Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth): The Bill is unique, because its notes on clauses provide more illumination than the Bill itself. I have always complained that notes on clauses for Government Bills usually do not tell us anything more than, and sometimes use the same words as, the actual Bills. I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) or the Minister will be able to clear up one puzzle for the House. The Bill is in essence a Government Bill, although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman takes full responsibility for it. The legislation has, however, been drafted by Government draftsmen and the Government must take responsibility for ensuring that the legislation is right.

Sir Raymond Whitney: I would like to clarify that point. The hon. Gentleman surely knows this, but for the record it is important to make it clear that those of us who are fortunate enough to come high in the ballot for private Members' Bills are deluged with proposals for new legislation, and that it is up to each individual Member to select what seems to him or her a good idea. The Bill certainly struck me as a good idea. Of course, I remain grateful to the Home Office and its officials for their assistance in its drafting.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman put that beautifully. Everybody wants the Bill to go through, but there are

14 Feb 1997 : Column 576

questions that need to be answered, and it is right for the House to scrutinise it. The difficulty when a Government Bill is adopted by a private Member is that one is questioning two targets--the Member in charge of the Bill and the Minister--at the same time. I am becoming rather adept at that now, because we have had a lot of experience of it this Session. Almost every private Member's Bill seems to have been adopted after having been, shall we say, "produced" by the Home Office--I was almost drawn into questions of parentage then, but I resisted the temptation.

What drew my attention to clause 1 was the passage in the notes on clauses that says that subsection (4) of the proposed new section 51A


The hon. Member for Wycombe mentioned that, and I know that there has been considerable discussion about it. It is a long-standing anomaly that the police have not been covered by health and safety legislation, as is envisaged in the Bill, so I must make it clear that we welcome the measure. It will assist in providing a better and safer environment for police officers to work in, and has the potential to reduce injuries and accidents at work, to the benefit of all concerned within the police force, and of the public at large.

Clause 1 will introduce a new subsection 51A to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which will mean that the Bill will cover police officers, special constables and police cadets. It then says that police officers seconded to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad are to be covered by health and safety at work legislation. The clause is less clear about the position of other central service officers. Will they be similarly covered by health and safety legislation?

Concern has also been expressed by the Police Federation because its position as a representative body in relation to NCIS, NCS and officers of other central service is not made clear in the Bill. The proposed subsection 3(a) says that for the purposes of health and safety legislation,


The hon. Member for Wycombe made that clear. But no similar passage defines the position in respect of NCIS and NCS, unless the phrase


    "each chief officer of police"

includes the heads of those two organisations.

I look to the Minister for clarification. There is certainly a good argument in favour of their being covered, but the Police Federation seems to believe that they are not included as chief constables. There is a requirement that the heads of those agencies should be chief constables, but they are not designated as such in that role. That may be the source of the confusion.

Even if NCIS and the National Crime Squad are included, by being defined within the reference to chief officers, that would not work in respect of other central service officers. Their position requires clarification.

Clauses 3 and 4 give police officers the right not to suffer detriment in health and safety cases, and provide limited access to industrial tribunals. Again, questions have been raised about that by the Police Federation.

14 Feb 1997 : Column 577

Clause 4 gives the right of access to industrial tribunals to officers who have been dismissed on certain grounds relating to health and safety. In the original Home Office brief, access to tribunals was to have been limited, and would not have included circumstances in which police officers were dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank. The reasoning is that in those circumstances police officers have the right of access to a police appeals tribunal. The Police Federation is concerned to see that the right of access to industrial tribunals does not change the situation in respect of police officers' rights to access police appeals tribunals. That issue will not be new to the Minister. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been approached on the subject by representatives of police organisations in their area, so the Minister should clarify the issue for the record.

Those questions do not detract from my welcome for the Bill, and I congratulate its adoptive parent, the hon. Member for Wycombe, on bringing it before Parliament. Perhaps at some point its natural parent might clarify the issues so that we know exactly where we stand and so that the officers who have concerns and seek assurances may be satisfied.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) on introducing the Bill. I have talked to him about it, and I know how much work he has done and how committed he is to this sensible measure. As the grandson of a police sergeant, I am happy to support the Bill. We should welcome any measure that would assist the police in their duties and ensure that they are compensated properly.

The Government welcome the Bill. On 16 October 1996, the Minister of State at the Home Office announced at a seminar for chief officers that the Government intended to extend the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to police officers, cadets and special constables when a proper opportunity was found to do so. This Bill provides that opportunity. In anticipation of the Bill's introduction, the Home Office police policy directorate published three volumes of guidance, entitled "Police Health and Safety", in October 1996. The purpose of the documents is to


The Act does not currently apply to police officers as they are not classified as employees--a peculiarity of historical incident--but are persons appointed as members of police forces and attested as constables. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe takes a keen interest in European issues, and he will be pleased to learn that his Bill brings British legislation in line with that of the European Community, so there is no risk of conflict. The general principles of EC health and safety law are set out in the framework directive 89/391 which, like the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, contains provisions of a general nature and is supported by so-called "daughter" directives dealing with more specific matters, such as personal protective equipment.

United Kingdom implementation of the framework directive took the form of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations SI 1992/2051, which came

14 Feb 1997 : Column 578

into force on 1 January 1993. Both the Act and the EC regulations place some duties on employers to ensure that their undertaking does not prejudice the health and safety of persons not in their employ.

The police health and safety notes to which I referred state that, when the Act came into force, the home Departments made it clear that police officers should, wherever possible, be given the protection that it afforded. In that spirit of voluntary co-operation, the enforcing authority, the Health and Safety Executive, monitors the health and safety arrangements of police forces. When the legislation is passed--as I hope it will be--visits by HSE inspectors will be on a statutory basis.

I address a question to my hon. Friend, which perhaps the Minister will comment on also. I have always understood that the Act does not apply within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. Therefore, will the health and safety at work legislation that we are presently contemplating apply to those policemen whom we meet frequently in the Palace of Westminster? I warmly support the Bill and wish it every success.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I, too, broadly welcome the introduction of the Bill and believe that it will be welcomed by the general public as well as by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) said, it is certainly welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation. Having said that, I do not wholeheartedly welcome the Bill in that I have a couple of reservations on which my hon. Friend might be able to reassure me.

The first is that the Bill incorporates a derogation. I shall quote The House Magazine, in which my hon. Friend wrote about the Bill saying:


I am concerned that there have been instances in the not too distant past of the European Court of Justice deciding that, although Britain had thought legislation might be limited in its application, particularly when it originated in Brussels, the Brussels impact was much wider. I would not want to think that this legislation, which we are introducing under the derogation, might be affected by any future judgment of the European court. The operational aspects of the Bill also concern me, but I will mention those when we debate clause 2.


Next Section

IndexHome Page