Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2003.

Standing Committee D

Clause 49 - Railways policing plan

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 63, in

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

No. 62, in

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

'( ) location of offences committed;'.

I call Linda Perham.

Linda Perham (Labour, Ilford North)

Thank you, Mr. Hurst, but I had concluded my remarks.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

What a pleasure it is to be back in Committee after a brief interlude last week. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for this opportunity to debate their amendments. It is interesting that they wish just one new crime—vandalism—to be included. I wonder why they have chosen that crime, when we heard that the serious crime of bigamy would continue to be undetected and unprosecuted by the British Transport police. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary appears not to have been paying attention during our earlier debates.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Lady is right that other crimes could be added to the list. Vandalism, or route crime as it now more often called, was included simply because of the large number of deaths and serious injuries it causes on our railways.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The next question is obviously how the pursuit of vandalism as a crime by the national police force is set up under Home Office regulations. As I understand it, vandalism would be considered to be a crime to be pursued and investigated by the police, so the amendment is unnecessary. When we come to clause stand part we can debate the worrying increase in crime in and around railway stations, which the British Transport police should rightly investigate.

What is the implication of the location of the offences? We had an interesting debate earlier about the phrase ''in the vicinity of''.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Perhaps I can go into a little more detail in my winding-up speech. The crucial point is that the current reporting procedures mean, rather bizarrely,

that we do not have information relating to the location of acts of vandalism on the railway. There is therefore no opportunity for the police, the Health and Safety Executive or the train-operating companies to take targeted measures in areas of high vandalism on the railways.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is still not entirely clear that the right words have been chosen in that regard. The phrase ''in the vicinity of'' was preferable and it is found in existing law. Obviously, we will be the wiser when the hon. Gentleman winds up the debate.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. It is a pleasure on such a sunny day to be sat in this Committee Room debating such important matters.

This has been one of those occasions when I was beguiled by the arguments of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Indeed, the eloquent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) stirred the Committee considerably. I want to say a few words first about the clause and then address the specific matters raised in the hon. Member for Bath's amendments.

Clause 49 requires the authority to prepare an annual railways policing plan setting out the arrangements for policing, a statement of the authority's priorities for the year, the financial resources available and their proposed allocation. Amendment No. 61 would require the authority to include measures to reduce vandalism in its priorities for the forthcoming year. I fully understand the hon. Member for Bath's concern about railway vandalism. He alluded to the high incidence of vandalism; he will be aware that 54 per cent. of all incidents on the railway are due either to trespass or to vandalism.

Vandalism is also a significant cause of delays and can cause more serious accidents or incidents. It endangers not only railway staff and passengers but the offenders themselves. I understand the reasoning behind the amendments, but I will none the less to explain why, in the Bill's context, they are misplaced. We all have serious concerns about trespass and vandalism on the railways, but other crimes are also of great concern. I do not want to get bogged down in arguments about whether vandalism or bigamy is more common on the railways, as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) did. I shall stick to vandalism as it appears to be a more pressing issue.

It would be wrong to specify in the Bill that one crime should be placed above all crimes as a priority. The Bill provides both the Secretary of State and the authority with powers to set objectives for policing the railways. Those powers will be the appropriate mechanism to target any crime, such as vandalism, that the authority wishes to make a priority. Those objectives must be incorporated in the railways policing plan. The current policing plan for the railways identifies six priority crimes: violence against a person; robbery; vehicle crime; railway disruption and vandalism; policing football; and managing fatalities.

For vandalism, the plan sets a target of fewer than 5,360 offences by the year-end, a 2 per cent. reduction on the previous year. The railways policing plan ties in with the authority's three-year strategy. The current strategy plan provides for the British Transport police

''to work in partnership with all their community by developing partnerships and plans with the railways industry to tackle trespass and vandalism''.

A senior officer has lead responsibility for the issue and his specific task is

''implementing a national force strategy to assist the railway industry in combating Trespass and Vandalism''

by 2002–03. I hope that that illustrates that it is unnecessary and impractical to specify vandalism in the Bill. It is for the authority to decide what the objectives for railways policing shall be within the structure provided in clause 47. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment No. 63 refers to clause 56. I shall not address many of my remarks to clause 56, but it enables the Secretary of State to require the chief constable to provide statistical information about crime on the railways. There are no restrictions; the clause merely details matters on which he may request information. If the Secretary of State needs crime information from the force regarding a particular type or location of a crime, under the proposals, he already has the necessary powers to request it from the British Transport police, and it can be published in a summary form. The British Transport police play a full role in the fight against all railway crime, including trespass and vandalism, and comply with the national crime recording standard.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Can the Minister confirm that what he has just told the Committee is correct? I understand that the Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations do not include a requirement to provide information and to record the location of, for example, arson on the railway. Will the Minister confirm which of us is correct?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That would certainly be the case: the location and the type of crime could be recorded by the authority.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister says that those matters could be recorded. My question concerns whether they are currently recorded. The Minister might look back at parliamentary answers that he has given to me on that very question to help him with his answer.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I knew that those parliamentary answers would come back to haunt me. I will endeavour to find that information for the hon. Gentleman. However, the point that I tried to make was that what he seeks to do in his amendment will be achieved in the Bill. In particular, the annual crime figures produced by the British Transport police provide detailed figures on criminal damage, arson, graffiti, serious damage to railway property, damage that endangers safety, obstruction of the line, missiles thrown at trains, stone-throwing and trespass. I hope that that covers the points that he raised.

Mr. Foster indicated dissent.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so I am sure that he will return to the matter later. I believe that the provisions are more than adequate for measuring the impact of trespass and vandalism.

Amendment No. 62 concerns the location of offences committed. The British Transport police already publish annual figures for reported crimes on the railways in accordance with the Home Office guidelines. The total figure is broken down into the ''geographical'' areas of England, Scotland and Wales. The figures for England and Wales are further broken down into the following ''force areas'': the London underground, London north, London south, western, north-west and north-east.

Under the Bill, the British Transport police would continue to publish those figures on that basis for each year. The figures will also be laid before Parliament. I believe that that is sufficient for general information purposes, and that there is no need for any further statutory requirements on the location of crimes. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will be persuaded by the strength and weight of my argument to withdraw his amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

It is delightful to be back, and to see the Minister back in good form, with his voice recovered. Unfortunately, I have to watch him with a halo round his head. I am not sure whether that is merely caused by the current location of the sun, or whether something has happened to him during the recess. The recess meant that for a whole week the Minister gave no performances in Westminster Hall. He has obviously been saving it all up for his response to these questions.

I am delighted that the Minister was willing to give a detailed response, and that he took the issue seriously. So-called route crime on the railways is a serious matter. As I said, such incidents lead, on average, to approximately 100 deaths per year on the railways. That is a significantly larger number of people than those killed as a result of collisions or other accidents on the railways.

The issue is serious and it is therefore worth putting some of the statistics on record. Some 50 per cent. of all damage to trains on the UK network is inflicted by vandals throwing rocks or bricks from the line side, firing airguns at passing trains, or leaving obstructions on the track for trains to run over. According to the British Transport police, 640,000 objects are placed on the line every year. That has many devastating consequences, affecting all passengers on the railway. It is estimated that, in some depots, about 60 per cent. of lost driver time is the direct result of attacks by vandals on trains. Every year, 4 million objects are thrown at trains.

The total cost of vandalism and, more generally, of route crime is currently estimated to be in excess of £280 million a year. Those crimes strike me as being very serious, especially when we consider the information that I gave about the number of lives lost as a result of them. We should be taking them even more seriously. I have already argued that they should

be treated not only as civil crimes, but often as criminal cases and punished accordingly. It is important to recognise that Network Rail and the British Transport police are doing more and more work, which I recognise and welcome. However, unless we take the issue more seriously and give them the tools to do even more work, the figures from recent years that I quoted will be replicated in subsequent years.

I entirely accept the Minister's word that route crime, vandalism, trespass and arson are already covered by the more generic language of the Bill. I am sure that he will understand that the aim of the amendments is to provide an opportunity to focus the Committee's attention on the issue, even if they are not accepted. He said that he was prepared to reconsider the issue of the recording of information about where those incidents take place. Individual train-operating companies tend to have information about those sorts of incidents.

In response to my parliamentary question

''To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidences of arson on the railways there were in each year since 1995, broken down by (a) train operating company and (b) line'',

the Minister said that

''The Health and Safety Executive's Annual Report on the safety record of the railways in Great Britain contains details of arson on the railways. Copies are available from the House Libraries. The 200102 report will be published on 18 December 2002.''—[Official Report, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 685W.]

I greatly looked forward to reading that report, and rushed down to the Library the minute that it was published to find the details that would answer my question. Sadly, I could not find them because, as I said a few moments ago, the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations do not cover arson, for example. It is important to have more information about where the incidents take place so that we can identify hotspots.

Four years ago, Mr. Colin Hamling of St. Paul International, an underwriting insurance company, gave an interesting speech in which he said:

''Not many people know this, but 71 per cent. of all arson takes place on Connex South East and the majority on the Abbey wood to Dartford stretch''.

That was four years ago, so it was incumbent on me during the recent brief recess to check that remark with him. He recalls having said that, but now believes that the information might not have been entirely correct and that that is the location only of Connex South East incidents. However, he went on to make the point that it is difficult to be precise because of difficulties with the recording system. It is important to have more information about where the incidents take place and I am delighted that the Minister agrees with me on the issue of route crime. In the light of his assurances and the seriousness with which the Committee is taking this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I take the Committee back to the Government's initial consultation paper and the comments made about it at the time? In their response to that paper, the British Transport police said in paragraph 7:

''We consider that the strength of BTP lies in its specialist role and unique and distinct expertise in policing the railway. We would wish to see this particular role expressed unequivocally in the legislation by defining the overarching function of the Authority as a duty 'to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for the railway'.''

They continue in paragraph 8:

''With similar intent, we would suggest that in relation to Ministerial objectives and priorities, it should be clearly set out that the new Authority would not be obliged to adopt Home Office objectives and priorities unless they correspond to the needs of the railway.''

Paragraph 9 continues:

''The Consultation Paper proposes to confer on the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, a range of functions paralleling those of the Home Secretary. It also proposes that the Secretary of State should continue to have an arbitration role in the event of disputes about policing. We support these proposals and emphasise that, in our view, it will be important in future that the Secretary of State acts synchronously with the Home Office, so that the framework for guidance of the Authority and Force is clear and cohesive. In relation to arbitration function, it is to be hoped that this would be exercised swiftly, to obviate delay and uncertainty to the Authority and the industry.''

With respect to the clause, paragraph 24 is relevant:

''The Consultation Paper proposes that the Authority should have power to make Regulations, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State, to give effect to relevant elements of the national Police Regulations. This seems to us to be a sensible and practical mechanism to ensure that professional and personnel standards applying to BTP are in line with Home Office forces.''

Paragraph 25 continues:

''However, we would wish to see a clear statement that the Authority would not be obliged to adopt Home Office Regulations if it considers them inappropriate to the specialist role of the BTP or to involve disproportionate or unreasonable cost. In the event of any dispute on this matter, there should be provision for it to be resolved by the Secretary of State.''

Is the clause as clear as that and does it go as far as the British Transport police hoped? The Government's plethora of responses to the consultation paper included general support for setting objectives for the British Transport police and acceptance of the fact that those objectives should reflect the Home Secretary's key priorities to the extent that they are of general application and relevant to railway policing.

Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary commented that the British Transport police's plans and priorities should primarily reflect the Home Secretary's national policing plan and also take account of the Secretary of State for Transport's priorities. The Government have an opportunity to show how they have sought to marry the two priorities in the clause. I want to probe the Minister further. We had an interesting debate on amendments Nos. 61, 63 and 62 and the hon. Member for Bath made some serious points. I am not convinced that the balance is right, or that the provisions go as far as the British Transport police wanted.

The Government also said that it was widely accepted that as the Secretary of State for Transport

is accountable to Parliament for the British Transport police's activities, he should have a power to set specific railway priorities. Indeed, clause 49(3)(b) gives the Secretary of State the power to specify any objective under the provisions in clause 48. However, the Government have admitted that some concern was expressed that that might signal greater Government involvement in British Transport police matters, and I want to fire a warning salvo that we do not want unnecessary interference from the Secretary of State for Transport.

I want to tease out from the Under-Secretary his views on how the Government expect clause 49 to marry two not conflicting but potentially diverging sets of priorities. The Home Office specifies one set, while the Secretary of State for Transport specifies the other. There was general acceptance that, as with Home Office police priorities, the British Transport police authority should have the power to set specific local objectives for the British Transport police, provided that they are consistent with the Government's specified policing priorities.

It is interesting that the Association of Police Authorities stressed the clear need for the Department for Transport to consult the British Transport police, the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office on British Transport police priorities to see how they fit in with wider ministerial priorities for local police forces. The need to consult on any specific performance indicators for the British Transport police was also stressed. I may have missed something, but I do not see how those needs have been addressed in clause 49. In developing its local objectives, indicators and targets, the British Transport police authority should also consult the Association of Police Authorities and the local police authority.

Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary considered that consultation should involve those living in close proximity to the railways. That is important. As the Bill is giving powers for the first time to investigators and inspectors under the rail accident investigation branch to enter dwelling houses, it is right that those setting the priorities under clause 49 should consult the people who live close to the areas that will be policed. Will the Under-Secretary explain to the Committee the procedure that the Government have set in place? In his remarks on clause 49 in response to amendments Nos. 61 to 63, I did not hear him mention that. We will turn later to the clauses on inspection, but it is appropriate now to ask the Under-Secretary how the Government have responded to the request of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary about the consultation that will take place with those living in close proximity to the railways as the priorities are set for policing under the plan.

The Strathclyde passenger transport executive stated that the passenger transport authorities and executives should also be consulted, and this morning is a useful opportunity for the Under-Secretary to explain how the Government have responded to that

request. All Members work with passenger transport executives up and down the country, and I believe that that request is sound. How have the Government reacted? I hope that they have acceded to it.

I understand that many respondents to the Government's consultation said that the Secretary of State should not set objectives for the British Transport police authority on the ground that it would increase central control of the British Transport police. That fear was expressed at the time of consultation, so how have the Government addressed it in clause 49? As the Under-Secretary said earlier in debating amendments Nos. 61 to 63, the strength of the British Transport police under clause 49 should be based on the idea that local is good. We should give the local British Transport police their head as much as possible in setting out what their strategy should be.

I think that one of the railway unions called for a one-year rather than a three-year strategy plan. Have the Government ruled that out as a matter of course? We are told in clause 49(4):

''A plan for a year must be consistent with the relevant three-year strategy plan issued by the Authority''.

If the Government have not acquiesced in that request, I am sure that there were good reasons for that. I just wondered what those reasons were.

The less able are particularly concerned about safety. I think that the figures given by the Minister showed that violent crime on or near railways had decreased. If that is so, it is surprising but very welcome, because violent crime throughout the country has increased, and certainly the perception is that crime near railways has increased.

I speak as a woman passenger. Most women of any age are reluctant to go to a railway station and use the train as a means of transport late at night, whether it is on the London underground or in a local railway station. Stations are often not well lit and are quite lonely places. There is a perception that even the walk between the railway station and the place where someone has parked their car can be dangerous. That is borne out by a spate of regrettable attacks throughout the country, in which younger women in particular have been murdered. The Government must address that. The perception of safety has to be improved, and there is much that railway companies can do, such as providing better lighting and closed circuit television cameras. I welcome the investment that the railway companies and Network Rail have made in lighting and CCTV, but I hope that that will be uniform.

I represent an area of the country that is urban in parts. Some 24,000 people live on the outskirts of York, and there are a number of small railway stations, which I call country stations—I am thinking of Cattal station and a number of other small stations that serve commuters. I would like to think that no one would be put off from using them because of the perception that they are not safe to use at night or on dark mornings.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

May I say how much I agree with the hon. Lady? Does she share my concern that, in nearly five years of the Government's secure station initiative,

fewer than 200 out of the 2,400 railway stations have achieved that status? It includes the requirement for measures to improve safety at the station significantly, so that people have that sense of security that she is talking about.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am sure that the Minister has heard what the hon. Member for Bath has said, and I look forward to his response. The Government may not regard small country stations such as Cattal as their top priority, but I would argue, as a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency, that they should be a priority. Cattal is an intermediate station between York and Harrogate. It is within the golden triangle of York, Harrogate and Leeds. Many people there can command high salaries and enjoy a good quality of life, but they still need to feel safe when using the railways at all times of day. I hope that the Government will hear what I say and roll out further the programme that was mentioned, in partnership with the railway companies and Network Rail.

The Royal National Institute of the Blind is deeply concerned about the perceived rise in crime and the vulnerability of blind and partially sighted people, particularly to muggings and robbery, but also to youths misbehaving, whereas the more robust among us may laugh that off or fight them off. The RNIB feels that one of the biggest worries for blind and partially sighted people who travel by train is the fear of attack. Clauses 47 to 52 could be tightened in that regard. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to address that issue.

The Government are wedded to the idea of partnership. The Minister spoke at some length about wanting the British Transport police to work in partnership with their communities. There was a call for that in the responses to the consultation paper. What vehicles do the Government expect to use? The Hambleton and Richmondshire crime partnership is an example of a good partnership at local level between the police and the local community. Will the Government take the opportunity to set up such schemes with the British Transport police?

Michael Clapham (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone)

I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Lady is saying about local partnerships. There may well be the possibility of the railway police feeding into the local community partnership. The Minister may wish to give thought to that because it would allow for the involvement of the overall community, particularly schools. Where there is a high crime rate on a particular route at a given location in a community, there will be a chance to bring the whole of the community together within the local partnership.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The hon. Gentleman has proved that there is a lot of common ground between us, although Barnsley, West and Penistone may not be quite as rural as the Vale of York. There was a Barnsley by-election not so long ago and I remember ringing round to try to solicit support for our candidate. As the Committee will appreciate it was not the most fertile territory. I was taken by the

politeness and good manners of the people of Barnsley in declining my invitation to support our candidate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) is concerned about this matter. Indeed, he secured an Adjournment debate, to which the Under-Secretary responded. There is a time frame in which youths vandalise and disrupt the railways, and children vandalise buses and stations after they come out from school. That correlation is extremely important, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) pointed out. We must work closely and include schools in that partnership against crime. If we can motivate children to go to more after-school activities such as football and other sports, it might prevent them from causing devastation on the trains or the buses.

The Minister told us this morning that he wants the British Transport police to work in partnership with their local community. He said that a senior officer would have lead responsibility for that and would implement the national force strategy against both vandalism and trespass. How would implementing the national strategy sit with developing the local strategy? Clearly the local strategy required in rural parts of North Yorkshire is different from that required for the London underground. How will the Government seek to marry the potential divergence from priorities that are rightly set by the Home Office for the national police force? We should respond to the plea from the British Transport police that the Secretary of State for Transport have policing priorities that are specifically relevant to their work on the railways. We must ensure that the British Transport police are charged only with responsibilities relating primarily to railways.

In relation to issuing the plan and setting priorities for the year, the allocation of financial resources is important. As we saw earlier, business is uneasy about its representation on the authority. Having been well represented up to now with four out of nine members, business will be represented by four out of 13, 15 or whatever maximum number the Government choose. If the policing plan is to mean anything, sufficient resources must be allocated and, as we are to see a weakening of industrial representation on the Authority, we must ensure that all industrial interests are consulted effectively on the national policing plan and the three-year strategy.

The chief constable is requested to submit to the authority a draft plan for each financial year. I am sure that the Minister will want to assure me that the chief constable will continue to have operational responsibility for the stated priorities. Clause 49(6) is curious. It states:

''Before issuing a plan which differs from the Chief Constable's draft the Authority shall consult him.''

I am concerned that that power could weaken the chief constable's responsibility and influence. His importance is understood everywhere else and acknowledged by the Government. We heard the Minister's response earlier, but I hope that we can go further.

The British Transport police assured us that they would continue to publish regionally broken down

figures. The document issued last week showed comparisons between North Yorkshire and similar forces such as Cumbria and Devon. Will a similar league table be provided for the British Transport police, showing the comparative effectiveness in meeting the policing plan and three-year strategy?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her succinct remarks on the clause, and I shall try to respond in an equally succinct matter. The clause requires the authority to prepare an annual policing plan in accordance with section 8 of the Police Act 1996. The plan will set out the arrangements for policing the railways during the year, specifying any objectives, including those set by the Secretary of State, together with related performance targets, the authority's priorities, the financial resources available and the proposed allocation. The clause provides for the publication of the plan.

The hon. Member for Vale of York rightly talked about the reluctance of people to use stations at night, especially vulnerable people such as women and those who have poor sight or are blind. We are mindful of that. People need to feel safe if they are to access transport in general and the railways in particular, especially at more difficult times of the day such as in the evening or early morning. I am aware that some local authorities have worked closely with those who have responsibility for particular stations to examine access and lighting. It is not always the station that causes the problems, but its hinterland. Many local authorities are doing a lot of work with the substantial new money that we have given them through their local transport plans. That issue is very much in our minds and in the minds of many representatives of local authorities who work closely with those who operate the stations.

In response to some of the hon. Lady's earlier remarks, it must be said that in the end the Secretary of State must be accountable for the British Transport police authority. He must have the appropriate powers to act if something goes wrong. The Bill gives him those powers, but they would be used only if required. It is not intended that they be used frequently or readily, but they must be there should the need arise.

The hon. Lady talked about the consultation document and the responses to it. She rightly pointed out that the responses were very favourable, especially to this part of the Bill. The Bill reflects the consultation document and the views expressed when we issued it. We conducted the consultation so that we could hear what people had to say and do our best to reflect those views in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The more I became involved in the consultation, the more interesting I found it, which shows what a sad person I am. Will the Minister say why the replies have been taken off the website?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I do not know if they have, but I can look into that and if they have been removed, I will endeavour to find out why.

Clause 48 allows the Secretary of State to set the objectives, but clause 49 says that the authority only

has to ''have regard'' to the guidance that the Home Secretary has set. I am sure that the hon. Lady will realise that that is correct. It is a question of having regard to the objectives for the Home Office police.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I apologise to members of the Committee if the question that I am about to ask has already been answered—I was away when the Committee last sat. Is the Secretary of State to which the Minister refers the Secretary of State for Transport?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I referred to two Secretaries of State. The Home Secretary obviously sets the objectives for the Home Office police. When I referred to the Secretary of State setting objectives, I was talking about the Secretary of State for Transport in the context of the Bill. I hope that that is clear.

The hon. Member for Vale of York talked at some length about whom the authority should consult, which is a fair point. The authority may consult whomever it thinks fit. The Secretary of State for Transport will expect there to be wide consultation. I do not want to open up a debate about clause 59, but clause 59(1)(m) says that the authority may make arrangements to obtain opinions about the policing of the railways of

''other persons with an interest in the railways whom the Authority thinks it appropriate to consult.''

That may include some of the people whom the hon. Lady mentioned, especially those who live by the railways and who are affected by certain aspects of crime or other things that might be happening on the railways. I hope that the hon. Lady feels that it has been given sufficient importance in this part of the Bill.

The railways policing plan is equivalent to the local policing plan in section 8 of the Police Act 1996. The three-year strategy plan, which we will come to in clause 52, is equivalent to the three-year strategy plan in that Act. I can assure the hon. Lady that violence is a priority area of crime in the British Transport police's current annual policing plan. She will be pleased to know that they are doing very well in reducing that type of crime. Violence deters people from using the railway and puts them at risk.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am interested in those violent crimes statistics. Are they for crimes on the railway or in stations? We were talking about the hinterland. How do those statistics relate to locations?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The statistics refer to those matters in the purview of the British Transport police, which we covered extensively in our discussions the week before last. My reference to the hinterland may relate to consultation. The authority may wish to consult more widely with groups of people who live near the railway or who represent passengers, which is a totally different matter.

The British Transport police will use intelligence-led policing to target their finite resources on identified areas of crime on the railway. The hon. Lady would expect them to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone raised an important point about the British Transport police participating

in crime reduction partnerships. I am informed that that happens regularly. They co-operate with the local police and authorities and they also work with the national route crime group where that is appropriate. I hope that that puts my hon. Friend's mind at rest.

The hon. Lady was concerned that some of the more localised areas may feel that a national plan would not cover their interests properly or reflect local needs. I assure her that the local strategy is the responsibility of the British Transport police's area commander. It would be up to him to identify in the local strategy issues that were relevant to that area and to consult with the relevant bodies and persons. The hon. Lady referred to subsection (6). It is based on section 8(4) of the Police Act 1996. I do not know whether she was in Parliament then, but the Government of the day were more in keeping with her views. She asked about the answers on the web. I am informed that they were never on the web, but the replies are in the Libraries of both Houses. I hope that covers her points.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Logging on to the website is a mind-blowing experience that I thoroughly recommend to all members of the Committee. It will enable them to follow the proceedings of the Committee and our consideration of the Bill. The summary of replies to the consultation paper and the Government response were published in September 2002. I understand from speaking to those who responded from the industry and the police force that they assumed that the paper and the response would be available on the web. However, they are not. It is good that they are in the Library but, as I said, there are probably not enough copies to go round, whereas one merely has to click on the web. I make a plea to the Government to make them more widely available.

Bearing in mind that the response to the consultation and the Government's reply to those responses was published some considerable time ago, the Government had sufficient time before publishing the Bill to consider what form the consultation with the local partnerships would take. I want to record my disappointment that they have not done so, and my disappointment at the Under-Secretary's weak response this morning, which I must say is out of character for him. He also seems not to have taken on board the real concerns of disabled groups such as the RNIB.

The Bill introduces a radical new power that, for the first time, gives inspectors the right to enter people's property even without a warrant in their hand. The inspectors are empowered to enter someone's house shortly after an accident. I would have thought it incumbent on the Government to prepare the ground by encouraging the local British Transport police to develop a good working relationship with those living near stations and the track. I am sure that we will return to this matter at the first available opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 - Performance targets

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This is a much shorter clause. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the ''Secretary of State'' again refers to the Secretary of State for Transport. Subsection (1) immediately sets alarm bells ringing for Opposition Members. It states:

''The Secretary of State may by direction to the Authority require it to set a target in relation to the achievement of an objective set under section 48.''

I know that you are here in an independent and impartial capacity, Mr. Hurst, but you would have thought that the one thing that the Government would have learnt was that they have been setting too many targets—for the police, the health service, doctors, nurses and education. The country is exhausted by all these targets. The clause fails to respond to the genuine concern expressed by the British Transport police, which the Government referred to on page 6 in its summary of the consultations. They said:

''However, some concern was expressed that this''

power of direction

''might signal greater government involvement in BTP matters.''

Will the Minister say whether there is a similar clause of direction that relates to the Home Secretary? Given the powers under clauses 48 and 49, does this power really need to progress to be the Secretary of State's power of direction over the authority? That relates to the point that I made about clause 49. It is my clear understanding that the chief constable has ultimate authority for operational control of a police force. If the circumstances are difficult, the authority might argue that it does not have sufficient resources. I wonder how a particular local British Transport police authority and its chief constable will be able to discharge their responsibilities if a power of direction is granted under clause 50. Will the circumstances in which the power of direction may be used be limited? Will the Minister set out the specific circumstances that have been envisaged? He may be able to quote from a relevant passage in the 1996 Act or from the Home Secretary, but I imagine that it would dent the morale of a local British Transport police force if the Secretary of State for Transport intervened to set a power of direction, particularly considering the powers given to the chief constable and authority in clauses 48 and 49.

I thought that the point of the Bill was to allow the authority and chief constable to set their annual policing plan and three-year strategy plan without interference from either the Secretary of State for Transport or the Home Secretary. I want to know about the performance targets. Do they relate to personnel, the amount of sick leave or level of early retirement, or are they strictly policing targets that relate to how the British Transport police discharge their responsibilities? If the Secretary of State published a direction under the clause, would the House be able to debate it? What form would publication take—would it be printed as a statutory

order or published and left in the Library without any attention being sought? How would Members know that such a direction had been published?

I think that I am right in saying that, in Scotland, policing is reserved but transport is devolved. Why does the Secretary of State for Transport have any power to set policing targets for railways in Scotland? I am obviously getting confused, but I think that I am right in saying that transport is devolved. Will the Minister explain the situation?

It will not come as a bolt out of the blue to the Minister to be told that we are tired of targets. We are sceptical about a power of direction by the Secretary of State over the police authority. How does that square with the 1996 Act and the powers of the Home Secretary? How will it allow the chief constable and authority to fulfil their responsibilities under clauses 48 and 49? Will the Minister also tell us about the circumstances in which a power of direction will be introduced? Will it be given to just one local British Transport police force or to all of them across the board?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I was interested to hear that the Opposition do not require targets. We will record that for future exchanges during Transport questions and on other occasions.

We should be able to deal with the points briefly, because we seem to be making heavy weather of the clause. I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that this series of clauses, along with the whole of part 3 on the British Transport police, is designed wherever possible to follow the procedures that apply for other police forces in the country, which is exactly what clause 50 does. It replicates the Home Secretary's power.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Would it not benefit the Committee if the Minister referred us to the speech that he made in this Committee on 13 February at columns 252 to 254 of the Official Report, in which he made the remarks on clause 48 that I suspect he is about to make again.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Gentleman is right: repetition is catching in this Committee. However, it is necessary to reiterate briefly the key elements. The clause replicates the Home Secretary's power to set performance targets for local police forces under section 38 of the Police Act 1996 passed by the previous Conservative Government. Therefore, it would seem sensible to have a degree of conformity across the piece wherever possible and appropriate.

In general terms, the provision enables the Secretary of State to require the authority to set a performance target. I stress that the clause says ''may''. It provides an enabling power that will be subject to the views of Scottish Ministers about targets for policing the railways in Scotland. I think that gives a clear indication that this is a mundane clause designed to harmonise best practice.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I heard what the Minister said but he has not given us an example of the circumstances. Clearly, the power is only discretionary and we welcome that, but he must have an example in mind. He also failed to address whether it would be a performance target relating to the operation of the British Transport police or whether it would cover personnel matters such as early retirement and sick leave.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

May I give the hon. Lady a couple of examples from the Home Office police forces? The Home Secretary has required local police forces to set performance targets on domestic burglaries, vehicle crimes and robberies. The Secretary of State for Transport would consider appropriate targets for transport.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Performance directions

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This clause takes us back to our earlier discussion on best value authorities. The Secretary of State is given a discretionary power to

''give a direction to the Authority containing provision of a kind which he could make in respect of a best value authority''.

I wonder whether the Minister could clarify ''best value authority''.

I understand that in the responses to the consultation, which took place some time before the Bill was published to allow the Government to digest and translate the responses into the Bill, the Association of Police Authorities and the Hampshire police authority considered that the British Transport police authority should be statutorily designated as a best value authority and endure the full rigours of a compliance inspection and order.

The Association of Chief Police Officers also asked that consideration be given to that point. It considered best value to be an extremely powerful performance management tool, but that requiring the British Transport police authority to adopt best value principles would not be effective. Rather than allow the British Transport police authority to act as a best value authority, are the Government minded to make it incumbent on the Secretary of State to give it direction in that regard?

The Hampshire police authority also suggested that the arrangements for the British Transport police authority should take into account the outcome of the Home Office and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions review of the best value regime. If the Government have taken it into account, will the Minister explain how that translates into clause 51, because it is not obvious?

I gather that an opposite view was put by those who considered that the British Transport police authority should be modelled on another authority but should

have no such obligation in respect of best value. I wonder whether, because of the two contrasting views in the responses, the Government feel that the matter is not as clear as it should be, and that is why clause 51 gives the Secretary of State the discretionary power to direct. Again, I did not hear the Minister say how that direction would be published. Will he be good enough to tell the Committee today how it is intended that the Secretary of State shall publish a discretionary direction under subsection (2)? Will he also say today whether the House would have an opportunity to debate that? What vehicle would be used? Would it be a statutory instrument Committee, a Select Committee, or would the matter be debated on the Floor of the House?

It is interesting that the Secretary of State is asked to consult not only the authority, but

''any other person that he thinks appropriate.''

That drafting seems extremely wide. I wonder whom the Government have it in mind that the Secretary of State might consult. Would it be a passenger transport executive or Network Rail?

Again, conflicting views were expressed at the time of the consultation. How have the Government sought to resolve in the clause the conflict in the responses to the consultation paper? In what circumstances does the Minister envisage that the discretion granted to the Secretary of State might be used? Can he give examples of the circumstances in which the Government imagine that it might be used for the purposes of the British Transport police? Corresponding examples of where that provision has been used by the Home Secretary for the local police authorities would also be welcome. To satisfy my curiosity, let me probe the Minister a little further. Who might the other person or people be whom the Secretary of State thought it appropriate to consult?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The British Transport police authority is not defined as a best value authority, because it relates to a national force, whereas the Home Office forces have a clear geographical area. The consultation mechanisms that are written into the best value procedures are less appropriate or less manageable than they are for the local forces, whose areas in many cases parallel those of local authorities. I understand that, for those reasons, the National Crime Squad Service Authority has agreed that the British Transport police authority should not be a best value authority under the Local Government Act 1999, and the British Transport police committee agreed with that proposal.

All agreed, however, that the principles of best value should be applied. In that context, the British Transport police are already committed on a voluntary basis to best value practices and to putting together a programme of reviews over four years, taking account of intensive consultations with railway users. That includes issues such as policing football, criminal justice, scientific support, managing sickness and crime management.

The hon. Lady asked who would be consulted. I am sure that she realises that unless one puts in a phrase that designates as appropriate, unforeseen

circumstances could undermine the legislation. We are trying to enable the Secretary of State to consult, where appropriate, as widely as possible to serve the objectives of the force. It is clear that the British Transport police do and will follow many of the principles of best value, but it is not appropriate to designate the British Transport police authority as a best value authority within the understanding of that term as it applies to local authorities and the Home Office police forces.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I should just like to record the fact that it will be disappointing for the British Transport police that they could be perceived to be in a different league from the local police forces. The Government seem to think that the reason is that a local police force has a defined geographical area, but the Under-Secretary of State said that the British Transport police will break down the figures by region, which implies that there is some sort of geographical breakdown by region.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I listened with great interest to the hon. Lady's concerns. Does she agree with the Minister that the difference between the British Transport police and Home Office police forces is that there are representatives of democratically elected bodies—local councils—on the Home Office police authorities, but no similar representation on the British Transport police authority? That makes a significant difference.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is separate to my argument. The hon. Gentleman's argument relates to the debate about the constitution of the authority. If he feels so strongly about that, I am surprised that he is raising the issue now and that he did not raise it when we had the opportunity to debate it.

I do not understand the reasons for the Government's failure to say that the British Transport police should be able to operate as a best value authority. In one respect, I almost expect the British Transport police to be relieved. If I were them, I would heave a huge sigh of relief that I do not have to commit substantial public funds to produce a glossy brochure that local authorities must produce for best value. Will the Minister give us specific examples of instances in which the Secretary of State for Transport may give a direction for the railways? In what specific instances has the Home Secretary used that power under the 1996 Act?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I shall have to write to the hon. Lady about the use of the legislation by the Home Secretary, but I have already indicated that the British Transport police operate in several areas. I gave a list, although not an exhaustive one, of areas in which they practise best value, albeit voluntarily. Under the clause, the Secretary of State may set further objectives if he believes them to be necessary. They would then be sent to the appropriate authority and published on the website and by other means, as appropriate. They would not, however, be debatable, save, of course, through the usual mechanisms for raising matters in the House.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister may be a more avid enthusiast for monitoring the contents of the

Government's website. I do not believe that the Government always know what is on it.

I refer back to the Government's response, which places the British Transport police in some difficulty. It states:

''The Government is not convinced that it is appropriate for the BTPA to be defined in law as a Best Value Authority.''

It continues:

''It is, however, appropriate for the BTPA to adopt the principles of Best Value, to carry out Best Value Reviews and publish an annual Best Value Performance Plan.''

The British Transport police are left in the worst of all possible worlds. They fall between two stools; they sit on neither one of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 - Three-year strategy plan

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The significance of the clause and the principle of having a three-year strategy plan relate closely to clauses 47 to 51. Will the Minister tell us whom the Government expect the authority to consult when setting out its three-year strategy plan? I hope that they will take the opportunity to build up good relationships with local communities—the Government would probably use their jargon about local partnerships. It is interesting to note that medium and long-term strategies for policing the railways should be set out in each consecutive period of three financial years.

Considering the new powers that are given to the British Transport police under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, how will short-term contingency planning fit in, particularly in the event of a terrorist attack? We have established that all parts of the transport infrastructure, not least the railways, are threatened and that at the height of the Northern Irish atrocities paramilitary groups made several attempts to blow up a line of track or a railway bridge. How does the short-term contingency plan fit in with the three-year strategy plan, as well as provisions in other clauses?

The relevant sections of the Police Act 1996 will affect the policing of the railways. Will the Minister confirm that the authority, acting with the chief constable, will determine the priorities that are deemed to be less relevant to the work of the British Transport police under the appropriate sections of the 1996 Act? Will he confirm that the authority and chief constable will be empowered to do that? That will go some way to meeting the forceful requests for them to be enabled to set railway specific priorities in the short and medium-to-long term, and particularly under the three-year strategy plan. How will the three-year strategy plan enable the British Transport police authority and the chief constable to achieve that? I

hope that the Secretary of State will not try to invoke the power of authority under previous clauses or say that the British Transport police authority should not have dropped the provisions of the Police Act 1996.

It is interesting that no specific mention is made of the new powers, which were welcomed by the British Transport police. I have mentioned the short-term threat of terrorism, but we all realise that the nature and threat of terrorism has changed from the Northern Irish context to a more global threat. How will that be reflected in the three-year strategy plan? Will the Minister explain, with reference to the national policing plan and in the context of the whole of part 3, how the relevant clauses will sit comfortably with the development of a three-year strategy plan? It is clearly an important tool, and the Government have said that they are keen on setting performance targets, so how will the three-year strategy plan be measured against the annual policing properties? Will there be opportunities for the authority to amend the plan during its life?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I think that it was Eisenhower who said that all plans break down on first contact with the enemy, but that it is still necessary to plan. Inevitably, plans produced for either the medium or long term must be amended in the light of emergencies, as happened with the necessary updating of terrorism legislation.

Like other clauses, clause 52 merely replicates the requirements made on Home Office police authorities, which are required to produce a plan outlining their medium and long-term strategies every three years. The hon. Lady rightly said that the priorities would be decided by the authority and chief constable, subject to the overriding authorities that we have previously discussed.

Again, the clause is designed to bring the British Transport police in line, as far as possible, with legislation that covers Home Office police forces, precisely because that has been a long-standing desire not only within the British Transport police, but elsewhere. The provision facilitates that process with regard to good practice for the police and, indeed, the users of the railway service.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister did not deal with my questions about which parts of the Police Act 1996 would be deemed appropriate to be dropped to allow the British Transport police to concentrate on those functions. That is their specific request. Presumably it was made on a number of occasions, face to face and during the formal consultation. I am disappointed that the Minister has not dealt with my comments on that. I am happy to allow him to respond if he wishes to do so.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I would be grateful if the hon. Lady could amplify, although not at too great a length, the point that she is pursuing.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I apologise if I have not made myself clear. Clause 52(2) says that the relevant sections of the 1996 Act in relation to the three-year strategy plans

''shall have effect (with any necessary modification)''.

I presume that to mean that the legislation will be modified to the extent that the British Transport police will apply it in so far as it relates to railway policing, which is their specific responsibility. I just wondered whether, for the benefit of the Committee, the Minister could say which parts of the Act would require modification.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Yes, I shall certainly provide the hon. Lady with the necessary text.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It would have been nice to have a more formal response today. I shall simply echo what the British Transport police said to the Government in response to the consultation paper. Obviously, they were pleased by the action that the Government had taken on the British Transport police's jurisdiction and powers in the context of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. I have expressed my curiosity as to why the relevant sections of that legislation have not been reflected in the clause, which deals specifically with the three-year strategy plan. The clause relates quite properly to the 1996 Act. I wonder why it does not also refer to the new powers granted under the 2001 Act. Was that a deliberate omission?

I leave the Government with this thought on the clause. I cannot express it any better than the British Transport police did in paragraph 33 of their response:

''For too long the British Transport Police have been considered as an afterthought, or not at all, in policing legislation. We urge Government to ensure in future that as new police powers are legislated, proper and careful consideration is given to the question of applying those powers to BTP with a presumption that they will be so applied unless manifestly inappropriate to the specialist role of BTP. Without such a presumption, the powers available to BTP may become out of date and inadequate to deal with prevailing criminality and disorder affecting the railway.''

I end on a note of surprise, shock and disappointment that, having had that heartfelt plea from the British Transport police, the Government did not feel moved to respond. I should have thought that it was entirely appropriate, in the context of clause 52 and the development of a three-year strategy plan, to refer to the new powers under the 2001 Act.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I think that I now understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, although she is fundamentally mistaken. She rightly says that the British Transport police want to be as analogous as possible to the Home Office police forces, subject to any intrinsic differences that result from running a national railway police force. That is precisely why, through a number of clauses, which she has chosen to debate, we are bringing the practice of the British Transport police and authority in line with the prevailing legislation that governs the management of the other forces. That is why we are replicating the appropriate sections. In this Bill we are talking about a strategy plan. By definition, the exercise of powers outside the railways provided by the anti-terrorism legislation is reactive to incidents. It is difficult to plan for that. The British Transport police have the mechanisms to respond to that and, as she rightly says, are included in the legislation. It is precisely to satisfy that demand that we have introduced these clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 - Reports by Chief Constable

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Under this clause, after the end of the financial year the chief constable submits a report about the policing of the railways. Presumably that would be his opportunity to say whether they have met the Government's targets and the priorities of their annual railways policing plan or the three-year strategy plan. Presumably he will draft this report in conjunction with his assistant chief constable. It was pointed out to the Government during the consultation that service as an assistant chief constable in the British Transport police is not recognised for promotion to chief constable rank in Scotland. The Minister would presumably want to encourage free flow and the possibility of promotion through the ranks of the British Transport police anywhere within the United Kingdom. Apparently this matter arises from the express terms of legislation in Scotland. The position is different in England and Wales.

The British Transport police obviously believe that service in the British Transport police, at whatever rank, should count when an officer applies for promotion in another force, even if it is a move from England to Scotland. I simply leave that thought with the Minister. Someone who has the potential to become a chief constable in one British Transport police force in England should not be excluded from consideration for promotion to chief constable in Scotland. The Government were made aware of that—

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. Could the hon. Lady direct me to where these matters are referred to in the clause?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Yes. As I said Mr. Hurst, I should like to think that the chief constable in preparing the report would consult his assistant chief constable. There should be some mobility and some possibility—

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The hon. Lady will need to direct her attention to the exact wording of the clause, rather than speculate on other matters.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Hurst.

Can the Minister confirm that the chief constable, as with other national police forces, will be operationally responsible for delivering on the priorities? Will the report that he submits be debated? Under subsection (5) it is the chief constable's responsibility to publish the report. Would it not be in the interests of the British Transport police and the British Transport police authority for the report to be published? Surely the Government do not intend the annual report submitted by the chief constable to the authority to be a private, internal document, but want it to show the extent to which he has met his annual priorities, Government targets and the annual part of the three-year strategy plan to which it refers. Do the Government intend the plan to be published, so that the wider community, particularly the parts policed by

the British Transport police, will have an opportunity to consider it? Will the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend the report to be a private, internal document, but want it to be debatable by the authority and available to those interested?

I am more concerned about subsection (5)(b), which says:

''the report or part shall be published only if the Secretary of State directs that it should be published.''

I hope that the Minister will confirm that the chief constable will remain autonomous not just for operational responsibilities of the police, and that the annual report will, for example, be able to reflect recruitment procedures and morale in the police force and give an overview of personnel matters such as levels of early retirement and sick leave, which can be indicators of a force's morale. Will he also confirm that the Government do not intend to allow the Secretary of State to block publication of the report? What purpose would blocking its publication serve? I cannot believe that it is in the best interests of the British Transport police that the chief constable's report be blocked.

Subsection (3) states:

''The Authority may require the Chief Constable to submit a report on specified matters connected with the performance of his functions.''

Clause 53 is very vague. The Minister may say that the relevant section in the 1996 Act laying down similar procedures was equally vague, but surely if the report is to be worth anything, the Bill should say what its contents should be. Will the report deal with personnel matters, the morale of the British Transport police, the ease with which they are recruiting and any recruitment difficulties, and any potential terrorist threat? Will it cover performance indicators, which we heard about during the debate on clause 49, when I think the Minister listed violence to the person, robbery, vehicle crime, vandalism, managing football matches and fatalities? Will he confirm that those indicators will rightly be reviewed each year in the context of the report that the chief constable is asked to publish?

Presumably, the British Transport police will not be responsible for managing football matches, unless a particular event is taking place and there is a shortage in the national police force. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in the normal course of events it is not the British Transport police's primary responsibility to manage football matches and that they will be allowed to set their own priorities.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Presumably the British Transport police have responsibility for fans coming out of railway stations and will probably be along the route towards the stadiums.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is a pertinent point. Perhaps the Minister will explain what percentage of British Transport police time is taken up with that matter annually. If the reports are not to be published, how

will local people served by that particular police authority know?

Will the reports drafted by the chief constable have regard to each of the categories? Presumably, the Minister will say that the Government's information is sourced from the annual reports prepared by the chief constables. They are an immensely useful source of information. Will he be able to confirm that they will be published in the usual way? If they are published, will that happen on the local British Transport police website, will they be circulated to the relevant partners, or will they just be debated within the police authority?

A number of potentially alarming issues are not addressed in clause 53, which raises the question of why it has been so loosely and vaguely drafted. Will the Minister confirm that the report will address each of the priorities that have been set as part of the railways policing plan, the performance targets set by the Secretary of State and the three-year strategy plan? Will it go further than that and comment on recruitment, those entering and leaving the British Transport police service in that year and issues of morale in the particular British Transport police force, especially with regard to sick leave and early retirement? It should be published as widely as possible.

Will the Minister explain the circumstances in which clause 53(a) and (b) would be applied? Have the Government just lifted the provisions from the 1996 Act? Is there going to be something damaging in the chief constable's report that they would not wish to see published?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We move to an interesting part of the Bill. Clauses 53 to 57 are rather different from some of the earlier clauses in so far as they replicate not just the 1996 Act, but two Acts of 1996 and 1997 with regard to the British Transport police. I am beginning to wonder whether there might not be great merit in adopting shorthand in Committee, by which the hon. Member for Vale of York simply stood up and said, ''Question A?'' and the Minister replied, ''Answer B''. Question A is, ''Why are we doing it?'' Answer B is, ''Because it is what we have already done in relation to the Police Acts of 1996 and 1997.''

To be fair to the hon. Lady, she always adds several additional questions. During our deliberations on clause 48, she raised an important point when she said that we have had the Police Acts of 1996 and 1997 for several years, and during that time, there has been opportunity to review practice by Home Office police forces with regard to the relevant provisions of the Acts.

Perhaps it is incumbent on the Minister to briefly tell us whether, in relation to the reports under clauses 53 and 54, there has been any consideration as to whether there might be a more streamlined way of doing things. I find it slightly odd that under clause 53 there is a possibility of two reports. One is the report in relation to policing on the railway during that year. The other relates to the performance of the chief constable's functions. Then we will see the authority's report, which we will debate under clause 54.

Can the Minister tell us how the Home Office police forces have dealt with that in practice? Clearly, the publication of three separate reports going over the same ground would be rather costly and not very beneficial. I do not ask such questions without having done a little homework. I know the answer—I know what the practice is. Bearing that practice in mind, does the Minister not consider, on reflection, that clauses 53 and 54 could have been amended to bring the legislation's wording into line with current practice, and with what I assume he imagines that British Transport police practice will be?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause requires the chief constable to submit to the British Transport police authority annual reports on the policing of the railways during the previous year. It is based on provisions in the Police Act 1996 and, as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, the Police Act 1997. Only where it is necessary to meet the specific needs of the authority and the British Transport police have the corresponding provisions in those Acts not been followed.

The clause allows the authority to require the chief constable to produce reports on specific issues. He may choose not to publish all or parts of such reports where that would be unnecessary or not in the public interest, unless the Secretary of State directs him to do otherwise. That is in line with section 22 of the Police Act 1996, with which the hon. Gentleman is well acquainted.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked, at the start of her remarks, about service matters relating to Scotland. I am sure that she has seen the Government's response in the summary of replies to the consultation paper ''Modernising the British Transport Police''. Our response is set out clearly in paragraph 8.5 of that document, which says:

''The Home Office announced on 1 August 2002 that the Police (Amendment) Regulations 2002 allow officers from the BTP to count their service with the BTP for pay and allowances purposes on joining a police force in England and Wales.''

The Department for Transport is pursuing a similar arrangement with the Scottish Executive, but the regulations for the Scottish police forces are of course a matter for the Scottish Executive.

Much play has been made of this clause and the report to be made by the authority under the following clause. The hon. Member for Bath asked the teacher's question—one to which he already knows the answer. He knows that because he has asked me about it previously, I have written it down for him and it has appeared in Hansard. He has an intimate record of all such things, and so have I. In practice, the authority's and the chief constable's reports will be together in one report. That is the practice.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Oh, I did not know that.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Gentleman feigns surprise. It shows that we both read the answers to the questions that I give him. I think that that covers his points about streamlining reports. I agree with him. It would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to have too many such reports floating around. There are, however, two separate responsibilities, which must be identified in

the Bill, partly because the earlier part of the Bill specifies individual responsibilities for the authority and for the police. Generally, however, those reports will be published together.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked questions on what is currently published by the British Transport police. The annual report is a general report on the year's policing, but the ''Statistical Bulletin'' has best value performance figures on recruitment and crime. The hon. Lady was concerned about how they are set out. Those are matters for the chief constable and the authority to set out in the way they see fit. People who do not like that will make their views known.

