| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Police Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
1.58 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Bill to the House. I say, by way of introduction, that I have been interested in police history and insignia for some time. Soon after my election as a Member of Parliament, my interest led me to being introduced to a number of police forces and their representative bodies and federations. I am pleased to have had friendships with the federations of the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police, the Atomic Energy Authority police and many others. I mention that because, a long time ago, I was referred to as a consultant to the Atomic Energy Authority police federation, and I want to make it clear that I am not--my association with it is one of friendship and common interest in police matters.
I was also prompted to pursue the matters that are set out in the Bill because the Port of Tilbury police are based in my constituency. Their genesis was hundreds of years ago in a police force that predated the Metropolitan police; indeed, they claim to be the second oldest police force in the United Kingdom. The Port of Tilbury police were part of the Port of London police, who were a substantial police force until a score of years ago.
The Port of Tilbury police are a proud, albeit small, force, and I pay tribute to the existing residual force and the people who have served in the Port of Tilbury and Port of London police over the decades. I am pleased to have a close association, as a friend, with their small federation.
The Bill would do a number of things. First, it would place a long overdue statutory protection on the terms "police", "police force", "constable", "constabulary" and other related titles. Parliament should jealously guard the use of those words; the custodianship of the application of those terms should be vested in the Home Secretary.
There is a danger that a plethora of individuals or organisations will describe themselves as police officers or police forces, or will use the term "constable", but have no real mandate to do so. I do not need to spell out the dangers if those terms are used lightly and devalued through flippant use. It is time that the provisions outlined in clause 1 were enacted, so that the use of the important descriptions and titles was restricted.
Clause 3 would require, for the first time, that the many police forces that are not what are collectively known as "Home Office police forces" be listed. I include in the category of "Home Office police forces" the Scots constabularies and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Other police forces, some of which will be well known to hon. Members, have proud traditions and are much valued by the public, with whom they have a considerable interface. I refer to the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police, the Atomic Energy Authority police and the Royal Parks constabulary. Within a stone's throw of the Palace of Westminster, one could meet constables in uniform from three of those forces. The schedule lists those bodies that contain officers who could be described as police officers.
Part II of the schedule lists a number of other police forces, many of which are very small numerically, but, in almost every case, wear traditional police officers' uniforms. We must limit the number of names that could be included in part II. I am not saying that there should be an embargo on the number of police forces, but I want the Home Secretary to be able, for the first time, to control the growth of police forces and to use his good offices to ensure that certain standards apply, and that there are proper inspections and management and professional controls.
The independence of the individual sworn constable should be guaranteed regardless of the commercial interests of the owning body. I say that deliberately because a number of the forces are in private ownership and are owned by companies. I very much regret that. It is not appropriate for police forces to be in private ownership, but I do not want to labour that point today. Parliament has dealt with it, most recently in the case of the British Transport police, who are largely owned by the various private railway undertakings, and so forth. Many of the harbour and ports police, who are sworn in under pretty old, Victorian legislation, are in private ownership, as are the Northern Ireland Airport police, based at Belfast international airport.
I am concerned that there is a disparity in standards. For instance, the Port of Tilbury police are subject to the work of the Police Complaints Authority and so, I understand, are the Port of Liverpool police. However, there is no logic to this as Dover Harbour Board police--not an insignificant constabulary--is not. I should have thought that the Home Secretary would want some consistency throughout police forces.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael):
My hon. Friend makes some good points about consistency, but I must ensure that he is not under a misapprehension on one point. He referred to the British Transport police being owned by a variety of private organisations. In fact, the British Railways Board continues in existence solely to act as the police authority for the British Transport police. Money goes to the board to run that authority, it acts as the single overseeing body and that is where ownership lies.
Mr. Mackinlay:
I am obliged to my hon. Friend and stand corrected. Nevertheless, other forces are in private ownership and commercial considerations can sometimes impinge on the role and duties of the constable. That is what the Bill would avoid.
I also want to ensure that there are proper training standards. Some of the forces listed in part II of the schedule receive from their owning bodies--both in the public and private sector--diligent and proper training to a Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 standard. Some do not.
The Bill would give the Home Secretary sufficient leverage to ensure that all constables were trained to a certain standard. The term constable--a proud office--should encompass training to a minimum standard laid down by the Home Office. The Bill would enable the Home Secretary to do that and to ensure that if any organisation wanted to add to the list of police forces set out in part II of the schedule, it could do so only after they had been inspected and the Home Secretary was
satisfied about management controls, training and so forth. It is not improbable that a number of applications could be made. Indeed, the Greenwich Parks police, the Wandsworth Parks police and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Parks police are sworn in under London local government legislation and, in theory, there could be 32 parks police in London. I think that that would be unhelpful and unwise; it underlines the fact that we need to take control of the matter.
I am not opposed to parks police in London boroughs, but if there is significant growth of such forces, there is a case for a single London parks police whose services could be hired out to boroughs. I do not want to discuss that now, but to point out that we could have 32 parks police in London. If parks police are good for London, why not for the rest of the country? We must recognise that that could happen soon. There is an urgent need for control.
I am a member of that minority that takes great interest in insignia. I look at the plate badges of police officers. The majority of people, on seeing a police officer's uniform, cannot distinguish between the Metropolitan police, the Port of Tilbury police, the Royal Parks constabulary and the Wandsworth Parks police. They see only police officers. We have a duty to ensure that they are all to a certain standard.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
Clause 1(2)(iii) appears on cursory examination to prevent police authorities from using the word "police". I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. Police authorities are a key part of police governance. If they are no longer allowed to use the word "police" in their titles, an amendment may be necessary.
Mr. Mackinlay:
I am sure that that is not so. Clause 1 refers to the Police Act 1996, which allows the use of such titles, but adds that their use should also be extended to the bodies listed in the schedule. If I am wrong, that is a point of detail which could be cleared up in Committee. Home Office forces clearly have such a right in existing legislation. I want to move on because several hon. Members, including Front-Bench spokesmen, have kindly given their time to be here today. I am grateful for their consideration of my Bill.
Clause 2 is important. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you and I walked down Whitehall, we might bump into a British Transport police officer. If we witnessed a crime, the officer would have no more competence or jurisdiction to deal with it than you or I. Outside the curtilage of railway properties, such officers have no more than the common law powers of every citizen. If we continued down Whitehall to the Ministry of Defence opposite Downing street, we would probably bump into MOD police officers, whose uniforms are almost indistinguishable from those of Metropolitan police officers except for their cap badges. Again, they have no competence in the street other than as ordinary citizens. If we went through Horse Guards into St. James's park, we might meet, perhaps in Birdcage walk, members of the Royal Parks constabulary, who have competence only within the curtilage of the royal park.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |