised? Under subsection (5), in what circumstances could publication be deemed to be against the interests of national security? In serious circumstances, will the Secretary of State or a Minister come to the Dispatch Box and inform the House about publications, rather than placing them in the Library or using a written statement to say that they are placed in the Library?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

On that last point, in future the code of practice could set out courses of action for the British Transport police—how to react to certain terrorist activities, for example. I do not think that the hon. Lady is suggesting that that code of practice should be published, put on the Department website and flashed round the world for everyone to see, which would clearly be inappropriate in those circumstances.

Equally, in certain circumstances, releasing the code could put people in jeopardy and the clause catches situations in which that could happen. Such a thing would be unusual, but it could happen.

The hon. Lady said that she first heard about the chief constables' code of practice in the Committee. I heard about it first during proceedings on the Police Reform Act 2002, which came into force on 1 October 2002. However, the Home Secretary will place the code before Parliament in due course, and I dare say that he will also place it in the Library. I will certainly examine the procedures in the House, which are relatively new, to see whether we would issue a written statement. I am open to suggestions about how we can make procedures more open. I often hear about information being placed in the Library, and I have a vision of desks and cupboards groaning under the weight of the things placed there. If it helps, we will certainly consider the way in which we make announcements.

It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the hon. Lady said that the code would be a change to secondary legislation. However, we would use only powers under the primary legislation to introduce the code.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Service outside Police Force

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I will be frank with the Minister because, in his inimitable way, he has been frank with us. I am trying to understand the purpose of clause 46. Does the clause envisage a situation in which a

constable could serve with a different police force? Will the Minister explain how the clause differs from what the hon. Member for Bath envisages? Reverting to the provision in clause 43 about ''facilitating inter-force co-operation'' perhaps the Minister will tell us that clause 46 is part of enabling that provision.

Will there be scope for a member of the British Transport police to be seconded to another police force? Equally, could a member of another police force be seconded to the British Transport police? Assuming that they are employed under similar conditions, there would be merit in having inter- changeability of personnel, as long as it did not happen all at once. That would be welcome.

What is the

''structure and circumstance of the Police Force''

to which subsection (2) refers? Does it merely recognise that the British Transport police are, in some respects, organised differently from other police forces, which might pose a problem? I truly want to understand the clause because the question asked by the hon. Member for Bath was a good one. I thought at one stage that there was a degree of clarity, but at this point I am not sure that the position is as clear as I first thought. Are the Government actively pressing the possibility of secondment between the forces? That is regarded as potentially a good idea and we need a pause in the pace of change because of it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those questions. I understand that the measure relates specifically to a member of the British Transport police operating outside the British Transport police authority's jurisdiction. Presumably, it is likely that such operations will take place in conjunction with another police force, although that will not always be the case. The hon. Lady is right to say that I have already raised the question of what such a person's status would be and whether, if they were a British Transport police constable, they would still have all the rights, duties and responsibilities of a constable while acting for another body. I thought that the answer that I received from the Minister was pretty clear, but as the hon. Lady said, it might be useful to hear it restated. We could check later to see whether the Under-Secretary was consistent in his answers.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The Police Act 1996 ensures that police officers who undertake a temporary secondment outside their own police force with a specified organisation whose work is relevant to policing are not penalised in terms of promotion or rank when they return. The Act also makes provision for how members of a police force would be treated for disciplinary purposes while on secondment.

The clause would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that replicated that provision for British Transport police officers. However, it is perhaps not as wide-ranging as the hon. Member for Vale of York thinks it is. It is quite narrowly focused. It would allow British Transport police to be seconded, for example, to a county police force and vice versa. Police officers may be seconded to other police forces for particular purposes and for special reasons, although I will not elaborate at length on

those. The provision would protect their job and status when they return to the British Transport police.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is good to know that the Minister is sticking to his brief and that he is not contradicting his earlier statements. His response was helpful. I would welcome a certain degree of secondment to other forces. I think that that would be useful. The clause is positive.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Lady is right. There has been a degree of consistency in the Minister's answers. Would she like to join me in pressing the Minister to make it absolutely clear that when a British Transport police constable or officer is operating in conjunction with another force, they will still have all the rights of arrest, detainment and so on, without any difficulty? I assume that that is the case, but it would be helpful if it were on the record.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I think that we are becoming confused about jurisdiction and secondment.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

In the circumstances in which the clause was drafted, the answer to that question is yes.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This triumvirate is becoming rather alarming. I take it that the Minister is confirming what the hon. Member for Bath suggested, which is that British Transport police officers will retain—[Interruption.] No, I am not talking about secondment. I shall stay with jurisdiction. As I understand it, if an officer works in co-operation with another police force, without being seconded, he will retain all the rights and powers pertaining to his jurisdiction as a British Transport police officer.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I think that the Minister's answer was a clear yes and I am grateful for that.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is very nice that we are all friends. Before I cause any more confusion, I wish to say that the provisions are potentially welcome, although we will continue to monitor, mindful of the fact that—as was the case with regard to an earlier clause—the codes of practice have yet to come into effect, because they may have a bearing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Policing objectives: Authority

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

This is my moment of glory: I shall not move Amendment No. 12.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Why did the hon. Member for Bath choose not to move that amendment? I am sure that I did not hear him say that he thought that it was a mistake.

I am delighted that we have moved on to the part of part 3 that deals with police planning. Presumably, given its title, clause 47 should be seen in conjunction with the policing objectives set out by the Secretary of State in clause 48, the railways policing plan of clause 49 and the performance targets set in clause 50.

I understand that the Home Secretary currently has powers under the Police Act 1996 to set policing priorities for England and Wales. Those powers direct authorities and police forces on where they should concentrate their efforts. Police authorities are required to publish an annual policing plan and a best value performance plan to set out how those priorities are being tackled in each police area. Will the Minister confirm that clause 47 is intended to make those arrangements appropriate to the priorities set for the policing objectives of the British Transport police force? I understand that the present arrangements as proposed in the consultation document take the provisions relating to the authority in respect of policing objectives out of the Police Act 1996 and apply them in clause 47. It would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify that.

I understand that the Local Government Act 1999 allows the Home Secretary to set best value performance indicators for police authorities. Short of popping down to the Library to find out how that is defined in the Library standard note, I wonder if the Minister could spare a moment to explain how best value in the British Transport police force, which is effectively a service industry, can be monitored. That is a challenging concept. How has that operated since 1999?

For regular police forces, I understand that the Home Secretary sets the performance indicators after consultation with police authorities and police forces and that those indicators currently cover the whole range of issues that authorities face, from their organisational efficiency to the make-up of their force with regard to gender and ethnicity—what the Americans call diversity—to the levels of crime reported and detected in general and specific terms.

The majority of those indicators will be deemed appropriate for the British Transport police authority and the British Transport police. If some are deemed not relevant or significant to the specialist railway police force, can the Minister tell us which they are?

I understand that the original provisions of the Local Government Act 1999 did not cover railway matters, and that under the current arrangements the Secretary of State does not set performance indicators for the British Transport police. I assume that clause 47 and the following provisions are intended to transfer the powers to the Secretary of State.

If the British Transport police committee voluntarily adopts relevant performance indicators currently set by the Home Secretary, will the Minister confirm that there will be an alteration and that the British Transport police authority will take over the committee's role? I imagine that the policing objectives that we want the authority to set will broadly reflect those set by the Home Secretary for local police forces. Will the Minister indicate whether there will be specific policing objectives for the British Transport police? Will targets be set for reducing the incidence of crime in the same way as the Home Secretary sets targets for

reducing gun crime, violent crime, street crime, burglaries, rape, assaults and general crime? What specific crimes would be included in the policing objectives under the clause? With regard to the national policing plan, will there be great disparities between the BTP's policing objectives and those for the regular police forces?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause closely follows the provisions of the Police Act 1996 that govern the setting of objectives and related performance targets for local police forces. The clause will apply similar requirements to the British Transport police.

To respond to one of the hon. Lady's initial questions, the clause replicates section 7 of the Police Act 1996 and requires the authority to set objectives for the BTP each year. The objectives must be consistent with any objectives set by the Secretary of State for the policing of the railways. Police authorities for local police forces have similar requirements. The authority must consult the chief constable before setting objectives and must consider views obtained from public consultation with the railways industry, the travelling public and the wider community. That is consistent with the position of local police force authorities.

When setting objectives, the British Transport police authority must have regard to the national policing plan and any objectives set by the Home Secretary under the Police Act 1996. That is designed to ensure consistency with wider policing objectives. I hope that that responds to several of the hon. Lady's points about how the BTP's objectives would fit in the national picture. Clearly, specific objectives would be inappropriate. For example, a target on reducing burglary would be less appropriate for the BTP because few domestic properties come within its purview.

The hon. Lady also asked about the BTP and best value. The BTP would comply with the Home Secretary's best value indicators when that was relevant; that would be monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate. Best value reviews will be carefully monitored and any indicators appropriate to the BTP would also be monitored.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister's response was satisfactory as far as it went, but I am slightly disappointed that he did not respond to concerns about diversity. We talk about gender and ethnicity in relation to the police, and some forces make records of features of specific victims.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman—and most members of the Committee—have been contacted by the Royal National Institute of the Blind. Clauses 47 to 52, especially clause 47, which deals with policing objectives, mention the police authority and the Secretary of State setting policing objectives, and the construction of a three-year strategy plan. The Minister must be mindful that for blind and partially-sighted people—and, I am sure, others who are less able, including those who are hard of hearing and those who are not so mobile—one of the biggest concerns about travelling by train is fear of attack. The

presence of a white cane draws attention to their disability, and, in the words of the RNIB, is like

''waving the white flag of surrender to a mugger.''

Visually impaired people have been subject to some horrendous attacks when travelling on trains. Some of the reports are graphic and very disturbing. One person travelling with a guide dog was on a train; some youths set next to him and started to harass him, making loud barking noises at the dog and using abusive language when asked to stop; then, they proceeded to throw things at the dog. While another passenger went to look for a guard, the youths started lighting matches and waving them in the person's face. When the guard arrived, the youths denied doing anything wrong and insisted that the gentleman was making up the allegations. They said,

''What did you see me do, you can't 'cos you're blind so you don't know what we're doing''.

That sort of behaviour is particularly regrettable and unacceptable.

I make the plea to the Minister and his Department to add some objectives to the list of objected. Women are probably already mentioned, but there could be a specific reference to women travelling. There have recently been some awful attacks on women in all parts of the country. Such attacks do not happen solely in the south-east—there have been some horrendous and well-publicised attacks in the north. If we want more people to travel by train, it is important that they feel safe doing so. I wonder whether the Minister is minded to set specific guidelines in respect of people who are disabled, less mobile, partially sighted or hard of hearing. That would be welcome.

In the view of the RNIB, progress in dealing with crimes committed against disabled people is hampered by the fact that when details of a victim or perpetrator are recorded on the police computer, disability is not recorded in the same way as race. Policing objectives under the clause will probably refer to gender and ethnicity, but they could also include disability and gender—women are not in the same category as disabled people, but, obviously, they would like to feel safer on trains. We should have regard to the plea of the RNIB.

The Minister might not be able to confirm this, but I am sure that he would wish to discuss with his colleagues the fact that the Metropolitan police are introducing the practice of recording on their computer details of any victim's or perpetrator's disability. Has the Minister received any representations from the RNIB and others that would persuade his Department to do the same? I plead for the policing objectives in clause 47 to embrace the less able, too.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to air some of these matters. It is the primary duty of the authority to ensure the efficient and effective policing of the railways by the British Transport police, and the authority has the responsibility to set objectives for doing so. When carrying out those functions, the authority will need to balance the policing needs of the rail industry with

those of people who use the railways, including vulnerable people, especially those who are disabled or blind.

The hon. Lady asked about best value. It might be helpful to consider the best value performance indicators and objectives set out for the British Transport police in 2002–03. I quote from the best value performance and policing plan for 2002–03, in which objectives are set in respect of violence against the person. The plan states:

''This objective includes violent sexual offences.''

I hope that that would include the ambition to reduce violence against all people, including those who are vulnerable. The objectives also include targets for the British Transport police in respect of robbery, vehicle crime, railway destruction, vandalism offences, policing football and managing fatalities. The section headed ''Best value 4-year Corporate Plan'' states the objectives of each of the reviews under the subheading ''Progress on Best Value Reviews 2001–02''. The section headed ''Community and Race Relations'' states as an objective to

''Evaluate the retention, development and progression of minority ethnic staff within the Force.''

That will be good news to the hon. Lady. The British Transport police will comply with targets or Home Office statements on diversity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 - Policing objectives: Secretary of State

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for the opportunity to air our serious concerns about the proposal.

I hope that the Minister will explain the present situation to the Committee. I understand that the Strategic Rail Authority will moderate and rule on the British Transport Police Authority in this regard. I believe that under the current arrangement the Secretary of State may not enjoy the power of direction, and it would be helpful to know the position. The clause gives the Secretary of State a power of direction over the authority to set objectives for policing the railways. The only people to be consulted on the issuing of such a direction would be the authority and the chief constable. Subsection (4) refers to Scotland.

The railway safety levy, which we will discuss in clause 102, is considered by the industry to be a tax, effectively. The industry is therefore raising money for increased security and the policing of the railways. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for explaining who the rail industry representatives were. However, I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the concerns put to me by the industry, which believes that the powers given in clause 48 are wide-ranging.

I am always sceptical when a Secretary of State is given powers of direction, as he has been over the rail regulator. The previous Secretary of State was swift to

tell the rail regulator in no uncertain terms that he was minded to use that power of direction. We have difficulty with granting such a power for the reasons given by the Under-Secretary. The Home Secretary has always been clear that, as the head of the force, the chief constable should decide the operational objectives. The chief constable should be given similar operational powers for the British Transport police.

Under clause 48, the Secretary of State is apparently given sweeping powers that do not seem to be curtailed or proscribed in any way. Obviously, the Secretary of State will receive representations from Scottish Ministers on the matter. I am sure that that will put the Under-Secretary's mind at rest about policing the railways in Scotland. Surely the Government would wish to give operational direction and control as far as possible to the respective chief constables in Scotland, England and Wales.

What is the thinking behind the clause? Why is the operational autonomy of the chief constables—monitored and overseen by the authority—being removed? What circumstances would lead to the power of direction? Perhaps I am wrong and there are existing circumstances in which such a power of direction exists, but the power in clause 48 seems to be extensive.

What did the Government have in mind when they chose to go down the path set out in clause 48? Presumably there was a consultation process to discover the views of the industry. I would be surprised if the industry expressed its overwhelming support in that consultation process. Will the Minister confirm that the representations that he received were not overwhelmingly in support of such a power of direction, and will he explain the thinking behind the clause? Why does the industry feel aggrieved? I am sure that it has had opportunities to discuss the matter at some length with the Government, especially in the extensive consultation, but the industry, through the Association of Train Operating Companies, has shown that it is concerned. I believe that the independence and autonomy of the authority, the chief constable and the police force may be put at risk, and the people paying for it are being compromised by not having sufficient representation in the consultation process. We must bear in mind that their representation will decrease dramatically from four in nine to four in 13 members of the authority.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I fear that the hon. Lady may be getting confused. First, she spoke on several occasions about directions to the chief constable, but the clause states clearly that directions will be made to the authority. Secondly, she asked about the thinking behind the clause. I can only refer her to the fact that the clause follows the provisions of the Police Act 1996. I recall that my party was not in government at that time, so the Act was passed by her party to apply to local police forces and to govern the setting of objectives and related performance targets. Clause 48 merely applies similar requirements to the British Transport police, and the power is no wider than the

equivalent for the Home Secretary under section 37 of the 1996 Act. There is definitely a degree of confusion.

For the purposes of explanation, I should say that we expect that the power will be used only in limited circumstances. Nevertheless, it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to set objectives for the British Transport police authority because he is accountable to Parliament for its activities. However, it is also right that before doing so, the Secretary of State should consult the authority and the chief constable, as well as considering the views of Scottish Ministers about objectives for policing the railways in Scotland, for reasons that we have covered several times.

I should also say to the hon. Lady that 11 train companies and organisations responded to the consultation process, and none raised direct concerns about the power in its response.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister was obviously right to commend the Police Act 1996. My party was then sitting where he is sitting, and his party was sitting where we are now sitting.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

And we were still here.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is good to know that the hon. Member for Bath is still with us.

The Minister's clarification is helpful, but if the provision has been in existence since 1996, he should be able to satisfy the Committee by telling us what the specific circumstances would be. He referred to ''limited circumstances'' in which the power of direction would be used. I take his point of correction that the power of direction is to the authority rather than the chief constable, but it will still affect the autonomy of the police authority. Clause 47 relates to the police authority's role to set the objectives, and I mentioned some problems about that earlier.

It would be helpful to know about the circumstances in which the British Transport police authority would be deemed to have got it so wrong in setting its policing objectives. I am mindful of the Government's experience since 1997. They have had nearly five years in power. They had the opportunity to scrutinise the 1996 Act. In the light of that experience, 15 hours—not nearly enough—has been devoted to this part of the Bill. If it is possible to make it better, that is what the Committee should aim to do. Could the Minister, with the benefit of nearly five years' experience, explain the circumstances in which the authority will be deemed to have got it so badly wrong, however limited they might be? That would greatly assist the Committee in understanding the parallels with 1996, if any.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

It is a slightly odd question. The Government draft clauses such as this for the reasons that applied in relation to previous legislation—because it is difficult to envisage the possible breakdown in relationships that might lead in such a direction. Nevertheless, it is felt to be necessary and desirable for such powers to be available to the democratically elected and accountable representative, so that the public interest might be served. I am sure

that the previous Administration acted on similar principles in 1996, and it is our thinking with regard to clause 48.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It has been a useful discussion. I am sorry that the Minister has been slightly reluctant to respond, but his comments have been most helpful to our understanding. We shall continue to explore all possibilities in relation to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 - Railways policing plan

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 61, in

clause 49, page 20, line 9, at end insert

'including measures to reduce vandalism'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No.63, in

clause 56, page 22, line 28, after 'crime', insert ', including vandalism,'.

Amendment No.62, in

clause 56, page 22, line 32, at end insert—

'( ) location of offences committed;'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

It is often said that time flies when one is having fun. It is clear that the hon. Member for Vale of York is having fun; a few minutes ago she told us that the Labour Government had been in power for nearly five years. I have to tell her that it is now nearly six years.

However, far from fun are the problems caused by trespass and vandalism on our railways. Earlier in our deliberations, we discussed at some length the role of the rail accident investigation branch. Much of that discussion concentrated on the investigation of accidents, and it was assumed that we were talking primarily about train collisions, derailments and so on. The sad truth is that far more people die on railway property as a result of either tragic suicide or vandalism and trespass. The British Transport police would argue that about 300 deaths occur on the railway through those causes, of which about one third are as a result of trespass and vandalism. A hundred deaths on the railways from those causes is far more than those that occur due to collisions or derailments because of defective equipment. It is vital, therefore, to discuss trespass and vandalism on the railway. I am conscious that it is becoming an issue of concern for all of the bodies that are involved—British Transport police, Network Rail, the train operating companies and the various other bodies in the railway industry. The problem has gained a new name: instead of calling it trespass and vandalism, we are increasingly calling it route crime.

A great deal of work is now being done to publicise the difficulties and the potential dangers, and the deaths that will occur as a result. There is a growing number of education programmes. Network Rail is working to increase security fencing on either side of the railway track, for example. Much is being done. However, I contend that because it is such a serious

matter, it is important to refer to it in the Bill, and specifically for it to be part of the policing plan.

The figures are horrendous. Many acts of vandalism and trespass take place on our railways. In an earlier debate, I mentioned the 15,000 acts of vandalism and 15,000 acts of trespass that take place each year. Sadly, the figures have grown year on year, and over the past six years of the Labour Government—I do not blame them; it is a comparative figure—there has been a 10 per cent. increase. It is a matter of considerable concern.

The British Transport police recently issued a press release. It is probably the easiest way to draw attention to the seriousness of the problem. Under the heading of ''Route Crime'', it states:

''Trespass may not sound like a serious offence but, in the unforgiving environment of the railway, it can be a major safety hazard. Trespassers put themselves, rail staff and passengers in danger. Trespass often leads to other offences—it is difficult to commit vandalism or to obstruct trains without trespassing. Holes made in fences by trespassers allow children to wander onto the railway, sometimes with fatal consequences. Similarly, adults taking short cuts across tracks or walking dogs on the embankment, give a bad example to impressionable youngsters. Putting obstructions in front of trains, hanging concrete blocks and the like from bridges are sadly daily occurrences. They can lead to serious injury and can even derail trains. Vandalising vital signalling and communications equipment and obstructing trains puts lives at risk. Stone throwing is potentially fatal. Even a small stone dropped from a bridge and meeting a train travelling at 100 mph can kill.''

So it goes on.

In the latest document, which appeared as a supplement in The Railway Magazine under the heading ''Route Crime'', the person heading the campaign, Nigel Harris, wrote:

''Route crime is among the most serious threats to the safety of railway passengers, staff and even those committing offences, but only recently has this scourge started to gain the high profile it deserves inside and outside the industry.''

Later in the same article, he wrote:

''While billions of pounds are being spent on new systems to make trains safer, the fact is that many more lives can be saved every year by implementing relatively low-cost solutions to keep trespassers off the railway such as better fencing and access across railway lines.''

I am sure that he is right.

I said that there were about 15,000 trespass and 15,000 vandalism cases, but those are only the reported cases. Surveys that asked young people whether they had been involved in acts of trespass or vandalism on the railway produced staggering results. If those surveys are even remotely accurate, it means that about 2.5 million young people admit to having trespassed on the railway at least once, and about 700,000 young people admit to having been involved in acts of vandalism such as putting something on a railway line.

The British Transport police take the matter seriously, but I argue strongly that it ought to be specifically mentioned in the Bill as part of BTP's policing plan. Although much work is being done, I question whether we really take the matter seriously enough when it comes to the prosecution of such offences. As the Minister will be well aware, most

prosecutions are brought under various byelaws, often by Network Rail or other train operating companies. In reality, few of the recorded incidents—as I said, recorded incidents are far fewer than the actual number of incidents—lead to any prosecution. In 2001–02, there were 15,000 reported cases of vandalism and, of those, only 2,200 led to any charge or court summons, and not necessarily all of them led to convictions. Similarly, in relation to trespass, there were 15,395 reported offences in 2001–02, yet there were only 903 charges or summonses to court. It worries me greatly that many people are not summoned for such offences.

The Under-Secretary reminded us earlier that many of those cases are dealt with under byelaws as civil offences. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why existing legislation, which would make such acts of vandalism and trespass criminal offences, are not more frequently used. The Minister will be well aware of legislation going back as far as 1861 that could be used, and which was designed specifically for such activities in relation to the railways. For example, the Malicious Damage Act 1861 specifically deals with the following issues:

''Placing wood, etc, on railway, taking up rails, etc, turning points, showing or hiding signals, etc, with intent to obstruct or overthrow any engine, etc''

in the quaint language of the day. The same is true of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. That, too, was intended specifically to deal with such issues in relation to

''Doing or omitting anything so as to endanger passengers by railway.''

There are opportunities in existing legislation for such acts to be treated as criminal offences, prosecuted by the British Transport police, and if necessary, by the Crown Prosecution Service. I acknowledge that such issues are being given increasingly high priority, but they should be given even higher priority. One of the best ways of achieving that would be to prosecute more people who are found to have been involved in such acts, preferably, where appropriate, using criminal, rather than civil legislation.

Linda Perham (Labour, Ilford North)

I understand and appreciate the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Bath about the seriousness of crimes of vandalism and trespass. Vandalism is mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but I wonder why these specific offences should be included in the Bill. When the Minister was asked during our sitting on 11 February about the remit of the British Transport police, following a fascinating discussion instigated by the hon. Member for Westbury about why bigamy was excluded from its remit, he said:

''The policing of the railway requires a specialist police service to deal with the threat of terrorism, the problems of trespass and vandalism''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 February 2003; c. 159.]

Those crimes are obviously within the remit of the police and I wonder why the hon. Gentleman feels that they should be mentioned specifically in the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 25 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.