Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in

clause 59, page 48, line 25, at end insert—

'(5A) Where a member of the Constabulary has been requested by a constable of—

(a) a police force for a police area in Great Britain;

(b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

(c) the Ministry of Defence Police; or

(d) the British Transport Police Force,

(''the requesting force'') to assist him in the execution of his duties in relation to a particular incident, investigation or operation, members of the Constabulary have for the purposes of that incident, investigation or operation the same powers and privileges as constables of the requesting force.

(5B) Members of the Constabulary have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that police area—

(a) in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence, or

(b) if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or to prevent or minimise personal injury.

(5C) But members of the Constabulary have powers and privileges by virtue of subsection (5B) only if—

(a) they are in uniform or have with them documentary evidence that they are members of the Constabulary, and

(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that a power of a constable which they would not have apart from that subsection ought to be exercised and that, if it cannot be exercised until they secure the attendance of or a request under subsection (5A) by a constable who has it, the purpose for which they believe it ought to be exercised will be frustrated or seriously prejudiced.'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 11—Provision of assistance to other forces—

'(1) The chief constable of the Constabulary may, on the application of the chief officer of any relevant force, provide constables or other assistance for the purpose of enabling that force to meet any special demand on its resources.

(2) Where a member of the Constabulary is provided for the assistance of a relevant force under this section—

(a) he shall be under the direction and control of the chief officer of that force; and

(b) he shall have the same powers and privileges as a member of that force.

(3) Constables are not to be regarded as provided for the assistance of a relevant force under this section in a case where assistance is provided under section 59.

(4) In this section—

''chief officer'' means—

(a) the chief officer of the police force for a police area in Great Britain;

(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

(c) the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force; or

(d) the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;

''relevant force'' means—

(a) the police force for a police area in Great Britain;

(b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

(c) the British Transport Police Force; or

(d) the Ministry of Defence Police.'.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

Chapter 3, which sets up the civil nuclear constabulary, is more important than we might think. It is a quirk of our constitution that this police force is answerable to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and a number of other police forces are in a similar position. What we decide today will be important to every police force in the country, every Home Office constabulary in our constituencies and the other police forces, including the MOD and the other military police forces.

It is part of our history that sometimes we find a police force accountable to a local police authority and sometimes to a Minister and to Parliament. When Samuel Pepys set up a security force for the royal dockyards, little did he think that one day in May 2004 the consequences of that action by the Government of the day would still be important, but that is when it all started. Pilfering from the royal dockyards was a serious problem, so he set up the Admiralty constabularies. They predate anything that we would recognise as a Home Office constabulary today.

So it continued for many years. The Pepys bobbies were part of the establishment until the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. I served on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill, which was important because it transformed the MOD police from special constabulary gatekeepers into full constabulary officers trained to the same standards as any other police force in the country.

The 1987 Act was reformed by the Armed Forces Acts 1996 and 2001. I served on both Standing Committees. Under those Acts, the Secretary of State for Defence is responsible to Parliament, but now there is a new police authority, giving a modest

measure of independence. We shall shortly reconsider those slightly arcane procedures under the promised new tri-service Acts.

Most nations have decided that there is a need for an armed civilian police force. Some countries, such as France, achieve that by having a police force and a gendarmerie. Other nations, such as the United States, have county and federal police as well as a national guard. Most of us have our county constabularies. I am proud to have in Wiltshire the oldest as well as the best police force, hence its motto, Primus et Optimus.

The Home Office said many years ago that it did not have responsibility for policing the railways and that it did not know much about rolling stock, so British Transport police were established, answerable to the Secretary of State for Transport and accountable to Parliament. In 1992, when I was a Minister at the new Department of National Heritage, I was responsible for the Royal Parks police, who have full constabulary power. They are not and never were park keepers, and a Minister is still accountable to Parliament for them. The current process of integrating them with the Metropolitan police seems to have ground to a halt. In 1954, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary was set up as an armed police force.

So, we have four police forces in this country that are accountable to Ministers. They are not subject to any direct democratic accountability, although the Metropolitan police are very indirectly accountable through the Mayor of London. Most of us have county constabularies. The UKAEA constabulary has about 500 officers and is accountable to Parliament through the Department of Trade and Industry. The Bill proposes a completely new structure, most of which is very welcome indeed. The problem is that it does not go far enough, which is what I wish to address.

The Bill transforms the special constables into full constabulary officers, but their power has been severely limited, such that the UKAEA Police Federation believes that there are consequences for national security and that they must be addressed. It has written to me to say that there must be concessions on powers so that its members can act in an emergency properly to carry out their duties. The general secretary of the federation said:

''It is imperative that we achieve this concession for various reasons, foremost of which is the fact that we have an enormous responsibility in our area of work. Without this fundamental requirement, when we encounter policing needs in areas where we would not normally have constabulary powers, we are helpless to react. Moreover, we have examined case studies and scenarios where the absence of such emergency powers could have dire implications and consequences for national security.''

Clearly, the matter must be taken seriously.

The federation also argues that emergency powers are required for the simple reason that members of the public expect all police officers, especially those in uniform, to act in an emergency and protect the public interest. It is strange that the Government have recently granted British Transport police and MOD police exactly those powers. The federation would like identical concessions to be made for its constabulary.

The matter was addressed during the Bill's passage through another place, but pretty perfunctorily. I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, who will have to answer these questions. He did not volunteer to be responsible for a police force, let alone learn about the complexities of it.

The debate in the other place was extraordinary. When it was put to the Minister, Lord Triesman, that the police federation's request was sensible and should be granted, he stated:

''While we know that there has been support in some circles for the proposition, there is not widespread support for the proposition from the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is not at all clear that such a proposition would be welcomed by all bodies involved in public policing.''

I find that extraordinary, because I have a letter dated 9 February 2004 from the chief constable of Staffordshire, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers chief constable with responsibility for this matter. He wrote to Mr. Keith Latham, the assistant director of the nuclear regulatory branch of the DTI, to say:

''There has been extensive debate around the wider police family. Concessions have been made in terms of police powers to the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police to act in an emergency, particularly when they come across something in an area where they would not normally have Constabulary powers.

We would be content for identical concessions to be made in respect of the UKAEAC because members of the public would expect police officers, especially in uniform, to act in an emergency they happen to come across.''

That is a strange conflict of opinions. Will the Minister justify not acceding to the federation's request? Under this clause, if a uniformed UKAEA police constable in a marked police car came across a car crash, a robbery in progress, a rape or a murder, they would have to pass by unless they are willing to rely on the powers of citizen's arrest, such as you and I have, Mr. O'Brien. The public will not understand that.

The Minister in the other place also said that the constabulary lacked expertise. He said that the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police have powers of emergency action for two reasons:

''First, they are regularly policing the general public and have developed a level of expertise in dealing with the public across a wide range of incidents and circumstances.''

A member of a police force who constantly polices state property that is proactively and sometimes violently demonstrated against, such as Aldermaston or other bases, would have a good idea of the level of expertise required in those circumstances. Many officers involved in such policing are more experienced than most constabulary officers.

The second reason would be if

''it has been established that the number of situations that have arisen which would require the use of those extended powers justifies their being available in those circumstances, and none of that is true of the UKAEA Constabulary.''

That is extraordinary and means that we will not train people and give them powers because we do not think that certain circumstances are likely to arise. Does that

mean that we should not train the Metropolitan police on how to handle a murder because it does not happen often?

The Minister in the other place continued:

''The Government are concerned that the constabulary should not have powers until there is an established operational need—that is the criterion—and constabulary officers will not be in a position regularly to exercise such powers.''

Once again, that argument means that we should not bother to train the police because they will not often have to deal with the hijack of a ship on the high seas. However, the expertise of those police officers is unique in circumstances such as policing demonstrations in international waters or if a ship bearing nuclear cargo enters our territorial waters.

The Minister in the other place went on to say:

''It is a small constabulary and reacting to circumstances and demands from other forces might also divert it from the core tasks of protecting civil nuclear sites and materials.''

That is bizarre. My county constabulary is the smallest in the country, yet it regularly has to police the most densely populated military area in the country. It interfaces with the MOD police and the military police to look after the state's interests at the army's headquarters at Wilton, the country's biggest training area on Salisbury plain, Porton down, Boscombe down military airfield and a number of other installations. Therefore, that argument does not wash.

Another important point is the liability of members of the police who intervene in an incident as a private citizen. If an off-duty policeman comes across a civil disturbance, such as rape, murder, burglary or a car crash, he will make it known that he is a policeman. He will almost certainly be carrying a warrant to prove as much. Knowing that he has full constabulary power, he will be able to take control of the situation and use his training and expertise to regulate it. That power will not be available to any of the police officers we are discussing. I emphasise that they are trained in the same place by the same people and to the same standard as the Metropolitan police and every other county constabulary. There is no difference between them: the quality is the same. Why, therefore, are they not considered appropriate to have the full constabulary power?

My noble Friend Baroness Byford asked about liability in such circumstances; for example, what would happen if one of the excellent UKAEA constables was helping at an incident and something went wrong. A police constable is covered in such circumstances but if he is acting under civilian powers, he can be sued by insurance companies or by the persons concerned. That is a grave disadvantage, but all that Lord Triesman, the Minister in the other place, could say in response was:

''I wish I could give a simple answer. I cannot do that—not because I wish to evade the question, but because the number of possible circumstances is huge and the extent of liability would reflect those circumstances.''——[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 566-567.]

Lord Triesman said that he would write to Baroness Byford ''with further indications''. I have not seen his letter, so I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know what Lord Triesman said about the matter.

It is extraordinary that we are asking special police to undertake serious responsibilities, which require a completely different range of skills and knowledge. They are not just guarding gates and checking round the perimeter; they have a specialist knowledge of how to guard very sensitive cargoes. In, I think, 1987, when a nuclear depth charge fell off a lorry outside West Dean naval arms depot, which is in my constituency, I was enormously relieved that members of the UKAEA constabulary were present because they knew exactly what to do. Of course, the chief constable of Wiltshire had primacy, but he was able to rely on their expertise.

The Government should rethink this proposal, which is petty and not in the public interest. Does it protect the Treasury? I do not think so. It makes no difference to the Treasury if an officer has full constabulary power; he is there, on the pay roll, doing the same job, but the Government are depriving him of the influence and status that he deserves.

The Minister in the other place said that he would keep an open mind and be prepared to reconsider what happened here. I know that it is a complicated affair and I do not want to put the Minister on the spot. It is unfair to ask him to respond, and I will entirely understand if he reads out the brief. However, I want him to say that he would be willing to reconsider the proposal and come back on Report, because it is important to get this right. I hope that I have been able to express the frustration of this small but excellent police force in a non-partisan way and that I will have support from both sides of the House for my request that the Government should look at the matter again and table new proposals on Report.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for making the case for his amendment. The points he made justify the need for clear answers.

I shall make one or two short points, which are not unconnected with the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised and on which I should welcome clarification. There are one or two inconsistencies in clause 59, which I shall try to tease out. Subsection (1)(b) proposes that the powers of a constable should be given for a radius of 5 km within a nuclear site. Quite apart from the points made by the hon. Gentleman, there seems to be some uncertainty as to where the 5 km limit is. Is the Minister really saying that a police officer pursuing someone or undertaking other activities will suddenly reach the 5 km boundary—assuming that he knows where it is—and say, ''Hang on, I can't go over this boundary''? That seems somewhat unlikely. In any case, how is an officer supposed to know where the 5 km boundary is? Will it be marked round every nuclear site with a piece of string, so that we all know how far 5 km is from the centre or, indeed, from the edge of that site? That seems a little ludicrous. People should either have

powers on site or have powers everywhere. It seems difficult to argue that creating a 5 km boundary is the right process.

Subsection (2), which relates to trans-shipment sites as opposed to relevant nuclear sites, does not refer to a 5 km boundary. Why is there a 5 km boundary for nuclear power stations, but not for trans-shipment sites? The same argument must apply, so again I fail to see the logic behind the proposals.

Subsection (3) is about an entirely different situation again. It relates to material that is in transit. Under this subsection, there are powers and privileges at every other place when that appears to be expedient, and that appears to be almost anywhere. Again, the matter is not entirely clear and subsections (1), (2) and (3) seem to be contradictory.

One crumb of comfort for the hon. Member for Salisbury is subsection (4), which says that in certain, narrow circumstances, a member of the constabulary will have the right to act as a constable. He may do so to pursue a person who has interfered with or removed nuclear material or attempted to do so. That provision is obviously very sensible.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

There is another dimension to this. The operational requirements are set out in a national policing protocol, which we have not seen. Then there are the memorandums of understanding between the Home Office and each different Home Office constabulary concerned. Then there is the question of the Scottish forces, because they are different. We do not know what the Association of Chief Poilce Officers in Scotland has said, and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us that.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

That is a further complication. It is important to get some clarification and clarity. Clause 59 is not entirely satisfactory. I say that having served on the Committee that considered what became the Police Reform Act 2002. We considered the various complications that Home Office Ministers at that time attempted to address. Members of this Committee have various hats on. We are interested in energy or the environment. However, none of us is an expert—well, one or two of us may be—on police matters. With all due respect to the Minister, he has his hands full dealing with energy and post offices, without worrying about police matters. It is therefore important that, collectively, we obtain external advice. The hon. Member for Salisbury has made a case as to why the clause should be reconsidered, and I hope that the Minister will take that argument on board.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

As the hon. Member for Salisbury made clear, his proposals would allow members of the civil nuclear constabulary to exercise police powers and privileges in a broader range of circumstances than is currently provided for in the Bill or is the case for the UKAEA constabulary. In considering his points, it is important to be clear about the purposes of the civil nuclear constabulary. Under clause 55(2), its primary function is to protect civil nuclear licensed sites and to safeguard nuclear material in Great Britain and elsewhere. The civil nuclear constabulary is not, therefore, part of general public policing provision

throughout the UK. It is quite small, specialised and highly trained, and has a key role in protecting civil nuclear licensed sites and material from the threat of terrorism. It is paid for by the nuclear operators specifically for that purpose. The jurisdiction set out in this clause reflects that role.

The measure allows members of the constabulary to exercise police powers and privileges at civil nuclear licensed sites for an area of 5 km around them, which allows them to protect and operate on the sites. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for drawing attention to that important point, although I do not think that they would have too much difficulty working out where such areas are, contrary to his assertion. They can also exercise those powers at a transhipment site such as a port—and anywhere—in order to protect nuclear material in transit or to pursue a person reasonably believed to have removed or interfered with nuclear material.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Irrespective of whether 5 km is manageable—the Government do not have an answer to that—if it is necessary for the protection of nuclear sites to have the 5 km radius, why is it not necessary for a transhipment site to have such a radius?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

In the case of civil nuclear licensed sites, we take the view that there is a permanent requirement to protect such sites from people who might want to take material away from them. The position is different in a port, or anywhere else, through which material is passing. That is the distinction.

The hon. Member for Salisbury made a well-informed contribution; he spoke on Second Reading about the matter. However, the Bill gives greater flexibility to the constabulary to exercise police powers throughout Britain than at present. The jurisdiction in clause 59 is appropriate for the purpose for which the constabulary is in place. He made comparisons with the Ministry of Defence police and the British Transport Police. He is right; the additional powers that were the subject of amendment No. 58 were extended to those organisations by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. However, I do not think that a standard formula applies here.

At the time that that Act was introduced, consideration was given to the jurisdiction of the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police and the UKAEA constabulary. As a result, the UKAEA constabulary's jurisdiction was extended to all civil licensed nuclear sites and the area 5 km around such sites to allow greater flexibility to escort any civil nuclear material and to protect transhipment sites. In other words, the matter was considered before the 2001 legislation, and the changes indicated by the hon. Gentleman were made to the arrangements for the MOD police and the British Transport police. A view was taken then about what was appropriate for the UKAEA constabulary, which is reflected in this Bill. In particular, the 5 km zone is not available to the MOD police or British Transport police, so that gives the UKAEA constabulary the flexibility that it needs.

There may be circumstances where a member of the constabulary comes across an incident that requires intervention while outside their normal jurisdiction that is not related to nuclear sites or materials. Such incidents are likely to be rare, and they certainly do not seem to have led to a serious problem for the last 50 years, during which the constabulary has been operating without the extended jurisdiction that is the subject of amendment No. 58. Of course, one could conceive of circumstances in which it would be helpful for such additional powers to be available, but I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not draw any attention to any actual circumstances. As I say, there does not seem to have been any problem in the past.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister set out any objections to such an extension of powers?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

It is interesting that the Liberal Democrat spokesman raises that point. What is our principal approach to the extension of powers and privileges that affect other members of society to those who do not currently have them? My view is that we should extend those powers only if a clear case has been made for doing so. The implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is that we should give them to people in case they might one day need them. There must be a clear case for extending powers that affect people's liberties before the extension is made, rather than extension being the default position.

There are currently 120 cases a month that require British Transport police to operate outside of the railways. Between 1995 and 1999, there were more than 15,000 cases in which MOD officers provided assistance to Home Office forces. I have not seen any convincing evidence or case for a similar operational requirement for the constabulary under discussion.

The hon. Member for Salisbury referred to the fact that the Minister in another place had made it clear that the operational case for extending the powers of the constabulary will be kept under review. I can confirm that again, but I would be very surprised if the Government changed their view on the matter between now and consideration on Report. If the need for extension becomes clear, I envisage that it will be taken account of in future Home Office legislation. It is important to extend those powers and privileges only if there is a clear case for doing so, and at the moment there is not.

The hon. Gentleman was a bit dismissive of the important point made by my noble Friend that police numbers in the constabulary will be at a level designed to enable it to fulfil its primary function. That is important because we should not allow the constabulary to be diverted from its central task by reducing the numbers securing a licensed site while responding to a traffic incident, for example.

The UKAEA Police Federation wants to see its powers extended and it suggests that there could be dire implications for national security if they were not.

I have not seen any evidence to substantiate such a claim, and the onus is on those who advocate the extension of powers over the default position of non-extension.

The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to what ACPO said. I listened to the wording that he quoted from the ACPO submission, and I think he correctly quoted that ACPO would be content for such an extension. ACPO did not make the case for it, however. ACPO would not object to an extension, but that is different from it advancing an argument in favour of the change.

The hon. Gentleman asked me what ACPO Scotland said. In its submission it pointed out that the intended provision would not allow the civil nuclear constabulary to go to the assistance of other forces. It did not make the case for extending the powers; it simply made an observation.

On the basis of the evidence that I have heard, the way in which we have drawn up the powers is appropriate given the role that we need the constabulary to play. If things were to change, it would be possible to extend the powers, but in the absence of a clear case for extension at the moment we should not simply extend them in case they are needed in the future.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

Of course, the Minister is right that the legislation proposes wider powers than currently exist. The powers are quite different, but they are wider than they were. He said that we should have regard to the constabulary's primary function, which is the protection of those particular sites. He then said, however, that the function of the UKAEA police was ''not part of public policing''. That is not so.

I do not know what it feels like in East Ham, but in Salisbury—where we have regular policing from not only the county constabulary, but the MOD police, the military police, the provost marshals, the UKAEA police and the British Transport police—we feel safe because there is such an interface. We know that they all have constabulary power, except the UKAEA constabulary, who cannot intervene. The Minister seriously misjudges the situation if he thinks that a marked police car with uniformed police and flashing blue lights will not stop at the scene of an accident because the police officers in the situation have not got the right protocol—the memorandum of understanding—and because they judge that it is too dangerous for them to get involved because they have only citizens' rights.

The Minister also gave me no answer on the question of liability. He misjudges public perception of those circumstances. I am sure that in the not-too-distant future we will return to the matter again. It is all a matter of judgment, and the Minister has made the judgment that he will not make any concession between now and consideration on Report. I am disappointed, and I know that there will be many sad policemen in the UKAEA, who will be disappointed

that the Labour Government have let them down on this matter, as well as on so much else. I shall therefore press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.