| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Waterson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to our debate, which has been going on for some time. I assure him that I take full responsibility for the Bill. It is my Bill. If there are any defects in it, I shall be delighted to explain or defend them. It is my Bill and I am delighted to have the opportunity of putting it to the House.
Mr. Skinner: Of course it is the hon. Gentleman's Bill now. The truth is that it comes off the Government's shelf. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who was on the Committee, made it plain without being challenged that the Bill came from the Home Office.
There are not many Fridays for authentic private Members' Bills. This is one of the rare occasions--there are even fewer than normal in this Session before the general election. The system has been abused, probably by Governments of both parties over many years. It is time that that was stopped. That is the first reason why I do not like the use of Bills off the Government's shelves, taking up valuable time that should be for authentic private Members' Bills.
When I was listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead at 10 o'clock this morning, he was talking about terrorists versus freedom fighters. He talked about the classic example of Nelson Mandela having been in this country. Nelson Mandela was regarded by Tory Members of Parliament in particular as a terrorist. They wanted to hang, draw and quarter him. When we had the celebration in Westminster Hall a few months ago, I went in early, and when I got there the first four rows were occupied by Tory Members of Parliament who had wanted to keep Nelson Mandela in gaol for ever. He had become not a terrorist but a freedom fighter.
The same was true of Archbishop Makarios, who was a terrorist, but finished up taking tea at Buckingham palace. I remember going to a meeting in one of the Committee Rooms to hear Robert Mugabe before he became the leader of his country. He was a terrorist then, but he has now been in power for well over a decade. For that reason, I am very disturbed about the way in which the Bill--a political Bill to its backbone--is being used.
I have heard several references to the fact that the Government want to control football hooligans with the Bill. If they want to control football hooligans, they should bring in a Bill to control football hooligans. If the Government want to get hold of the international drug conspiracy and all those other seedy affairs, they should bring in a Bill to do that. What they have done is to use a piggyback method. They have used the argument about hooligans and drugs as the soft argument, in the knowledge that the freedom fighters and asylum seekers will get caught up in the net. That is how I see it.
The Bill is an abuse of the Friday procedure, because the Government have used one of their Back Benchers to get it through. The Attorney-General will be able to use a pick-and-mix method in deciding, in a political sense, who is picked up and who is not. The Bill is a catch-all for various groups. If the Government want to be specific about hooliganism at football matches, drug dealing,
terrorism and all the other crimes we abhor, they should do so in a principled fashion. They should introduce a Bill between Monday and Thursday so that it is dealt with in the appropriate way. For those three reasons, I shall join my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead if he decides to divide the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:--
The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 0.
Tellers for the Ayes:
Tellers for the Noes:
It appearing from the report of the Division that 40 Members had not taken part in the Division, Madam Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.
Sir Raymond Whitney (Wycombe):
I should like to offer a few words of general introduction to the clause and the Bill.
The Bill is a relatively simple measure that seeks to place police officers, special constables and police cadets in the same position as other workers under health and safety legislation. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 does not apply to the work of police officers, unlike the work of police civilian support staff. That is because their employment status does not fall within the Act's definition of employment. That follows decisions in the courts, which have held that persons who hold the office of constable are not employees but are appointed as members of their police force and attested. The provisions of the 1974 Act, which depend on the employer-employee relationship, do not therefore apply to police constables.
Since the mid-1970s, however, police forces have sought to apply the Act's protection to their officers, but on a voluntary basis. The Bill is a response to representations from the Police Federation and other bodies that represent the police. They believe that the extra discipline that comes from statutory compliance will lead to improvements in the health, safety and welfare of police officers. In recent years, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has allocated substantial resources to giving officers the equipment they need to protect themselves against violent assault. The service has welcomed the new batons, the protective clothing and the CS spray. The Bill will complement those resources and will make police managers more aware of their responsibilities for the safety of the officers whom they command.
The Bill would empower the police representative bodies to play an important role in appointing safety representatives and establishing safety committees, which are the essential components in the effective management of health and safety. The Bill also enables the health and safety legislation of Northern Ireland to be amended to apply to officers, cadets and special constables of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In anticipation of the new legislation, the Home Office and the police service have prepared a package of practical guidance that will help forces to comply with the Bill once it comes into force.
The move from voluntary compliance with the spirit of the health and safety legislation to compliance on a statutory basis should not impose additional costs. In the longer term, safer and healthier systems of work will provide the possibility of savings.
I emphasise that the Bill has the strong support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the national associations of police superintendents, the Police
Federation and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The real beneficiaries of the legislation will be the officers who patrol our streets, investigate crime and carry out many hazardous duties on behalf of their communities. The House will always wish to accord a high priority to their health and safety.
As I have said, the essence of the Bill is found in clause 1. It will insert a new section 51A into the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to extend its provisions to apply to police constables, including special constables and police cadets. The new section provides that a person who holds the office of constable or police cadet shall be treated as an employee of the relevant officer. In the police forces that are established under the police legislation, that officer will be the chief constable or the Commissioner in the case of the Metropolitan and City forces.
AYES
Batiste, Spencer
Bowis, John
Butler, Peter
Cormack, Sir Patrick
Dykes, Hugh
French, Douglas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Kirkhope, Timothy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Leigh, Edward
MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Malone, Gerald
Merchant, Piers
Ottaway, Richard
Steen, Anthony
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)
Viggers, Peter
Waterson, Nigel
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Sir Raymond
Wilkinson, John
Wood, Timothy
Mr. Peter Atkinson and
Mr. Michael Fabricant.
NOES
Nil
Mr. George Galloway and
Mr. Dennis Skinner.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |