| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 pm
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): It is now more than a decade since the hon. Member for Walsall, South(Mr. George) and I served on the Ministry of Defence Police Bill. We have followed the security interests of the Ministry of Defence police and all the other police and security forces in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force
since then. It is important that hon. Members are aware that there is support on both sides of the Committee for much of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The Ministry of Defence police must be the most reviewed police force ever. There is real anger among Ministry of Defence policemen, not just in my constituency, where I met the Ministry of Defence police from Land Command only 10 days ago, and had an extremely fruitful discussion. Part of the trouble was that they did not know what was happening, although it would affect their numbers, and their lives and careers and those of their families.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I shall be unable to support him if he seeks to divide the Committee, for reasons that I explained to the Select Committee. In addition, I believe that there is merit in the proposal for local service engagement, which I would not wish to prevent. I am glad that it has been recommended that the Defence Committee should review the matter, so that we can press the Minister and his officials on future security arrangements.
We should bear it in mind, however, that the agencies now established in the Ministry of Defence pay for their own security. There is downward financial pressure on them, so they seek to achieve the best possible use of the most appropriate policing techniques. That might well involve more use of soldiers or service men and women as well as new security arrangements, in addition to the guard force.
I continue to be concerned by the interface with the Home Office police. In areas of military concentration such as my constituency--as well as in Colchester and other places--there are real issues to be addressed. It is assumed that if there is a reduction in the numbers of Ministry of Defence police, there will be substitution by the Home Office police to achieve the same level of policing. I do not believe that that will happen. However, constructive discussions are taking place about joint control rooms, for example, and there is best practice of county constabularies to be followed around the country, on such matters as joint patrolling. In Colchester, for example, there is an outstanding system whereby the Ministry of Defence police and the military police patrol with the county constabulary. That may be the way ahead.
I am much reassured by the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police and by the answer that I received to a recent parliamentary question, informing me that radio communications between the county constabularies and the Ministry of Defence police are much better than they were even a year or two ago.
Local service engagements are a good idea. Whatever is decided for the future role of the Ministry of Defence police, there will be a role for local service engagements, but I view with great concern the contraction of the Ministry of Defence police, especially as--except in Whitehall--it is not quite clear exactly what will happen. The concept of area policing teams for Ministry of Defence police should be developed much further, but this is not the place to do it. It is a matter for the Defence Committee.
I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record my misgivings about what is happening to the Ministry of Defence police and to pay tribute to their work. It is of a very high standard and it is unique in that they now have full constabulary powers. They play an important role in
the policing of our civilian communities and are often the first people to whom married quarters personnel turn when there is trouble on Army estates. My hon. Friend the Minister should be fully aware of the concern on both sides of the Committee.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East):
I cannot claim the length of commitment of the two hon. Members who have already spoken, but, as a member of the Defence Committee, I have had the opportunity to hear evidence on some of the matters with which the amendment is concerned and, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), I visited his constituency which contains the atomic weapons establishments at Burfield and Aldermaston. The Ministry of Defence police have a significant, important and considerable role in ensuring proper practice in and around those establishments.
If the clause were to become law, it would not be mandatory, but permissive. It would allow the Ministry of Defence--if it so chose--to introduce a system of local service engagements. The nature of the debate so far, and in particular the misgivings that were expressed by the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, seems to argue strongly against the introduction of such a service.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), in an intervention, identified the central issue. The Ministry of Defence police do not function merely as armed guards. They possess full police powers, so they can prevent crime and deal directly with criminals and all other categories of person. Those inducted under a system of local service engagements would have a limited capability. They would have legal powers over service personnel only and there is much evidence to suggest that civilians constitute the main threat to the security of defence property.
If the basis of the proposal is the desire to make savings, any savings that may be made by reducing the number of Ministry of Defence police must be set against the cost of making members of that force redundant, establishing a new organisation and--what is not always fully considered--the effect of the substantial sums, perhaps running into millions of pounds, that must be saved every year by virtue of their ability to prevent and detect crime, a capability that those on local service engagements could not possess.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) rightly drew attention to the rather curious conditions that may attach to service in such a force. Recruits are to be drawn from ex-service personnel. They will be offered considerably lower rates of pay than those available in the Army, their conditions of service will be much inferior to those currently enjoyed in the Army and there will be no long-term job security. They will have to observe service discipline, and their principal activity will be static armed guarding, which is notoriously unpopular in the armed services. It seems that the proposition in respect of local service engagements is hardly attractive, so there must be considerable doubt whether enough people of the right calibre could be recruited on those terms.
If the Ministry of Defence police are removed from an area, it will still require policing. That burden will inevitably fall on what are described as the Home Department police--the local force in any area--and it is one that, so far, they have not been required to bear.
I shall be interested to know what the reactions of chief constables throughout the land will be when they find themselves subject to an additional policing burden when there is continuing pressure from hon. Members in all parts of the House for the police to be more active and effective in preventing and detecting crime.
A concept similar to local service engagement has been presented on no fewer than three previous occasions, but it has been abandoned as unviable. The Government's proposals do not take sufficient account of the vital considerations of security, safety and crime prevention. If the hon. Member for Walsall, South feels compelled to force his amendment to a Division, he will certainly have my support.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East):
I am certainly not opposed to change. I have often supported revolutionary change, but I appeal to the Minister to acknowledge that the proposed amendment is sensible and reasonable. Its purpose is not to overturn Government policy, but to suggest that there should at some stage be a review of a pilot scheme. I have seen many changes that were well intentioned but which turned out to provide a poorer service at greater expense. The Government's proposal is not new, but has been tried on three previous occasions and, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, it was abandoned because it could not work.
In 1985--probably before most of the hon. Members present entered the House, but I was here--the royal ordnance factories were privatised. They were purchased by British Aerospace but, as a result of serious doubts about lack of security expressed by the Defence Committee, the MOD police were forced on Royal Ordnance as a condition of sale. The House insisted that privatisation be subject to the provision of MOD police.
We must bear in mind the dangers of establishing new organisations. I know that the Government are wholly opposed to quangos--I am sure we all are--but, these days, there seem to be more and more little offices and officials, and more people supervising something. Somebody will have to supervise military local service engagement, monitor its operation and how good it is, its conditions and whether the interests of the law-abiding public are properly represented. Has consideration been given to the cost?
The removal of a well-respected police force with a record of success often has a serious effect on an organisation's security. The Minister is not only cautious, but thorough and talented. I hope that he acknowledges there is always a danger of clever people--unlike those of us on the Back Benches--with great ideas being carried away with implementing them, without in every case anticipating how they will turn out in practice.
The amendment is saying, "This is a wonderful idea, and it will provide a better service at lower cost"--as Conservatives always want to do--"but let us check in case it is not the right idea." There is a case for caution, because the concept was tried before and did not work. The amendment seems to make sound, common sense. Although revolutionaries such as me and other Back Benchers always want big changes, there is always the risk that things that are working perfectly well will be upset.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |