Clause 47 - Policing objectives: Authority
Railways and Transport Safety Bill
4:00 pm
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)
Why did the hon. Member for Bath choose not to move that amendment? I am sure that I did not hear him say that he thought that it was a mistake.
I am delighted that we have moved on to the part of part 3 that deals with police planning. Presumably, given its title, clause 47 should be seen in conjunction with the policing objectives set out by the Secretary of State in clause 48, the railways policing plan of clause 49 and the performance targets set in clause 50.
I understand that the Home Secretary currently has powers under the Police Act 1996 to set policing priorities for England and Wales. Those powers direct authorities and police forces on where they should concentrate their efforts. Police authorities are required to publish an annual policing plan and a best value performance plan to set out how those priorities are being tackled in each police area. Will the Minister confirm that clause 47 is intended to make those arrangements appropriate to the priorities set for the policing objectives of the British Transport police force? I understand that the present arrangements as proposed in the consultation document take the provisions relating to the authority in respect of policing objectives out of the Police Act 1996 and apply them in clause 47. It would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify that.
I understand that the Local Government Act 1999 allows the Home Secretary to set best value performance indicators for police authorities. Short of popping down to the Library to find out how that is defined in the Library standard note, I wonder if the Minister could spare a moment to explain how best value in the British Transport police force, which is effectively a service industry, can be monitored. That is a challenging concept. How has that operated since 1999?
For regular police forces, I understand that the Home Secretary sets the performance indicators after consultation with police authorities and police forces and that those indicators currently cover the whole range of issues that authorities face, from their organisational efficiency to the make-up of their force with regard to gender and ethnicity—what the Americans call diversity—to the levels of crime reported and detected in general and specific terms.
The majority of those indicators will be deemed appropriate for the British Transport police authority and the British Transport police. If some are deemed not relevant or significant to the specialist railway police force, can the Minister tell us which they are?
I understand that the original provisions of the Local Government Act 1999 did not cover railway matters, and that under the current arrangements the Secretary of State does not set performance indicators for the British Transport police. I assume that clause 47 and the following provisions are intended to transfer the powers to the Secretary of State.
If the British Transport police committee voluntarily adopts relevant performance indicators currently set by the Home Secretary, will the Minister confirm that there will be an alteration and that the British Transport police authority will take over the committee's role? I imagine that the policing objectives that we want the authority to set will broadly reflect those set by the Home Secretary for local police forces. Will the Minister indicate whether there will be specific policing objectives for the British Transport police? Will targets be set for reducing the incidence of crime in the same way as the Home Secretary sets targets for
reducing gun crime, violent crime, street crime, burglaries, rape, assaults and general crime? What specific crimes would be included in the policing objectives under the clause? With regard to the national policing plan, will there be great disparities between the BTP's policing objectives and those for the regular police forces?