In practice, the report will be a joint report. If the chief constable's report is separate, it can be published by the authority. Clause 54(3) sets out a responsibility for the authority to publish the annual report.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I think that I have an understanding of the situation in respect of the Home Office police forces. Publication could imply the production of one copy under clause 54, sending it to the Secretary of State and so on. I know it is intended for the report to be fairly widely distributed. Will the Minister give us an indication of the bodies to which copies of the report will automatically be sent?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

These days with modern technology the reports would be placed on what I call the privacy of the web, so they will be widely available. They will also be sent to interested parties in the railways industry and will be widely available to people who want them. Those who have an interest in seeing what was in the report would have no difficulty in obtaining it, although I am not sure that it would be bedside reading for every one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but it would be available to those to whom it was relevant.

The hon. Member for Vale of York referred to clause 53(5) and the circumstances in which the report may not be published. Those would be where the interests of the state were at stake, or where there were reasons of great importance why it would not be in the public interest for it to be published. However, the final decision will lie with the Secretary of State. The hon. Lady asked about detailed figures on British Transport police recruitment, which will continue to be published. She also asked about current targets—as did the hon. Member for Uxbridge—when she talked about policing near football grounds. In relation to the authority's current targets, data is produced on more serious incidents relating to football disorder. National Criminal Intelligence Service data for the football season 2000–01 shows that 81 of the more serious football-related incidents occurred within the railway environment.

The British Transport police are responding to an increasing number of incidents connected to persons travelling by rail to sporting events and in particular to football matches. That is an important part of their role because the people involved generally travel on some form of public transport, particularly the railways. As we discussed earlier, there may be

specific circumstances where the Home Office police may call on the British Transport police for support and extra help if they feel it necessary. I hope that this brief debate has been useful.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the Minister for the opportunity to debate those issues. One issue is outstanding, which I omitted to mention and which was not referred to in the Government's targets or by the Minister in summing up. Concern was expressed in the original consultation paper about the safety of British Transport police officers, in particular cadets and special constables, when patrolling potentially dangerous areas of railway property. The examples given were walking along track sides, walking under overhead cables and accessing maintenance depots. A general question was raised about adequate training of British Transport police officers in such circumstances. Will the Under-Secretary nod, wink or respond positively—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Go on, wink.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, as I think the expression goes. Will the Under-Secretary put my mind at rest and state that the chief constable's report will relate not just to recruitment, which he satisfied me on, but to annual training, particularly of cadets, but also of longer serving officers?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am sure that the report will contain information about training. The hon. Lady raises an important point for all those who work on the railways, whether they are the police or those carrying out maintenance. There are considerable hazards and we would expect the training of officers to reflect that. I am sure that if the chief constable thought that it was necessary and formed a pertinent part of the work during the year, he would include it in his report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 - Annual report by Authority

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Obviously, a number of the issues that would have been uppermost in my mind have already been referred to by the Under-Secretary in his response to my comments on clause 53. In preparing for the Committee, I have become an even more avid reader of the web than I was hitherto. I am a little disappointed that the annual report to be published by the authority will effectively be a joint report—I think that he referred to that. Will he confirm that the chief constable's report is more likely to be dealt with as an internal document and that its contents will be subsumed into the authority's own report, which will be published on the web? Have I understood him correctly?

The Under-Secretary did not respond to my question about clause 53—he went off on a tangent

in relation to the hon. Member for Bath. I specifically asked which parties would be recipients. Who will receive the report? To be more specific, will the annual report published under clause 54(3) go to the local partnerships, which may not be represented on the authority, but which would be interested? Will parish councils receive copies of the annual reports? That would be helpful. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could be a bit more specific about how the report is to be published. If any right hon. or hon. Member wished to log on to their own relevant British Transport police report, could they log on to the web in the usual way?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I was listening with great interest, as always, but I did not quite understand the hon. Lady's remark about right hon. and hon. Members logging on to their own British Transport police report. I assumed that there was only one British Transport police force and therefore only one such report.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That relates to an interesting point made by the Under-Secretary, who said that the British Transport police will publish figures that will be broken down regionally. If the figures are broken down regionally, presumably we will have access to them in the context of a report. Who will do the breaking down? Will it be the British Transport police? On whose website will the figures, as broken down, be published? I am taking words out of the Under-Secretary's mouth. I am sure that Hansard will confirm that those are the words he used. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take the opportunity to confirm that a report on training, morale and recruitment in the police force will be issued.

To return to my pet subject and that of the hon. Member for Bath, if we want to see a regional breakdown, at what stage after the report has been published will the British Transport police publish the regional breakdown? Will it be part of the annual report by the police authority or will it be done subsequently? Can the Under-Secretary say how soon it will be achieved? He gave an interesting figure: 81 serious football-related incidents occurred in a railway environment. Did those incidents occur in a geographic spread across the country or did they occur at specific points?

A copy of each report will be sent to the Secretary of State. Will that report be available to the Opposition or would we have to request a copy from the Library? I should also like the Minister to confirm the relationship between the report prepared by the chief constable and the report prepared by the police authority. Can he confirm that certain specified and named parties, including parish councils and the local partnerships to which he has referred, will receive the reports each year? Can he indicate how soon the regional figures broken down from the British Transport police figures will be available?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Clause 54 requires the authority to produce and to publish annual reports about the policing of railways during the previous year. The clause is based on provisions in section 9 of the Police Act 1996 and the Police Act 1997. We discussed many of the issues during our consideration of the previous clause, but I shall pick up some of the points that have been raised.

I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady is an avid reader of the web, and I am sure that she will spend many happy hours reading those reports. She asked about who will receive the report, and the answer is all those who require it. She asked whether parish councils will get it. If they, or other interested parties, ask for it they will get it. Generally, the report will be sent to the train-operating companies that fund the British Transport police, railway bodies, and crime and disorder partnerships such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone mentioned. It will also appear on the website.

The hon. Lady asked about the figures, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Bath helped to clarify the question of whether there will be one report or whether it will be regional. The one report could contain certain issues about which she may want to know. I am sure that she has read the British Transport police ''Statistical Bulletin 2001–02''. She will see on pages 13 to 16 a comprehensive breakdown of regional crimes. She will also see a breakdown of crimes by type and area. That type of statistical analysis is already available, and we expect it to continue.

The hon. Lady asked whether football offences are localised. Most football offences with which the British Transport police deal occur somewhere near football grounds, and I hope that I have clarified that matter.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Clearly, the Under-Secretary is not an avid fan. He probably underestimates the ability of football fans to travel great distances and do considerable damage on trains. We shall debate clause 56 later, but I do not wish to pre-empt that discussion.

Is the ''Statistical Bulletin 2001–2002'' an annual report and is it also available on the web? It will be interesting to find out whether it is published under existing rules. It is appropriate to send the report to the funders—the train-operating companies—who have already made a plea for greater representation on the new police authority. We have laboured that point strenuously during our Committee proceedings. It would also be appropriate for parish councils to be represented. When we debate the statistics later, we shall have further general comments to make.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The current report is provided on the web.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Other reports to secretary of state

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I noticed a curious subsection, which the Minister will no doubt explain already appears in existing legislation, but would it not be better to clarify more precisely what specified matters are referred to in subsection (2)? How often does the

Under-Secretary envisage that the clause might be reverted to? One would imagine that the statistics and the annual reports would cover most eventualities.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the power in subsection (1) relates to the new provisions in the 2001 Act? He referred to anti-terrorism preparations and greater security measures, but it might not be in the interest of the country or the British Transport police that they be widely published and debated. It would be helpful to know about the corresponding provisions in previous legislation and how they were used. Would such a report be published, or would it fall entirely under clause 55(4), requiring the Secretary of State's direction? If the power is already in force, how many times has it been invoked, or is it a wholly new power commensurate with the new responsibilities conferred on the British Transport police under the Bill and the 2001 Act? In what circumstances does the Under-Secretary imagine that it would not be in the Secretary of State's interest to publish the report?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Clause 55 enables the Secretary of State to require the chief constable and the authority to submit reports on the performance of their functions. To answer one of the hon. Lady's questions, such a report may be published if the Secretary of State so chooses. This is consistent with the Home Secretary's powers under sections 43 and 44 of the Police Act 1996.

The hon. Lady asked what sort of specified matters might apply to inquiries. Examples of what might be appropriate are parliamentary inquiries or questions from the hon. Lady for Bath—[Interruption.] I have spent too long reading on the web, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has been amazingly quiet today, though he asked me a few questions. Also relevant might be crimes that took place at particular locations and any further information that the Secretary of State might need between the preparation of the annual reports. I understood the hon. Lady to ask how many such reports have been prepared. I do not have the figure to hand, but I believe that the Home Secretary requires them from time to time on specified important matters that cannot wait until the annual report is produced.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am not sure that we are any further forward in establishing what the specified matters might be, but this suggests to us diversionary tactics to keep the British Transport police fully occupied in any potential quiet period. Will the Under-Secretary ask his Department to write to me before the end of this week giving some examples in which the specified matters have led to a report by a local police authority under the Home Secretary's powers? That would enable us to understand why the clause is needed. We have already been told that British Transport police have to produce annual reports, so I hope that we will not take up too much of their time in asking them to produce interim reports that may not be entirely necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 - statistics

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I have three questions. The first is question A, so we can get that out of the way. The second question relates to subsection (2), which requires information about offences committed, offenders and criminal proceedings. Could the Minister or the Under-Secretary—whoever is replying—assure me that the concerns that I have already expressed about the crucial need to gather information on the location of offences will be borne in mind when making requests to the British Transport police for the collection of that information?

Will the Under-Secretary clarify the meaning of the phrase ''offences committed'', because there are significant problems with some of the current statistics? I used the examples of vandalism and trespass earlier. In 2001–02, the British Transport police reported approximately 30,000 offences of vandalism and trespass. Roughly speaking, half of those were vandalism and half were trespass. However, all the other statistical evidence shows—from the number of objects left on railway lines, the number of objects thrown at trains, and from independent research that asked schoolchildren whether they had been involved in such acts—that significantly more offences were committed than were reported by the British Transport police.

Will the Minister assure me that the information will be gathered and published in the wider context of data that has been collected by bodies other than the British Transport police? Will the Minister also take the opportunity to comment on the disturbing statistic that shows that only a small number of those recorded crimes of vandalism and trespass lead to prosecutions? For example, in the last year for which we have figures, there were 15,075 recorded offences of vandalism, although we know there were far more, but there were only 2,200 charges and summonses. There were 15,395 offences of trespass, even though we know that significantly more took place, yet there were only 903 summonses, not all of which led to convictions. There is clearly a need to examine why so few of those recorded offences led to summonses to court.

My third point relates to subsection (4). I imply nothing, but simply say that two things are important. When the Secretary of State receives the report from the chief constable, the information should be made public as quickly as possible. Can the Minister give us a clear assurance that there will be a speedy publication of that information? Can we also be assured that if the figures are to be summarised, as subsection (4) allows, the summary will be approved by the chief constable so that there can be no dubiety about the selection of the data? The Minister's smile shows why I said at the beginning that I was not implying anything.

Simply for the avoidance of doubt, the chief constable should be prepared to sign up to the summary that is being made public and on which many people outside the British Transport police may

base their actions. I am thinking of the train operating companies and Network Rail, which have specific duties in relation to some of the crimes that take place on the railways. They will clearly need to know that they can rely on the statistics. The hon. Member for Vale of York referred to her local parish council. It may wish to base some of its work on these statistics. It should therefore be information in which people have total confidence.

I have three basic questions. The first is question A. The second relates to subsection (2), about offences committed, the gathering of wider data and an assurance that we will look at the issue of the relationship between offences committed and the number of prosecution. The third question relates to subsection (4) and whether we will get quick publication and whether the summary will be one on which we can all rely.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

The hon. Member for Bath made some interesting remarks. Like other hon. Members, I saw those excellent documentaries about the British Transport police. I was concerned about the offences that were being committed. After expensive chases, sometimes involving helicopters and police cars, a small number of young men were rounded up, given a friendly talking to and then allowed to go away. Is that recorded and is the action taken effective?

I do not assume that we should automatically come down heavily on trivial offences, but can my hon. Friend the Minister assure us that all these issues are considered carefully by the British Transport police and that the legislation provides for them to take effective action and to ensure that the statistics are properly recorded? This kind of behaviour goes on all the time. We want effective measures to be taken to reduce the level of crime on our railways.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Working backwards, I see that under clause 56(4) the information received under the clause, or a summary of it, shall be laid before Parliament Will the Minister tell us whether the British Transport police ''Statistical Bulletin 2001–02'', which has been much vaunted this morning, is available for Committee members and where it is available? We are told that the intention is to make it available under the Bill, so presumably it is available under existing provisions.

The hon. Member for Bath keeps banging on about—please pardon that expression—trespass. [Interruption.] I say that with the highest affection for the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to hold on to the Vale of York, and he is welcome to his constituency, at least until the next election. My understanding is that the offence of trespass does not pertain to Scottish law: the offence of trespass does not exist in Scotland. That point was put most vigorously to the Government in the responses from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. They expressed the specific concern that a British Transport police constable attested in England and Wales would have jurisdiction in Scotland without the appropriate training or

knowledge of Scottish law. Is that reflected in the published statistics by noting the offences committed in England and Wales that are not deemed to be offences under Scottish law? Similarly, new offences may be created under Scots law—in hunting for example, although I am not sure whether the British Transport police would come across that—so do the statistics reflect that too?

There is a serious omission in subsection (2). Why is there no separate provision to make information available about victims? For the purposes of the Bill and all those who represent the victims of crime, it is important to collate evidence about victims annually so that comparisons can be formed. We have spoken at length during our debates on part 3 about the increasing vulnerability of women who use remote railway stations and lines at night and other times of the day when not many people are about, and I am sure that all Committee members received compelling evidence of the concerns of organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind. I cannot understand why a separate category for victims is not justified, and it is remiss of the Government not to include that. Will they include such a category in the future? For several crimes against the person, particularly rape and sexual assaults, statistical evidence shows that the incidence of such offences is higher on trains or in railway stations than elsewhere.

Will the nature of the statistics requested by the Secretary of State under the clause allow hon. Members, railway users, train operating companies and the British Transport police to show whether the level of reported offences is up or down in any given reporting period, so that comparisons can be drawn between the different periods? From the point of view of policing, I would have thought that that was important. I have mentioned my concern that the offences may be recognised in England and Wales, but not in Scotland.

I wonder whether the statistics on offenders indicate an age breakdown or gender profile, such as a tendency for women to commit fewer offences because they do not watch as many football matches or are less violent, and whether there are repeat offenders on trains or railway facilities.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying and in the statistics that relate to the clause. Does she believe that subsection (2) would include successful prosecutions and the statistics to which she referred? Would they come under criminal proceedings and length of sentence?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is my next point. May I say what a pleasure it is to welcome back my hon. Friend after his worthwhile exercise of being nice to people living in other parts of Europe?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the hon. Lady explain why it was worth while?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I do not want to be ruled out of order. My hon. Friend's absence from the Committee was obviously not worth while, but I am sure that he will prepare a report to share with us that will explain why his visit was worth while. It is always worth while sidling up to our neighbours.

I speak as someone who did not develop an extensive criminal practice, but it is important to differentiate between offences committed and offences successfully prosecuted, as the hon. Member for Bath said. Scotland has always had the procurator fiscal service, which is responsible for bringing cases to court. The Minister might or might not find my point interesting, but I believe that there has been a sea change in England and Wales since the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service. Will he confirm that?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

My hon. Friend raises an interesting question, which I am not sure she will be able to answer. Presumably, if an offence is committed on a train travelling between England and Scotland, at what point does that offence come under Scottish law and at what point does it come under English law? Must the time that the offence was committed and the location of the train at that time be ascertained?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I shall momentarily return to the point to which I hope the Minister will respond. The problem of moving jurisdiction is vexing in the context of the Bill. Out of respect for the hon. Member for Bath and his passion for the crime of trespass, I must say that it would be fruitless for an English police officer of the British Transport police to apprehend someone for committing a crime such as trespass in Scotland, where it is not recognised. I hope that the Minister heard the scenario that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge described, and that he will consider it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my point, this is a cause of real concern. Do the current statistics reflect the difference between the number of offences committed and the number of offences that are successfully prosecuted? Is it envisaged that current practices will be continued? When the Minister finishes speaking to the clause, will he tell the Committee what changes, if any, have been made by the creation of the CPS?

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 56 - Statistics

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Hood. I hope that you had the benefit of a good week. It is good to see you back in the Chair. I am sure that the Committee appreciates the fact that you have had to drag yourself away from another pressing Committee meeting, part of which I also had the honour to attend.

Before the break for questions, lunch and the prime ministerial statement, I was questioning the Minister, but obviously he has not had the opportunity to reply. With reference to clause 56(4), will the Minister tell me the legal basis for the current crime statistics produced by the British Transport police? I hope that the Government will do better on the provisions in this Bill than the way in which the current provisions operate.

Subsection (4) states:

''Where the Secretary of State receives information under this section he shall lay it or a summary of it before Parliament.''

Under normal circumstances I would understand that to mean that any hon. Member who wished to have access to the statistical information under the existing provisions or the proposed new provisions would present him or herself to the Vote Office or to the Library and expect to have easy access to a copy. I was therefore concerned—I am sure that the Minister will be alarmed to hear this—on presenting myself to the Vote Office at 11.33 this morning, to be told that the statistics were not available there, and that the Department could not get them to me by 2.30 pm today. That was three hours' notice, which I would have thought was adequate, if the document was as widely available as we are told.

I then went to the Library at 11.40 am—obviously I moved quite quickly between the Vote Office and the Library—and was told that copies were available in the statistical section of the Library. As hon. Members will know, the statistical section of the Library is not part of the Members' Library, but is situated some three or four blocks away in Derby gate, very close to the Norman Shaw North building in which my office is located.

I therefore record my immense gratitude to the House of Commons Library for, in the short time available, furnishing me with the relevant information. I am not allowed to take the document out of the Library, but I considered the Committee Room to be

an extension of the Library. Moreover, the Library knows where the document is and who has it, and I have promised to return it by 5 pm.

My point, however, is serious—it relates to my question on the current legal basis of the statistical evidence to which the Minister referred this morning. The document I have is the ''British Transport Police Statistical Bulletin 2001/02''—the most recent edition available—and I would like to know why it is not made more widely available. Will the Minister confirm that the statistics referred to in subsection (4) will be made more widely available than at present?

This may strike a chord with you, Mr. Hood, because the statistics come with a health warning. On page 3 of the bulletin it states:

''Crime statistics should be treated with caution. Dramatic fluctuations''—

it is a bit like the stock market—

''up or down can be misleading, and, if misused, statistics can contribute to the fear of crime. Hundreds of millions of passenger journeys are made safely each year, and the statistics should be viewed in that context.''

That is the health warning with which the statistics come.

We had a debate this morning about whether the statistics and reports furnish the statistics take in the whole area covered by the British Transport police or are broken down into regions. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was helpful in trying to elicit further guidance from the Minister on that. It may help the Committee to point out that page 4 of the most recent edition of the helpful and illuminating statistics, which we must consider in the context of the health warning to which I referred, breaks down the network into area maps. Will the Minister explain at what stage the statistics will be extrapolated from the reports in clauses 53 and 54? Will he answer the question I asked this morning? At what stage will they be translated in that reporting period into the statistics I have mentioned?

In our debates on clauses 53 and 54, I tried to tease out issues of morale and training. I am delighted to say that personnel statistics are also given on pages 5 and 6, notably on the numbers of constables and different rankings. I hope that the Minister will confirm that future reports will include such statistics. Regrettably, there are no female chief constables in the British Transport police, but I am sure that that will be rectified in the fullness of time. I am delighted to note that we in North Yorkshire now have the services of a female chief constable, and I am sure that the Committee would want to see that emulated in other police forces and the British Transport police. That reference to the statistics is important.

When we touched on the best value indicators, we were told that the British Transport police would have to have regard to best value but could not be treated as a best value authority. As I mentioned at the time, that will leave the British Transport police and its authority in a quandary. Page 9 includes statistics from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary of best value performance indicators for the reporting period for 2001–02 for England and Wales, and I am delighted to

see that the most recent figures show that 98.1 per cent. of police constables are in operational posts. I hope that the Minister will confirm that such statistics will continue to be monitored for the reason that I gave earlier. One purpose of such statistics should be to check that the vast majority of the resources allocated to the British Transport police goes on operational policing. It should not go to other matters, as a rather large proportion of a force's operational budget often goes on paying for retirement costs, which is regrettable. North Yorkshire is particularly vulnerable to that as we have two waves to come of senior police officers approaching retirement age, so we will have two peaks and troughs in the percentage figure before 2012.

Clause 56 is vague, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that the statistics will continue to give an idea of the number of complaints per 1,000 officers and the percentage of complaints that are substantiated. The document gives greater detail later, and I am glad to say that less than 5 per cent. of complaints were substantiated.

This morning—I repeat this is for your benefit, Mr. Hood, as you were not here—I said that there was a serious omission that I hoped the Minister would explain. The serious omission is a paragraph (d) in subsection (2) relating to victims of crime. I note with interest and satisfaction that the table on page 9, compiled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, says that the percentage of victims satisfied with the police's initial response to the report of violent crime is as high as 80 per cent. That is a great credit to the British Transport police. I do not know how it compares with local police forces. I did not think to bring the performance document issued to us last week, which is among my other papers.

The document also mentions figures that I have requested but which the Minister was reluctant—[Interruption.] I am sure that he is not reluctant at all. I will not again fall prey to the charge of putting words into the Minister's mouth. I am not sure whether I asked specifically about the ethnicity of offenders—[Interruption.]

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Lady did not ask that.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

No, but I do now. Will future statistics give us the ethnicity of victims? I have also asked whether the gender of offenders and victims might be profiled in the statistics. I find the document immensely helpful and I wonder whether it is available on the web. That could be some night-time reading on my laptop at the weekend. [Interruption.] Does it already happen, or is the Department minded to correlate the statistics garnered by the Home Office for the national police force and those garnered by the British Transport police? [Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful, Mr. Hood.

It would be helpful to know whether the 10 per cent.—I am not sure what PACE is—

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the Minister. The percentages of stop and searches under PACE leading to arrest are broadly similar for white and ethnic minority persons: 10.7 per cent. for whites and 11.7 per cent. for non-whites. Will those statistics be compared with those for other national police forces? We owe a great debt of gratitude to the British Transport police officers. I would like to see more transparency of their work in this regard and I should have thought that the statistics, even read with a health warning, could be powerful.

Interestingly, when we had the discussion about the report and clauses 53 and 54 the Under-Secretary rattled through the top policing plan priorities. He did not dwell at any length on sexual offences, to which I referred in my remarks about the statistics, and the Bill does not include them. Interestingly, however, the latest statistical bulletin from the reporting period 2001–02 examines how many sexual offences were reported and investigated. Will there be another opportunity to re-examine each planning priority to determine whether there is a correlation between the number of offences committed and reported and the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service, whether national police forces' statistics reflect that and whether there are any conclusions to be drawn?

Why does not the clause state that the statistics will also relate to complaints against the police? I accept that the report does, but I want to know why the Bill does not. I would like some guidance to enable us to monitor that.

There are other crimes to which we have not alluded. I do not know if the Minister purposely left them out when we discussed clauses 53 and 54, but general public disorder offences on the London underground, on trains and in railway stations are of particular interest, as are offences relating to drugs. Will the Minister confirm that vandalism, as the hon. Member for Bath would call it, hooliganism and damage to cars parked at railway stations would fall within the remit of the British Transport police, as we see from the statistics for this reporting period?

Interestingly, the statistics go into great detail according to area, whereas the hon. Member for Bath suggested that the statistics would be collated nationally. I am delighted to see that they are broken down into England, Wales, Scotland and London Underground, and then broken down further, but Yorkshire and North Yorkshire are not mentioned in the summary of notifiable offences and crimes. Clearly, the levels are crime are lower because the Government, in their wisdom, have decided to give North Yorkshire police a standstill budget. We will be left £8.2 million short, so the Government may know something that we do not. I know where the north-east of England, the north-west of England and the midlands are, but I do not see where North

Yorkshire fits in. We do not want to be considered as part of the north-east for these purposes.

I briefly mentioned burglary, and I see that robbery and burglary account for a large number of offences. Will the Minister tell us whether the number of reported crimes of sexual assault, rape, robbery and burglary and the number of successful prosecutions for those crimes have increased or decreased not only in this reporting period, but over, for example, the past five years?

Fraud, in the form of ticket fraud and other fraud, is mentioned. Other fraud accounts for substantially larger amounts than ticket fraud. Forgery is very alarming. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that is on a downward trend.

The Minister said that one priority for the railways policing plan, which will also be covered in the chief constable's report and the authority's report, is fatalities. I welcome the fact that the number of homicides in the relevant period was quite low. Nevertheless, there were five reported fatalities in the jurisdiction of the British Transport police in that reporting period, which is clearly five fatalities too many.

Many of us have experience of people trying to leap between railway carriages and from one train to another. We have experienced that in North Yorkshire with some senior public figures. One comes to mind, but I shall not go into that. I hope that that is not a common occurrence and that the Minister will assure me that that crime is not rising. Just to refresh his memory—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

On that point—and perhaps just for a break—is the hon. Lady aware that we are told in subsection (2)(c), which relates to statistics, that we shall hear only about criminal proceedings? The practice of jumping between carriages is not dealt with under criminal proceedings; it is usually handled under byelaws. Does she share my view that we should perhaps look back at, for instance, the 1861 legislation, which would ensure that there was criminal legislation because of the serious danger that that practice can pose?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. One does not wish for too many breaks this afternoon, particularly as another may be imminent. Nevertheless, he makes a serious point and I give him credit. I had not appreciated that the situation was as he describes. I presume that that is also the case in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister will have had an opportunity to confirm that during the short lunch break that we were allowed today. I asked this morning about the extent to which offences in England and Wales are not treated as offences in Scotland. From memory—I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong—I think that trespass was not considered to be an offence in Scotland. It may have become an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, which relates to hunting. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

This innocent-looking little clause fits neatly between clauses 55 and 57, and sums up the policing

plan. I wish that I could commend that marvellous little document as bedtime reading, but the Library is loth to give out any of its three copies, for justifiable reasons. The document is a huge treasure trove of information, which we shall have the opportunity to explore in future years once the Bill is on the statute book. I hope that the Minister will respond to the serious matters that we have raised. The hon. Member for Bath started the debate, and I followed it through.

I am particularly aware of the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service was not in existence during the time that is under discussion. As I said, I should like to know how that has affected the levels of reported crimes, crimes committed and successfully prosecuted crimes.

This morning, I mentioned the concern, which I hope that the Minister will address, that a British Transport police constable attested in England and Wales would have jurisdiction in Scotland without the appropriate training or knowledge of Scottish law. I hope that he will confirm that that will not be the case.

The Royal National Institute of the Blind noted that clause 56 allows the Secretary of State

''to supply information about matters relating to crime committed on . . . the railways.''

It asked whether he would be able to use the power to require the production of statistics on the number of disabled people who are victims of crime. Why is there no subsection (2)(d) on victims? I hope that the Minister has enough time to respond to all the points that we have raised.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

It seems such a long time since we heard the hon. Lady's questions—and that applies just to her questions of today. I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Hood, and hope that you had a refreshing break last week.

Clause 56 enables the Secretary of State to require the chief constable to provide statistical information about crime on the railways, including on offences committed, offenders, criminal proceedings and other information that the Secretary of State may direct. The clause also requires the Secretary of State to lay an abstract of that information before Parliament, and I shall say more about that later.

The hon. Member for Bath asked question A, to which the answer is yes. He went on—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Surely the answer to question A is answer B.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Mr. Hood, you were not here this morning, so let me explain that for the convenience and brevity of the Committee we had decided to truncate some answers. The clause is consistent with section 45 of the Police Act 1996, which is the answer to question A. Answer B is also yes. I hope that I have clarified the position.

The hon. Member for Bath asked about the location of crimes. I have taken his point into account, but it would be within the gift of the Secretary of State to ask for such information if he wanted it. Most of the information would come through the annual report, of which we have a copy here in Committee, but, as I say, the Secretary of State

could ask for further information, including the location of crimes, if he desired it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful for the Minister's response, but might it not be necessary for the Secretary of State to make changes to the RIDDOR procedure? There is no point in asking for information unless it has been recorded in the first place. I assume that information about location will emerge through the usual discussions.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The simple answer is that information is often available somewhere, but we have to decide whether it is worth the time and effort required to produce it. If it is important enough, a judgment will be made to acquire the information. The hon. Gentleman knows that it often takes considerable time and effort to produce parliamentary answers to hon. Members' questions.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about recorded crime and offences committed, which will be in accordance with Home Office guidelines. What happens under the Bill will be similar to what happens under other Home Office legislation. He also asked about making statistics speedily known. I understand the thrust of his question, but most statistics will appear in the annual report. If the Secretary of State required information of the British Transport police under this clause—he would not always have to use the clause to require the information, as other clauses also apply—such information would have to be laid before Parliament with due expedition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) made some interesting points about the crime figures being accurate and consistent with each other. The figures will be produced in line with Home Office guidelines, but I understand the point about the importance of gathering good statistics each year to examine the trends in crime. That is important to my hon. Friend's constituents and other railways users.

The hon. Member for Bath asked about the low level of detection and prosecution. That reflects the problems that the British Transport police and the industry face in targeting rail crime. Many incidents are reported only once the offender has left the railways. For example, vandalism is often discovered a long time after the event. In some situations, an hour can be a long time spent on trying to track down the person who committed the offence. Many offences are committed by juveniles, and prosecution is not always the most effective way to deal with them. The authorities cannot always proceed with prosecutions, and education that targets schools and parents may be more appropriate. The hon. Gentleman asked some important questions, and I hope that my response has been helpful. I might pick up on some of his other points in my later comments.

The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised some matters, and I should be able to get through them quickly. She asked about the victims of crime, but the statistical document is all

about the victims. Each statistic represents a person who has been offended against, although I take her point about recording the gender and ethnicity of victims. I dare say that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to require that information if he thought that it would help the future policing of the railways.

The hon. Lady asked why the Bill does not require that all information be provided. If we included every category on which information might be required, the Bill would be a thick and weighty document and, even then, there would be the risk of leaving something out. As the hon. Lady can see from the clause, the Secretary of State can ask to be provided with any relevant information that he or she requires.

At one point, the hon. Lady asked where her constituency of the Vale of York comes into it. My knowledge of geography is cursory, but I always thought that Yorkshire was somewhere in the north-eastern region.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

No it is not.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Well, from the map at the front of the document, I can see that Hull and York are both in the north-eastern region. As I said, it is a national document, but it breaks down the statistics regionally.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Even with the health warning on page 3, if the statistics are to mean anything, they should not equate a little village such as Cattal, which has a railway station and commuter line going through it, with what happens in Newcastle. The Government have built on their regional strategy for offices and defined regions, and Yorkshire and the Humber are not connected with the north-eastern region as we presently know it.

I cannot imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) would like statistics from London and Uxbridge to be included with figures from East Anglia. I cannot imagine that the hon. Member for Bath is delighted to see that his constituency is included in a region that encompasses the whole of the south-west, including Cornwall and Devon, and a third of Wales. Let us be frank. If the statistics are to mean anything, the regions should reflect the regions used for other purposes.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The regions have been created for good reason. It would not necessarily be appropriate for them to reflect regions used for other Government purposes. Those regions are well understood and relate to the railways. That is the important point. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bath minds his constituency being associated with Devon and Cornwall. I saw him shake his head slightly when the hon. Lady mentioned that.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

On a point of order, Mr. Hood. Is it appropriate for the Minister to infer my thoughts on certain matters and even to suggest that my head was moving in any way?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. Trying to get inside his head is rather challenging.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Nor do I wish to get inside or outside the hon. Gentleman's head.

The hon. Member for Vale of York is suggesting an enormous bureaucratic system that endlessly pares down statistics into smaller and smaller areas. As I said earlier, if statistics were needed because a small station was creating a problem, I am sure that they could be made available. However, to break them down station by station, town by town, or parish by parish would make the document meaningless, filled with information that was beyond comprehension.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Has any consideration been given to giving statistics by rail lines, rather than regions? Would that be simpler?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The statistics reflect the operations of the British Transport police and to some extent the operations of the railways. That is how they have been divided up. We have split them into geographical regions but if information is needed on a more detailed basis, it can be provided.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked for year-on-year statistics this morning. She probably has the document now and can analyse it. She mentioned sexual offences and rape. The number of rapes recorded in 2001–02 and the comparison with the previous year are shown on page 51. A trend can be seen. By comparing the various documents, trends can be analysed over different periods.

The statistics compiled by the British Transport police in England, Scotland and Wales reflect crimes reported to them by the victims or witnesses of crime. The British Transport police can also conduct their own survey of the perception of crime. That is compatible with the Home Office crime survey. Year-on-year statistical comparisons can be seen throughout the document. The sentencing offender profiles and detailed statistics are not necessarily matters for the British Transport police alone. However, along with other police forces, they can provide information for the Central Statistical Office as required.

The hon. Member for Bath asked whether offences would be reported in full under subsection (4). Generally, that would be the case. That is the format in which that information would come. If the Secretary of State requires statistics under the clause, they would generally be provided in full. However, if they were very detailed, a summary could be made. If required, they could be reported to Parliament in full.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I would like to clarify the matter for the record. Subsection (4) states:

''Where the Secretary of State receives information under this section he shall lay it or a summary of it before Parliament.''

I recognise the value of summaries in certain circumstances, but I sought an assurance that the chief constable should agree with that summary, so that there was no question of doubt about the selection of information put into it.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am sure that discussions would take place on the summary before it was drawn up. The chief constable might already have summarised the statistics, and that summary might be placed before Parliament. If parliamentarians then wished to drill down into further detail, I am sure that more detailed information could be made available.

However, I imagine that in general—so that we do not receive a great number of parliamentary questions on the matter—we would provide the statistics to the House in the fullest form possible commensurate with popular reporting.

The British Transport police produce annual figures after the end of the financial year, normally in the summer. Those figures are, as we know, national and regional, the regional figures being a subset of the national figures.

The hon. Lady asked how effective the CPS has been in its prosecutions since it was established. Although that is not relevant to the Bill, and I do not have the information to hand, details could no doubt be found on that if the hon. Lady wishes to press the issue.

There were a number of questions about laying information before Parliament and how that will be done. The hon. Lady also raised a number of points about accessing information, but the question of how quickly information can be retrieved from the Library is a matter not for my Department, but for the House authorities. If the hon. Lady was not satisfied, she should make representations through the appropriate channels.

I will, however, clear up the matter of laying information before Parliament, as that issue has been raised in several debates. A document can be laid before Parliament only when Parliament is sitting. Two copies of the document are taken by my Department to the Clerk in charge of the Vote Office in the Commons. The document is then made available to Members via the Journal Office in the Commons. The hon. Lady asked how we know what information is available. In the debate the week before last, the hon. Member for Bath said that MPs find out that a document has been made available to them through a notice that appears in the daily Votes and Proceedings. MPs must therefore keep an eye on that rather substantial list of items as it is published in order to know what has been laid before the House.

I hope that that has been a helpful response to the points made in the debate.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for the Minister's summing up. However, I asked at the outset, and again this afternoon, what the legal basis was for the statistics in the current Bulletin to which he referred. I query whether it is a similar proceeding to a preceding Act of Parliament because the Bulletin states:

''The crime/offence figures are collated from the British Transport Police's computerised crime reporting system, 'PINS'.''

That is not to be confused with pins and needles. It continues:

''The recording of crime is not static and the figures represent a snapshot in time, i.e. the state of the system at 31 March 2001 and 2002.''

Is the current legal basis for the PINS the Police Act 1996 or a previous Act of Parliament? Would the provisions transfer to the new statutory framework for the British Transport police? I hope that I did not mislead the Committee when I mentioned for clarification that, in 2000–01, there were five reported homicides out of the total number of offences for the

whole of England, including London. The Committee may be interested to know that British Transport police officers were required to investigate and submit reports to coroners on 279 fatalities in England and Wales during the 2001–02 reporting period, and a further 15 cases were notified to the procurator fiscal in Scotland. The report continues:

''Of all Force cases, 4 involved the deaths of members of rail staff. A total of 77 verdicts of suicide were recorded in England and Wales.''

I listened to what the hon. Member for Bath said but, as the British Transport police statistics suggest, the railways have become suicide traps, which is deeply alarming.

I do not expect the Under-Secretary to treat my request as a priority, but I would be interested to see the figures for the Crown Prosecution Service so that I may compare it with the Procurator Fiscal service in Scotland. The Under-Secretary—an avid reader—helpfully told us in his winding-up remarks that reading the Order Paper was the best way to find out which documents had been laid before the House. Here we are this afternoon discussing the British Transport police, and his right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport was pleased to announce today in a written statement that the Government have published their report on the management of accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles. That will interest those of us whose constituencies have congested railway lines and several road bridges. The Minister stated:

''British Transport Police have agreed to collect the data about such incidents on a common basis.''—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 15WS.]

Colleagues may like to read tomorrow's Official Report for the website reference so that we can read about it at our leisure.

We are discussing statistics that relate to the clause, which might have provided an ideal opportunity for the Government to table an amendment. They are not too shy to do so, as most of the amendments on the amendment paper are Government amendments. I must ask why they used the vehicle of a ministerial statement, which is laid before Parliament but cannot be discussed. The Committee would have had the chance to discuss the contents of this ministerial statement if it had been placed before the Committee as a Government amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Lady is making a valuable point about how the procedures of the House could be modernised. Has she reflected on the fact that the Committee is considering the Railways and Transport Safety Bill not only on the day of the ministerial statement—about which we have had no discussion—but on a day on which the new railway safety body, which has been much talked about in this Committee, has gone live without a murmur from the Government Front Bench?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It may be harsh of me to say so, but the second point, although legitimate, may not be

relevant to the clause. I pay tribute to a north-east of England newspaper, The Northern Echo, which covers county Durham but is also published in north Yorkshire. It ran a campaign on the road vehicle safety after a car collided off a railway bridge and into the path of a train. Hon. and right hon. Members will recall that that was the cause of the Selby crash. I note with dismay that the Government have prepared the timetable and set the agenda, and we have no opportunity to disagree with it. They have rightly devoted five or six sittings to part 3, which relates to the British Transport police and is very important. We have a quite substantial document, which we are told people can pay £5 for through HSE Books, or download from the Government's railways website. It would have been appropriate for the Minister to table an amendment to allow us to discuss the contents of that document. I would have welcomed that opportunity. The document fits in with the collating of statistics, and we could have discussed it this morning. I imagine that it was laid at 9 or 10 o'clock this morning. We could have discussed it in the context of clauses 53 or 54 by way of a Government amendment.

We are told that copies of the report will be sent to all local highway authorities and railway infrastructure authorities. The hon. Member for Bath and I specifically asked which parties would receive those reports. Despite the fact that it is a substantial report, produced in response to 19 separate recommendations made by the Health and Safety Commission and the Highways Agency reports published last year, we are not given an opportunity to debate it.

The report sets out the work of representatives of the highway authorities, railway infrastructure authorities and other organisations to identify steps that the Government consider should be taken jointly by railway infrastructure authorities and highway authorities to manage the risk of accidental incursion of road vehicles on to the railways. That raises the question of precisely how many road bridges cross railway lines. This would have been a good opportunity for us to consider the matter in a relevant context, precisely because the British Transport police have agreed to collect the data about such incidents on a common basis. Perhaps the Minister will now confirm that that will be added to PINS.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Lady asked about the legal basis of the statistics. The current statistics are not required by legislation; the British Transport police produce them voluntarily. However, the British Transport police committee has powers to ask the chief constable for information. Should the Bill receive Royal Assent, the new statistics will, under clause 56, be in the annual report. I hope that the hon. Lady will not press me on what the acronym ''PINS'' stands for. It is the British Transport police's internal crime recording system and database, which will not be affected by the new provisions.

Let me make one other point for clarity. The hon. Member for Bath talked about the practice of jumping between trains and what was and was not a crime. I can tell him that railway byelaws do create criminal

offences. The maximum penalty is at level 3; there is a fine of £1,000. Jumping or moving between carriages when a train is moving is an offence under the byelaw, so that could be subsumed into the statistics.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether we could have a debate on the statistics. The House is open to debate at any time. The Opposition are free to call a debate on the statistics on an Opposition day if they wish to do so. I would be delighted to respond to it.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The hon. Member for Bath and I have spoken about this matter on a number of occasions. The Minister, in summing up originally, explained for our benefit what it meant for a document to be laid before Parliament. I give the excuse, which will be written into the official record, that we have before us precisely the provision under which it could have been introduced by way of a formal amendment, just as the Government have sought to do with many other amendments. It is very disappointing that they did not take it upon themselves to table such an amendment, which could have been debated in the proper way. The document falls neatly within the scope of clauses 53 to 55 and particularly clause 56.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If the hon. Lady thought that this matter was so important, why did Opposition not table an amendment? It is not only the Government who can table amendments.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is an interesting concept. How am I supposed to table an amendment on information to which I am not privy and which was not placed in the Library until 9.30 this morning? I find that point fairly infantile.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57 - Inquiry

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will the Minister explain the present legal basis of an inquiry into the British Transport police and whether existing legislation applies to the national police force? What is the nature of an inquiry? We have already debated circumstances surrounding the statistical bulletin. Is a complaint against an individual police constable or an action by the British Transport police covered? Is a fatal accident inquiry relevant? Under what circumstances would the Secretary of State appoint a person to conduct such an inquiry, and who might be appointed?

Under subsection (3), a person appointed

''may summon a person to attend at a specified time and place—

(a) to give evidence

(b) to produce a document.''

I am sure that the Minister would want to put our minds at rest on that. The issues overlap with debates on part 1, under which the rail accident investigation branch was established. I hope that, in the event of an accident, no potential conflict of interest in the taking

and supplying of evidence will arise. That raises the question of what sort of inquiry would be set up. If existing legislation already provides for that, what circumstances apply? Will the Minister assure us that no conflict of interest will arise in investigations undertaken by the railway accident investigation branch?

Curiously, the Secretary of State is allowed to receive a report of an inquiry insofar as he believes that it is in the public interest to publish a summary. Does that cover an inquiry into terrorist activity or a perceived public threat? Under what circumstances would such an inquiry take place in public and in private?

I understand that separate provisions apply to Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that in Scotland the Secretary of State is allowed to cite a person to attend—a legal nicety that you, Mr. Hood, and I understand, as the legal language is slightly different north of the border?

One response to the original Government consultation referred to the appointment of a treasurer and an independent financial adviser. Could an inquiry authorised under clause 57 cover financial investigations? Have the Government thought about appointing a treasurer or independent financial adviser, or can the clause be used in that regard?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Clauses 57 and 58 replicate section 34 of the Police Act 1997. They allow the Secretary of State to order an inquiry into a matter connected with the British Transport police. It is for the Secretary of State to determine in the circumstances of the time whether the inquiry should be held in public or in private. No statutory provisions currently exist for an inquiry into the British Transport police, and clauses 57 and 58 will remedy that. Inquiries would be on policing matters, including serious crime or crowd control at stations or other matters that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

The rail accident investigation branch would conduct railway accident investigations. It is clear that the person appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct the inquiry should be able to summon witnesses to give evidence in person, and clause 58 will detail how that will be effected. The clause also requires the Secretary of State to publish a summary of the report of an inquiry if he thinks that it is in the public interest to do so.

Those comments cover the broader areas covered by the hon. Lady, save that there are provisions for a treasurer, which is foreseen by paragraph 11(a) of schedule 4.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Would the inquiries include internal inquiries into police activities and complaints?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

That would depend on the nature of the complaint and whether there were other provisions in the procedure. The Bill leaves it open to both the authority and the chief constable to deal with their own matters, but if there are questions, the clause provides that the Secretary of State can satisfy his,

public or parliamentary opinion that one is necessary. It will facilitate an inquiry and provide a mechanism that does not currently exist for the British Transport police. As I have had to reiterate many times, the clause brings British Transport police in line with the Home Office police forces. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the Minister for drawing the Committee's attention to paragraph 11(a) of schedule 4, which refer to a treasurer. We should have time to consider that part of the Bill.

I understood the Minister's points, but I have some remaining questions. I understand that such an inquiry would not cover any financial irregularity. Am I right in thinking that if financial irregularity were alleged on the part of the British Transport police authority, the Government would not use the mechanism in clause 57 to investigate it? On crowd control, when London gets back to normal next week after the two half-term weeks, we might need an inquiry into crowd control at underground stations following the introduction of the congestion charge.

I thank the Minister for referring to the existing provision about inquiries in section 34 of the Police Act 1997. How many times has that provision been used in the past six years, and what were the circumstances of those inquiries?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I shall have to write to the hon. Lady on her last question.

To avoid doubt, I should clarify the position of individual officers as opposed to that of a more general inquiry. The British Transport police currently have a voluntary agreement with the Police Complaints Authority for complaints to be handled in the same way as they are for Home Office police officers. Under the Police Reform Act 2002, the British Transport police will be subject to the new Independent Police Complaints Commission that was established by that Act. Therefore the BTP are required to enter an agreement with the new commission about the handling of complaints against BTP officers. As I pointed out earlier the case for an inquiry covers more general issues that would rightly be determined by the Secretary of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58 - Inquiry: supplemental

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister linked clauses 57 and 58. I note with interest that the clause transfers corresponding provisions from section 34 of the Police Act 1997. A fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale presumably reflects the fact of a civil offence, whereas imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks will be deemed to be for a criminal offence. In fact, however, the offence could be considered to be both at the same time. Could the

Minister explain the thinking behind that? Subsection (7) states that a direction under subsection (6) could include provision for taxation of costs. To whom would such an application be made given that cases could be dealt with by either a civil or a criminal court? If the offence were both a civil and a criminal offence, would an application have to be made to both courts?

The Secretary of State is given discretionary power to direct the authority to pay all or part of the costs incurred by a person in connection with an inquiry under clause 57. That is rather curious. Does that accept that the inquiry should not have been brought in the first place and that the person who is being inquired into could have those legitimate costs falling on to them? Subsection (2) reads:

''A person appointed under section 57 may not require the production of a document relating to the title of land which is not the property of the Authority.''

How, if the document relating to the title of land is not produced, do the Government intend to prove to whom it belongs? Obviously this will have occurred under the provisions of the 1997 Act? These provisions could have serious consequences in terms of both civil and criminal offences.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Lady rightly says that the level 3 fines and imprisonment imply fairly strong sanctions that are obviously aimed at getting people to attend in order to provide evidence. That does not necessarily apply only to the person being inquired into. The person could be a witness who is required to attend and therefore has to incur personal costs. It would not apply only to someone into whom there might be an inquiry because there might be a generic inquiry in which the person was an involved party. That mirrors section 34 of the Police Act 1997.

Subsection (3) states:

''A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he fails to comply with a summons . . . to co-operate with an inquiry''.

That entails quite a substantial fine, which I understand is a criminal fine and a term of imprisonment that is slightly longer than that in the 1996 Act. It has been altered to allow for changes in the Criminal Justice Bill.

The power of inquiry relates to how the force is run, so it is inappropriate for an inquiry to get hold of any title documents for land—in a private house, for example. Only land belonging to the authority is relevant, which I hope clarifies the issue.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That was helpful. The Minister seems highly knowledgeable about acronyms relating to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, but when we try to hold him to account on the wording of an updated provision, he is rather less forthcoming. If I understood him correctly, the Minister views the provisions as dealing with serious offences and he said that imprisonment is for a longer term than under the 1997 Act. He also referred to parallels with the Criminal Justice Bill. I would have liked to hear why the offence is deemed to be more serious: what has happened between 1997 and today to make it more serious and why has the penalty been increased? Will the Minister satisfy me about taxation? Will the

auditor of the court be involved in the taxation of costs?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The reason why the maximum was changed from six months to 51 weeks is that it was part of a detailed package of measures by which sentences for summary offences—currently set at the maximum penalty of six months—were automatically increased to 51 weeks. The change was made for the sake of consistency and harmonisation between different legislation. On taxation, I shall have to revert to the hon. Lady.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I cannot delay proceedings, but I do take an interest in taxation matters. As the Minister has graphically revealed this afternoon, someone, having been summoned and with no earthly reason not to attend, could be put to considerable expense. I hope that by tomorrow the Minister will be able to supply me the information in writing. It is regrettable that, in view of the generous time allotted by the Government to consider the provisions, they are not as well prepared as they should be.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 - Public consultation

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 78, in

clause 59, page 24, line 7, after 'Executive', insert—

'( ) employees in railway services and trade unions related to railway services'.

I am not sure whether Ministers were well prepared for debating the earlier clause, but I am sure that they will be well prepared for this amendment. All I expect at this stage is an ''all right then'' response. If I do not receive that, I still hope for some good news in a short time. For the sake of brevity—

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Can I help the hon. Gentleman by saying ''all right then'', saving him from having to make any further contribution?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

In the spirit of wanting to make progress and given the clear assurance of the Minister that he will further consider the lacuna identified in the amendment—the failure to take account of employers and trade unions in the consultation list—I am delighted to accept his ''all right then'', and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The clause is welcome and we wholeheartedly applaud it. Subsection (1) provides a list. Is it indicative or fully comprehensive? As I mentioned earlier, in some circumstances, parish councils would have an interest in obtaining information about the policing of the railways. In the initial consultation the Passenger Transport Executive gave the Government the benefit of its

views, which is why I want to know the extent to which the list is all embracing.

The Rail Passengers Council would be the most appropriate body for the consultation of passengers, but the Consumers Association and its laudable publication Which? often examines transportation by rail and other modes of transport. To what extent are the Government minded to consult it? Scottish Ministers are also mentioned in the list, so to what extent will the Government consult them and other Scottish organisations? Welsh communications could also be mentioned.

The Under-Secretary missed the point when I spoke about victims as a worthy inclusion in the statistics column. He said that statistics on victims appeared in the PINS and statistical bulletin, but I also mentioned gender, age, ethnicity and ability. On that last factor, I refer again to the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which welcomed clause 59 on reviewing opinions about the policing of the railways. In his response, will the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State intends to table an amendment to the clause? Apparently not, but the Committee is still young and further sittings lie ahead.

Will the Government propose an amendment to require consultation with disabled passengers and their representatives so that their views can be taken into account in the planning process? Will future consultation documents be produced in large print, tape and Braille and be made available on an accessible web site to allow blind and partially sighted people to participate? Those questions are highly pertinent for the less able and the less mobile, as well as for the partially sighted and the blind. Hard-of-hearing passengers might also like to be consulted. Does the Minister expect consultation by the British Transport police to take into account the views and real concerns of disabled passengers?

By the same token and in view of the volume of statistics on offenders being apprehended through the good services of the British Transport police, would the Minister see fit to consider that such consultations should have regard to the interests of victims? Perhaps the consultation would be opportune in that regard. It would also be helpful for the victims to feel that they were being consulted on what for them are extremely serious issues.

The list of bodies to which the Bill refers is not exhaustive or comprehensive, so presumably the Government will want to consult the other bodies to which I have referred. Will the Minister look favourably on consulting, for example, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and those passengers, both less able and able-bodied, who have been victims in the past?

Obviously, paragraph (m) is the cover-all provision. It refers to

''other persons with an interest in the railways whom the Authority thinks it appropriate to consult.''

I revert to the point about parish councils. I am thinking particularly of parish councils that represent areas such as Cattal, which I mentioned this morning. Cattal station is a commuter station on a very busy

line between Harrogate and York. It serves the golden triangle, in that it serves Harrogate and York, and provides access to Leeds. Parish councils that represent areas in which a busy line and station are located should be considered.

It goes without saying that one would expect the chief constable to be consulted. However, I am slightly concerned that

''Before making or reviewing arrangements under this section the Authority shall . . . have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.''

Will the Minister be good enough to tell us what specific guidance has been laid down and how it is brought to the attention of the authority and those who would wish to be consulted? It is extremely important that they all know what they are doing. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the consultation will be conducted in the most open and transparent way possible.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Having persuaded the Minister to extend the clause by adding the words that I have proposed, or the alternative that he will now propose to cover the same point, I now ask him whether he would be prepared to make up for that addition by allowing a small deletion. I study these matters with some interest. Will he explain why subsection (4)(c) is in the clause?

The Committee will be aware that two requirements are placed on the authority:

''The Authority shall make, and review from time to time, arrangements to obtain the opinions''

of various people, and

''shall make, and review from time to time, arrangements to invite the co-operation of the persons listed''.

However, we are then told under subsection (4)(c) that

''The Secretary of State may . . . require the Authority to review arrangements under this section.''

As the authority has no choice—it has to conduct reviews from time to time—why is there the addition that the Secretary of State ''may'' ask them to do so? He insists that they do that earlier in the clause. I am slightly confused.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Member for Vale of York said that the list of organisations identified was not exhaustive or comprehensive. However, that is precisely why we have paragraph (m), which enables the authority to take into account

''other persons with an interest in the railways whom the Authority thinks it appropriate to consult.''

The hon. Member for Bath is right that the authority shall make, and review from time to time, the arrangements. However, just as a backstop, the Secretary of State can intervene if it is thought that those arrangements are not working satisfactorily. We certainly hope that they will work satisfactorily, which is why we do not want to be over-prescriptive. It could be argued that the list is quite lengthy. However, it could be extended much further. That is precisely why we have the enabling power for the authority under

paragraph (m). It is for the authority to review the arrangements to ensure that there is the widest and most effective consultation possible with all those who might have an appropriate interest in the matter.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am sure that the Minister knows that he is waffling. Under subsection (4)(a) and (b), the Secretary of State has the power to get involved in the way in which the review is carried out. There is no need to add anything to that provision, because the authority has no choice but to review from time to time. As I said earlier, that is already covered. The provision is tautological and totally unnecessary. I do not care two figs whether there is a backstop. I had hoped that the Minister might for once agree that it was unnecessary, but if he thinks otherwise, so be it.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that taking a belt and braces approach is not unprecedented in legislation.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is all very well to have belt and braces, but the hon. Member for Bath pressed the right button when he said that the Minister was slightly waffling.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I did not say he was ''slightly waffling'' but that he was waffling.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I find it extraordinary that although we are having a full debate, the Government seem totally unprepared to answer the pertinent questions raised by me and the hon. Gentleman. I imagine that the Royal Institute of the Blind will take a disappointing view of the fact that the Minister has not responded or said whether victims will be included in the consultation. He certainly did not deal with my specific request about whether parish councils would be included.

As for the Minister blathering on about Scottish Ministers and Members of the National Assembly for Wales, I hope that the Secretary of State would want the authority to consult other bodies in Scotland and Wales. It would have been interesting to hear which bodies they might be. I specifically asked about the relevant provisions of the Act. Rather than accuse the Minister of waffling, I would say that he is a little under-prepared for today's debate.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I made it clear to the hon. Lady that, under paragraph (g), the opinions would be sought of

''organisations representing local authorities in England''.

That therefore enables all local authorities to be engaged in discussions with regard to victims. The authority may well be looking at a post-incident response in order to evaluate the experience of victims and to find out what lessons could be learned that hade a more general application, rather than specific applications.

The clause allows authorities to review from time to time their arrangements for obtaining people's opinions about the policing of the railways. That is precisely why it lays that duty on the authorities. They can look at their mechanisms for obtaining such views from a range of specified organisations; but, in the hon. Lady's own words, it is by no means an exhaustive or comprehensive list. Paragraph (m) will enable those authorities to do that. If that mechanism

is found not to be effective in obtaining the widest possible range of necessary and appropriate views, the clause provides for the Secretary of State to intervene. It seems right to put that level of responsibility on the authority, but as always when setting up such bodies, we also provide a fall-back position.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60 - Inspection

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We now move on to the clauses that deal with inspection. [Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. To recap, the Committee has voted on amendments Nos. 39 and 40. We will now debate whether clause 60, as amended, should stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for that clarification, Mr. Hood.

I want to turn the Committee's attention back to the original consultation on these clauses. My understanding is that there is wide support, from the British Transport police, the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers and its equivalent in Scotland, for regular statutory inspections by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary of the British Transport police. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland commented that it would need to be involved in inspection arrangements for Scotland, because of the devolved nature of policing and the role of Scottish Ministers. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether that has been agreed. I presume that that subsection (8) is relevant to that.

I think that the Minister will confirm that the Government are minded to establish regular inspections, perhaps no more often than every three years. The Bill states only that

''Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary shall inspect the Police Force from time to time.''

My understanding, which the Minister may want to confirm, is that inspections tend to be at three-yearly intervals. The Transport Salaried Staffs Association, as the Minister will recall, requested annual, rather than three-yearly, inspections. I wonder how the Government responded to that. It is not clear from the Bill what intervals will be used. In their official

response, the Government said that they were not minded to consider a different frequency for inspections from that considered appropriate for Home Office police forces.

I understand that the Government also intend that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland should have a duty, under the general umbrella of statutory provision, to inspect the British Transport police in Scotland. I presume that subsection (8) is the relevant provision, but would be grateful for clarification. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to confirm that it is intended that only the Secretary of State would receive and publish the subsequent reports or have the power to instruct Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland to inspect the British Transport police in Scotland in particular circumstances.

The Bill does not say so, but the Government, in their response to the original consultation, said that any directions to the British Transport police after an adverse report following an inspection would also be a matter for the Secretary of State. I presume that the Under-Secretary will confirm that.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure the Committee that inspections will take place at regular intervals. It is a good opportunity for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to see that everything is shipshape. Will the inspectors' report to the Secretary of State be a public or an internal document? Will any reports will be made to the House, or will it be possible for right hon. and hon. Members to track the results of the inspections?

What is the current situation under the Police Act 1996? Section 55 relates to any necessary modifications and reports of an inspection. It would be helpful to know not only that there are inspections, but that the inspections and reports undertaken by the inspectorate will be transparent and open, and that right hon. and hon. Members will have access to them. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be good enough to respond to those points, and to concerns raised during the formal consultations about how the Government sought to address those issues when drafting the clause. Of particular concern is the frequency of inspections. Does ''from time to time'' mean every year or, as is currently the case, every three years? Will the Under-Secretary also say how the position in Scotland has been resolved?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am delighted to respond to the hon. Lady's questions. Under the Police Act 1996, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary inspects and reports to the Secretary of State on the efficiency and effectiveness of all Home Office police forces. The British Transport police have not fallen under the statutory remit of the inspectorate in the past. Nevertheless, at the invitation of the British Transport police committee, the inspectorate has undertaken detailed assessments of the operational performance and organisation of the British Transport police every three years, applying the same standards that it applies for the Home Office police forces.

It is time to regularise the arrangement. The clause places a statutory duty on the inspectorate to inspect

the British Transport police. It will have to report to the Secretary of State on the efficiency and effectiveness of the British Transport police regularly and at the request of the Secretary of State, who will publish a report each time he receives one. I believe that the hon. Lady asked that question in her anxiety to get through her contribution. It is, of course, in subsection (5).

Unlike the inspectorate of the Home Office police forces, which is funded centrally, the British Transport police authority will meet the full costs of inspections of the British Transport police. 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. The inspectorate in England and Wales will continue to be responsible for inspections of the British Transport police as a whole.

The hon. Lady also asked about the position in Scotland. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland will be given the statutory duty to inspect the transport police and to report to the Secretary of State in so far as the British Transport police operate in Scotland. Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary in Scotland are, of course, the responsibility of Scottish Ministers. The British Transport police, however, are a national police force under the control of the Secretary of State for Transport. Since Scottish Ministers do not have control over the British Transport police in Scotland, there is no action that they could take on receipt of a report from HMIC Scotland. In practice, the Secretary of State will send copies of all the HMIC Scotland reports on the British Transport police in Scotland to the relevant Scottish Minister for the purposes of information.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am intrigued by the idea that non-Home Office police forces pay for their own inspections. Can the Under-Secretary tell me how much one of the regular inspections might cost?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The inspections cost in the region of £50,000.

The hon. Member for Vale of York wanted confirmation of the frequency of inspections of the British Transport police. The primary inspection of the British Transport police will take place every three years, in line with those of the Home Office forces. She then asked what action would be taken on those inspection reports, but we will discuss that under clauses 61 to 63.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I do not wish to pre-empt that discussion. The Under-Secretary commented that the inspection costs would be incurred by the British Transport police, but they are funded by the industry, so—in view of the information that he provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge—one would not want there to be too many inspections at such a cost. He has, however, put my mind at rest as to the fact that those inspections would be in keeping with the inspections that take place in other local police forces.

I think that I have understood what the Under-Secretary said about the Scottish thing, but that takes us back to the dichotomy whereby, under the Scotland Act 1998, the police powers are reserved whereas the transport powers are devolved. That issue will tease us throughout our consideration of the Bill. However, we do not wish to pre-empt the discussion on subsequent clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 - Action after adverse inspection report

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

If a report from an inspection concluded that a police force was inefficient or ineffective, that would be a serious matter. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the provisions transpose the statutory responsibilities that existed under the Police Act 1996 and put them on the same basis for the British Transport police?

Subsection (2) states that the sections apply

''where a report of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary states that the Police Force is likely, unless remedial measures are taken, to become inefficient or ineffective.''

Could the Under-Secretary give us a benchmark of what was deemed, in previous inspection reports, to constitute inefficient or ineffective activity? Does that benchmark relate to the police's own reports and railways policy plans, to performance targets set by the Secretary of State, to their three-year strategy plans, or are there other, underlying measures that would indicate that the police force is in danger of becoming inefficient or ineffective? It would be helpful for the Committee to be given some explanatory guidance as to what the Government have in mind in that regard. Presumably, he will also confirm that the same benchmark for inefficiency or ineffectiveness would be used in England and Wales, and in Scotland.

This is a wide-ranging clause, with enormous implications for the police force if such a negative report were to be drafted, so it would help the Committee to know the background and the specific benchmarks that will be used to deem that the force is inefficient or ineffective.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Clause 61 applies clauses 62 and 63 in the case of an adverse report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on the British Transport police. The clauses provide the Secretary of State with powers of direction that require the British Transport police authority to submit to him a plan of action to be taken to remedy the deficiency identified in the report. The hon. Lady asked about the transposition, and we are back to question A, answer B again. The clauses are modelled on similar provisions in the Police Act 1996.

It would be best for the hon. Lady to see the previous reports and their comments. She should trawl

through previous reports on the British Transport police, which may give her an idea of the relevant issues in determining the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. Ultimately, those are matters for the inspector to report on, and within those reports, she will see what benchmarking, if any, was used.

Under other clauses, the Secretary of State may ask for other information from time to time. Her Majesty's inspectorate could report on the strategy, organisational relationships, crime and absence management and best value, which we talked about this morning. The hon. Lady also mentioned issues of race and diversity, which could be included, as could information technology, complaints and disciplinary issues.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

When the Under-Secretary mentioned investigating relationships, what did he mean by that?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I meant relationships with other organisations. I hope that we are not back to bigamy again, as we covered that this morning. I will not enlarge on that, but instead press on.

The inspectorate will also make recommendations on good practice and areas in which the force could improve. The reporting will be done in the same way in England, Wales and Scotland, notwithstanding that a separate organisation will carry it out in Scotland.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I could go away and spend all day tomorrow in the Library, but the question is where the reports are published. We have already had the benefit of a reference this morning to the statistical bulletin and finding out that it took two and a half hours from 11.30 to 2 pm to get it. Will the Under-Secretary tell me where in the parliamentary estate I will find the reports of the local police forces and the previous reports of the British Transport police? That will enable me to do the little bit of research that he suggested, which I will be happy to do if he points me in the right direction.

However, even then, how will the reports on the local police forces under the remit of the Home Office help me to understand how the British Transport police force, which is tasked with transport policing, particularly on the railways and in and around stations, will be deemed to be inefficient or ineffective? That is what I was trying to tease out from the Under-Secretary, although I must have been doing it inefficiently and ineffectively. We want to know how the inspection report will affect the specific policing duties of the British Transport police force and how it can deem the force to be inefficient, ineffective and failing in its duties? He has failed to enlighten us on that so far, but if he will point me in the right direction I can go away and study a number of reports tomorrow. That would be a good use of my time. I hope that he is able to tell me where to find them.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If I can help the hon. Lady use her time, I will. The House authorities do have the reports, I believe, in the Library. If she has complaints about the House authorities she should take them up through the appropriate channels. Of course, it would be totally improper for the Government to have any role in the organisation of information that

comes in and out of the House of Commons Library. We provide the information, but how it is provided to hon. Members is entirely a matter for the House authorities. If she smiles at me really nicely, my Department might let her borrow one of the reports. We might even photocopy one so that she can spend happy evenings—now that we finish so much earlier—thumbing through them and acquainting herself with them.

The hon. Lady asked about efficiency and effectiveness. I thought that that was all fairly clear—silly old me. The inspectorate could report, for example, on whether the strategy was being carried out effectively and efficiently. Best value is a classic case for evaluation of efficiency, and information technology is another area that could be commented on. One does not need much imagination to see how an inspectorate could comment on matters such as the efficient use of information technology. I am not an expert on inspections, but I am sure that most of us who have read reports of various sorts can imagine what will be in these reports. [Interruption.] I am not sure that we need to go into that level of detail in this afternoon's debate. I say again to the hon. Lady that if she looks at some previous reports and sees how such things have been reported, she will probably be better informed on the matter. If she needs further information, we will endeavour to assist her.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 - Remedial direction

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hope that the Under-Secretary and his Department will notice how sweetly I am smiling at him, so that I might be allowed to take home one of the reports for reading after I have partied later tonight.

I want to make one or two probing remarks about the clause. The Minister will probably tell me again that the clause confers the same statutory duty on the British Transport police as was in the earlier Police Acts. Clearly, it again gives a discretionary power of direction to the Secretary of State. Again, I think that we are talking about questions B and C. Copies of the direction and a report about it will be laid before Parliament, which is helpful.

