Clause 48 - Policing objectives: Secretary of State
Railways and Transport Safety Bill
4:15 pm
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)
I am grateful for the opportunity to air our serious concerns about the proposal.
I hope that the Minister will explain the present situation to the Committee. I understand that the Strategic Rail Authority will moderate and rule on the British Transport Police Authority in this regard. I believe that under the current arrangement the Secretary of State may not enjoy the power of direction, and it would be helpful to know the position. The clause gives the Secretary of State a power of direction over the authority to set objectives for policing the railways. The only people to be consulted on the issuing of such a direction would be the authority and the chief constable. Subsection (4) refers to Scotland.
The railway safety levy, which we will discuss in clause 102, is considered by the industry to be a tax, effectively. The industry is therefore raising money for increased security and the policing of the railways. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for explaining who the rail industry representatives were. However, I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the concerns put to me by the industry, which believes that the powers given in clause 48 are wide-ranging.
I am always sceptical when a Secretary of State is given powers of direction, as he has been over the rail regulator. The previous Secretary of State was swift to
tell the rail regulator in no uncertain terms that he was minded to use that power of direction. We have difficulty with granting such a power for the reasons given by the Under-Secretary. The Home Secretary has always been clear that, as the head of the force, the chief constable should decide the operational objectives. The chief constable should be given similar operational powers for the British Transport police.
Under clause 48, the Secretary of State is apparently given sweeping powers that do not seem to be curtailed or proscribed in any way. Obviously, the Secretary of State will receive representations from Scottish Ministers on the matter. I am sure that that will put the Under-Secretary's mind at rest about policing the railways in Scotland. Surely the Government would wish to give operational direction and control as far as possible to the respective chief constables in Scotland, England and Wales.
What is the thinking behind the clause? Why is the operational autonomy of the chief constables—monitored and overseen by the authority—being removed? What circumstances would lead to the power of direction? Perhaps I am wrong and there are existing circumstances in which such a power of direction exists, but the power in clause 48 seems to be extensive.
What did the Government have in mind when they chose to go down the path set out in clause 48? Presumably there was a consultation process to discover the views of the industry. I would be surprised if the industry expressed its overwhelming support in that consultation process. Will the Minister confirm that the representations that he received were not overwhelmingly in support of such a power of direction, and will he explain the thinking behind the clause? Why does the industry feel aggrieved? I am sure that it has had opportunities to discuss the matter at some length with the Government, especially in the extensive consultation, but the industry, through the Association of Train Operating Companies, has shown that it is concerned. I believe that the independence and autonomy of the authority, the chief constable and the police force may be put at risk, and the people paying for it are being compromised by not having sufficient representation in the consultation process. We must bear in mind that their representation will decrease dramatically from four in nine to four in 13 members of the authority.