I shall go away and do my homework overnight to ensure that I have read previous reports in relation to other remedial directions. Will the Under-Secretary share with us what time frame is envisaged for the remedial direction and for the action plan under clause 63? In the event of an adverse inspection report showing that the police force at the time is inefficient or ineffective, what time scale will the police authority be given to take the required remedial action? Presumably, it will be the Secretary of State himself—taking it from the Department—who monitors whether the remedial direction is followed to the letter. It would help the Committee to know what time frame is involved and how long the

authority will be given to make itself more effective and efficient, in the worst-case scenario.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Presumably, this will be the first occasion on which the Secretary of State for Transport deals with the police force and directs the authority to take specified measures. We are of course blessed in the Secretary of State, his Ministers and his Department, but that may not always be the case. What expertise do they have in dealing with the police force? Would they take advice from, say, the Home Office?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

It might help the Committee if the Under-Secretary, in addition to giving answer B to the questions that seem to be so frequently asked, reminded us of the wording at the front of the Bill. Under the heading ''Explanatory Notes'', we see:

''Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Department for Transport, are published separately as Bill 40-EN.''

He might from time to time, instead of saying, ''Answer B,'' refer us to the information that is provided. The excellent explanatory notes prepared by his Department answer all the questions that the hon. Member for Vale of York has asked. Like her, I have a high regard for its officials, Ministers and Secretary of State.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Gentleman has given the game away. Those explanatory notes provide many of my answers to the hon. Lady. I am worried that she will start reading them before I give the answers and will be mouthing them across the Committee as I give them to her.

Clauses 62 and 63 provide the Secretary of State with powers of direction following an adverse HMIC report and are modelled on similar provisions in the Police Act 1996. Clause 62 enables the Secretary of State to direct the authority to take specified actions to remedy any force deficiencies. Before making such a direction, the Secretary of State must give the authority and the chief constable the opportunity to make representations. He must also give the authority the opportunity to propose actions that would make his direction unnecessary. If the Secretary of State should issue such a direction, he shall lay a copy before Parliament, together with a report about it.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the time scale of such action. That would largely depend on the type of action being required of the authority. I think that she will understand the term ''reasonable''. The authority would be expected to act in reasonable time in these circumstances.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked whether the Department had sufficient expertise. I assure him that it has a wealth of expertise, but we are talking about the expertise to consider the report. It is not necessary to have knowledge of inspecting the police force, because that is done not by the Department but by the inspectorate. However, the Department will have the knowledge and experience of people who will be able to consider the reports and then suggest the action to be taken. The report itself may contain recommendations and suggestions for remedial

action. It would then be for the Secretary of State to put together the relevant documentation to ensure that they appear in the plan.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

In no way was I casting aspersions on the Department. I simply wondered whether there would be any provision for it to have any assistance or share knowledge from the Home Office.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That is almost inevitable. Departments share a great deal of knowledge and expertise with one another. We have joint appointments over certain matters, such as road traffic safety. Therefore, yes, that would be perfectly possible.

To flesh out the question of the time required for the action plan, the time frame would generally be four to 12 weeks, depending on the type of action required. We shall come to that on the next clause.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

As the hon. Member for Bath would expect, I am an avid reader of the explanatory notes. They are extensive on the early clauses. The Ministers are in great difficulty this afternoon because the Opposition have noticed that the explanatory notes are very brief. The Library notes do not offer any greater assistance. Bearing in mind that the Government have structured the context of the debate and the amount of time that we spend on each clause—the hon. Member for Bath has also focused on this—they have not been quite as prepared over the past day and a half as they were for the earlier part of our proceedings. I simply pass that on in good humour. It is good to see that we are all smiling.

It is not adequate for the Under-Secretary to tell me that the British Transport police authority will be given a reasonable length of time to comply with the direction and the report about it. As he and I both know, what is reasonable to one man or woman can be deeply unreasonable to another. I should have thought that in the Bill or in slightly more extensive explanatory notes than the Minister's Department was prepared to provide we could have been given an indication of what a reasonable time would be. I fear that the onus will come back to the British Transport police authority if ever it is found to be in breach of clauses 61 and 62, and that some bright spark will find evidence that it has not taken remedial action within a reasonable time.

I should have thought that three months would be a reasonable time. The Department may feel that it does not give the British Transport police authority sufficient time. Not only are the explanatory notes defective, the Bill is defective in not setting out what a specific time period would be. The consequences of an adverse inspection report and a remedial direction from the Secretary of State could be serious. The Government should have explained what a reasonable time would be. Perhaps three months is something that we could work towards.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Briefly, I would not wish to accuse the hon. Lady of being ill prepared, but if she looks at clause 63(3) she will see that an action plan would be required within four to 12 weeks. We would expect to

see the timing for any remedial direction in that plan and we would expect it to be within a reasonable time. That again would depend on the seriousness of the action that needed to be taken. In some cases, it might be judged reasonable that something should be dealt with within a week. Other matters might need to be dealt with over a much longer period. For example, recruitment issues could take perhaps a year or so to materialise but on other issues immediate action might be more appropriate. The period for the action would be appropriate to its seriousness.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Perhaps I am losing the drift of this. Does the remedial direction under the clause precede an action plan, are they separate, or does the action plan follow the remedial direction?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The remedial direction would cover, and ask for, the action plan, which is the authority's indication of how it will deal with any criticisms made of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 - Action plan

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is good to see that we have joined-up government, and that the Department rapidly latched on to the fact that there should be a four to 12-week period, as the Under-Secretary rightly said. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge made the pertinent point that it would be better for the clause on the action plan to come between clauses 61 and 62. What is the connection between the action plan provision, the remedial direction under clause 62, the railways policing plan under clause 49, and the Secretary of State's own performance targets? As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge rightly said, this will be the first time that the Secretary of State for Transport will be asked to set performance targets for a police force.

We are not given much assistance but one hates to be critical of such a hard-working Department. It is worth noting that it has rightly been made a Department for Transport in its own right, which we welcome. However, all we are told is that

''Clauses 61 . . . 62 . . . 63 . . . and 64 . . . provide the Secretary of State with powers of direction following an adverse HMIC report.''

The explanatory notes continue:

''The clauses, modelled on similar provisions in the Police Act 1996, enable the Secretary of State to direct the Authority to take specified actions or ask it to produce an action plan to remedy any Force deficiencies. The same procedures, including consulting with the Authority and Chief Constable, will apply to the Secretary of State regarding the BTP in the same way as they apply to Home Office police forces.''

As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said, this is the first time that the Secretary of State for Transport will be asked to set performance targets for a police force, and, regrettably, there may be teething problems. What are the staffing arrangements for the Department? Are there any staffing

implications, or will the same members of staff be used? Are there dedicated staff for this?

Where the clause applies as a result of a report under clause 61, the Secretary of State has the discretionary power to

''require the Authority to submit to him a plan of action to be taken''.

It is worth noting that the clause refers to the same performance targets that I presume are set out in clause 50. How do the Secretary of State's powers under the clause relate to clause 50?

I accept that most of us—we are all reasonable people—will deem a period of between four and 12 weeks, within which the plan must be submitted, to be reasonable. However, I am sure that the Under-Secretary can envisage situations in which particular leeway could be given so that the 12-week period could slip to four or six months, should circumstances permit. It is only guidance: it is not comprehensive. It is fair that the Secretary of State, in exercising the discretion before giving a direction, should notify the authority and the chief constable. Obviously, that would allow the chief constable and the authority to make representations. I hope that the direction would be given in a time frame of more than one or two weeks to allow the chief constable and the authority to make representations.

Clause 63(6) could be pre-empted. I draw attention to the relationship of the clause with the earlier clauses. I wonder how the reasonably practicable period after receiving the direction, during which the authority shall require the chief constable to submit a draft plan of action, fits in with the draft plan of action produced as part of the railways policing plan in conjunction with the authority. It is interesting that the Department does not seem to have given much thought to that. If the Minister is taking all his answers from the explanatory notes, he is going to be in some difficulty. They certainly are not of much assistance to us in what is a very important, far-reaching and extensive clause.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I assure the hon. Lady that when I said that I was taking all my information from the explanatory notes, I was actually joking. The information I had came from tapping the deep vein of knowledge that I have, thanks to the backing of my Department.

Clause 63 provides the Secretary of State with powers of direction following an adverse HMIC report, which are modelled on similar provisions in the Police Act 1996. The clause will enable the Secretary of State to require the authority to produce an action plan setting out what will be done to correct any deficiency identified in the inspection. The plan will need to provide a timetable for action including performance targets—I know that the hon. Lady does not like targets—proposals for assessing whether the actions identified have been completed, and a means for reporting progress on implementation to the Secretary of State.

In her opening remarks, the hon. Lady criticised the way that clauses 60 to 63 have been set out. Having looked at the Bill again, I cannot agree with her at all.

The order seems perfectly logical to me. Clause 60 sets out inspection; clause 61 details action; clause 62 is a logical progression to remedial action to be taken; and clause 63 is the actual action plan. One could juggle those in a few different directions and permutate the order, but I do not think that one would come up with anything more logical than what is in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge made a constructive comment—relatively helpful for a reasonable man. When I said clause 63 could be placed between clauses 61 and 62 it was not a flippant remark. I think that it does fit in there.

In a similarly helpful way, I wonder if I could tease the Minister a little more and ask him to explain—with the marvellous army of helpers at his disposal—how the performance targets that he is referring to differ from the performance targets in clause 50. That is what I meant by asking what the relevance was of having performance targets in each phase. How does clause 63 fit in with clause 50 and earlier clauses?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I was about to move straight on to that point. The hon. Lady asked whether we had sufficient staff. The hon. Member for Uxbridge referred to the issue earlier. Any staff needed for the assessment of the action plan would be taken from existing resources in our railways division, which has an excellent team of people who are well equipped to be deal with such matters and report on them in an appropriate way to Ministers.

The hon. Lady asked about the relationship between clauses 63 and 50. It is fairly simple. She will be surprised to learn that the provisions correspond to provisions in the Police Act 1996. I am sure that that comes as a total surprise to the whole of the Committee. Surely, the action plan could refer to the performance targets and indicate of how they would be met. I thought that the relationship between the two clauses was clearly obvious to all of us. With that, I hope that we can now move on.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is so clearly obvious that I am missing it. I do not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily, but the point that I made about subsection (6) is most appropriate. Perhaps the problem could be pre-empted by relying more on the earlier clauses than the Government seem minded to do. I believe that the Under-Secretary is trying to confirm, although he did not spell it out, that subsection (3) would not be read so literally as to exclude a longer period of, say, four to six months in extreme circumstances. I suggested that three months is a reasonable period. Would he be so good as to confirm that the measure is indicative only, and that in extreme circumstances there would be some flexibility in the interpretation of it?

I was not casting any aspersions on the Under-Secretary's excellent staff, with whom we hope to work for several years, perhaps from a different side of the Committee at some very near future date. I do not doubt the ability of his staff to read the reports. However, if I correctly understood his answer to my

hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, it will be the first time that they will read the reports in that particular way. Rather than taking them away from duties, new staff should be allocated with responsibilities for specific railway police duties.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Just for clarity, I believe that the hon. Lady was leading me astray somewhat. For completeness, let me discuss the relationship between the performance targets in clause 50 and those in 63. The action plan will be for new targets, which do not relate to the targets in clause 50. The latter relate to the annual railways policing plan, not to any remedial action after a report. I may have suggested otherwise in my earlier remarks. I did not intend to do that, but the hon. Lady was leading me on. I got somewhat excited.

There is no flexibility on the time in which the plans must be produced—the four to 12 weeks. Earlier this afternoon, the hon. Lady asked how we would assess the matter. I return to the idea that the timing must be reasonable and appropriate to the action that needs to be taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 - Senior appointment: delegation of function

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Hood, that I do not have extensive comments to make on this clause. However, the Minister did not reply satisfactorily to my earlier remarks, so I shall have one more go, and this seems to be the most appropriate place to do so. Will he confirm that the clause gives Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland the statutory duty to inspect the British Transport police in Scotland in so far as they operate under the general umbrella of statutory inspections by that inspectorate of the British Transport police?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I have answered that question.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

If the Minister has given an answer, it was not sufficiently clear to me. Presumably the clause addresses the relationship between the reserved powers of policing and, for the purposes of the British Transport police, the devolved nature of policing and the role of Scottish Ministers in relation to the British Transport police. Will the Minister explain how the clause relates to that? It states:

''The Secretary of State may delegate to the chief inspector of constabulary appointed''

under the existing Act. Does that already happen? Is the provision just consequential? I am sure that the answer is yes, but has the Minister answered sufficiently the concern expressed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland that it would need to be involved in the inspection arrangements for the British Transport police in Scotland?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Perhaps I should clarify this matter for the hon. Lady. This provision, she will be surprised to learn, replicates the provisions of section 54(3A) of

the Police Act 1996. It allows the Secretary of State to delegate to the chief inspector of constabulary the function of approving a senior appointment. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to delegate the function of giving consent under clause 21(4) and 22(4). The chief inspector would therefore consent to a deputy or assistant chief constable temporarily filling the position of an absent chief constable. Such consent is required where the relevant officer is to fill the chief constable's post for longer than three months.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I congratulate the Minister on his ability to read beautifully and with a complete lack of passion, but with the greatest respect, he has not answered the question that was put to him. It was put to the Government at the time of the consultation paper that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland felt that it would need to be involved in the inspection arrangements. The Minister has just rehearsed the existing law, but I want to be absolutely clear. Which legal base gives it the authority to be involved in inspection arrangements for the British Transport police in Scotland? Is this it? Has he heard specifically from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

The clause refers to the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, so presumably this is not necessarily the result of any devolution. There must be some difference between the police forces—apart from one being called the police and one being called the polis—that goes back some way. Perhaps my hon. Friend will question the Minister further about the difference between the two.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

As ever, my hon. Friend has put his finger on it. As I said, the Minister read beautifully. Indeed, I pause for a moment to say how well rehearsed he was, a little like the Prime Minister with the statement on Iraq. [Hon. Members: ''Oh!''] There was room for improvement, but it was pretty good—[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has alerted the Committee to the fact, which the Minister has confirmed, that this provision gives effect, for the purposes of the British Transport police and the statutory duty that they are being given, to section 54(3A) of the Police Act 1996. It may have escaped the Under-Secretary's attention, but between the 1996 Act and today, the Scotland Act 1998 was passed. I pay tribute to the then Secretary of State for Scotland, who made warm remarks about my maiden speech, which was made at the Bill's Committee stage—I have the Hansard bound copy.

I have tracked issues of devolution, not as closely as I would have wished, but as ever my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has highlighted an important point. There has been a major development between the passing of the 1996 Act and the Bill that is before us today. At the time of consultation, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland said that it would need to be involved in the inspection arrangements for the British Transport police in Scotland due to the devolved nature of policing and the role of Scottish Ministers.

The Government's response, which was unsatisfactory, is on page 10 of their summary of responses. It is also available on the web. In paragraph 4.20, they say:

''The Government intends that HMIC(S)''—

Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland—

''should have a statutory duty to inspect the BTP(S)—

the British Transport police in Scotland—

''in so far as it operates in Scotland under the general umbrella of statutory HMIC inspections of the BTP. But it intends that only the Secretary of State would receive and publish the subsequent reports or have the power to instruct HMIC(S) to inspect the BTP(S) in particular circumstances. Any directions to the BTP after an adverse report would also only be a matter for the Secretary of State.''

As beautifully as he reads, the Under-Secretary of State is evading the point. I have had help from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, but between us we cannot work out how clause 64, or any other related provision, has regard to devolution as set out in the Scotland Act, or the concerns expressed during the consultation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I will have another go. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her reading of paragraph 4.20 of the consultation response, and I am delighted to have been compared to the Prime Minister this afternoon. That is considerable flattery.

Clause 64 is not about the inspections, which were dealt with under clause 60. Clause 64 is about delegating functions and approving senior appointments. As I read beautifully, I would have hoped that the point was clear, but the hon. Lady must have been carried away by the delivery rather than the substance. I thought that I said that, but I have said it again for the sake of clarity.

Miss McIntosh rose—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. Is the hon. Lady raising a point of order or intervening?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am attempting to intervene.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am sorry. I thought that it was a point of order.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I thank the Under-Secretary for allowing me to make this point on senior appointments. It relates to one that I made earlier—I think that I will be more in order now than then. An assistant chief constable in the British Transport police in England and Wales is not recognised for the purposes of promotion to the rank of chief constable in Scotland. Is that also covered by the clause? I admit to being slightly confused. The Under-Secretary said that we have stopped talking about inspections, but we are talking about the chief inspector. We have raised legitimate points.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I stand by what I said earlier. We are talking about the chief inspector, but not about his inspections. For the sake of clarity, I should point out that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland has agreed to the clauses and provisions. The

clause allows the Secretary of State to delegate either to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary or Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland. The English and Welsh appointments will be to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and Scottish appointments will be to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland. I hope that that clarifies the position for the hon. Lady.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, whose facial expressions

never give anything away. I am not sure that the Under-Secretary has answered the specific point, but we will pursue the point at a later stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Five o'clock till Thursday 27 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.