Previous SectionIndexHome Page


1.45 pm

The other area that disturbs me is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office is reported, in an article published in the Scotsman on16 October 1996, as telling a seminar:


such as this--


    "has been the fact that policing duties and the environment in which they are carried out are so different from those which generally apply in factories, offices and other static premises."

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth(Mr. Michael) also pointed that out. My right hon. Friend went on to say:

14 Feb 1997 : Column 579


    "The difficulty has been compounded by the absence of any guidance which expresses the health and safety provisions in terms which can be seen to be relevant to the operational work of police officers."

As I said, that concerns me deeply, but it probably applies more to clause 2, so I will not progress the argument until we reach that clause. That question must be dealt with, however, as it is at the heart of the Bill.

The same article states that Bill Spence, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the chief constable of Tayside, while generally welcoming the Bill,


I listened carefully and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said in his introductory remarks that he believed that there would be no additional costs. I doubt that. When I was in business before 1992, I found that compliance with Health and Safety Executive regulations could be a costly exercise. My reservation about the Bill is that it could be a costly exercise for the police, which might have consequences for police manpower on our streets.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) for his clear explanation of the purpose of the Bill and the content of the clause.

The issues surrounding the legislation are of concern not only to my hon. Friend, but to the Home Office. That is a happy coincidence and it is a reflection of the fact that the Home Office is in tune with the feelings of the people of this country on most matters as well as with those of hon. Members who are lucky in the ballot. I know that my hon. Friend is extremely keen on the issue, and we are keen to oblige him and the House, as well as those involved, and to support the Bill.

The Bill is timely because it coincides with the Government's legislative proposals. Those were announced by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), last October, when he launched a programme to improve health and safety standards in the police service, which is a laudable aim that we should all support.

As my hon. Friend said, his Bill has the strong support of the police associations. The Government share the service's concern to establish the highest standards of safety for police officers. We are ever conscious of the hazards that they face daily in the course of their duties--hazards that, as we all know, are often completely unexpected. That is why we are committed to providing the service with the best possible protection against violent attack: the replacement of the wooden truncheon with modern batons and improved and regular safety training have already done much to increase that protection.

More recently, the introduction of CS spray has proved effective and been welcomed by officers. In collaboration with the police scientific development branch, forces have been developing better standards of protective clothing and equipment, including body armour that is easier to wear.

There is already a strong safety culture in the police service, which is reflected in the guidance issued by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers

14 Feb 1997 : Column 580

and in the standards of training provided both centrally and within forces. Forces have been complying with the spirit of the health and safety legislation since the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, but moving to statutory compliance will give an added focus to their efforts.

My hon. Friend has suggested that moving from voluntary to statutory compliance should not of itself impose additional costs and that in the longer term it might even provide the possibility of savings. We agree with that and, with your permission, Dame Janet, I should like briefly to set out our reasoning, as it is an important consideration.

Our assessment is based on several factors. Health and safety is not a new issue in the service. The health and safety at work legislation has of course always applied to the civilian staff, and police officers have benefited indirectly by working in the same premises. As my hon. Friend said, forces have been applying the legislation to officers on a voluntary basis since 1975.

From that, and from the operational imperatives, a strong safety culture has grown. Health and safety issues are already covered adequately in most areas of hazardous police work through, for example, the application of ACPO guidelines. It is also relevant that under civil law chief officers and police authorities have a legal duty of care for police officers and should already be budgeting accordingly.

The Government accept that in the lead-up to the new legislation forces will need to review their present arrangements and that some adaptations will be necessary. In most cases that will involve providing appropriate training for managers, especially in the preparation of risk assessments and in improving accident and sickness management. We have issued comprehensive guidance to facilitate those tasks.

Taking into account the time scale that we are proposing for the introduction of the legislation, we believe that the forces should be able to implement the changes comfortably within their existing budgets. In the longer term, we are confident that forces will reap real benefits. Experience shows that investment in health and safety reduces sickness costs and the civil claims that so often follow accidents. The money saved will be available for fighting crime.

The real beneficiaries of the Bill will be the officers who patrol our streets, investigate crimes and carry out many hazardous duties on our behalf. Their safety and health must always be accorded a high priority.

I wish to clarify our intentions in respect of some of the provisions of clause 1 in response to several concerns raised, particularly by the Police Federation. I have little to add to the explanation of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe of the purpose and effect of the clause. It extends the health and safety legislation to all who hold the office of constable or who serve as police cadets, whether in the so-called Home Office forces, or the non-Home Office forces, such as the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police or other bodies to which police officers are seconded. It is right that for health and safety purposes, their employer should be the chief officer, as he or she is responsible for their direction and control.

In our discussions with the service about the Bill, concerns have been raised about possible conflict between the requirements of the health and safety legislation and

14 Feb 1997 : Column 581

operational imperatives. In the course of a riot, it is clearly not possible for a police commander to take account of every regulation that might apply. To a large extent, that is already covered by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The general duties that section 2 imposes on employers are qualified by the phrase


    "so far as is reasonably practical".

I am sure that that will please my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant).

Some of the regulations made under section 15 of the 1974 Act are expressed in absolute terms, and in certain circumstances it might not be possible for police forces to comply. For example, officers at the front line at the beginning of a spontaneously occurring riot will not normally be equipped according to the requirements of the personal protective equipment regulations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary proposes to address the matter by making a regulation to the effect that in its application to the police service, the test of reasonable practicability will apply in circumstances where there is an inevitable conflict between the regulation and the demands of police operations.

In bringing the Bill into force, the Home Secretary also proposes to make regulations under section 2(4) of the 1974 Act on the arrangements to apply with regard to the recognition of the police representative bodies as trade unions in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. That was raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). This will apply also to the non-Home Office forces. In the case of the new services, subject to consultation with the respective directors general and the Health and Safety Executive, the intention of policy will be to provide that the national federations and the police representative bodies are deemed to be recognised trade unions for the purposes of the regulations.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport(Mr. Viggers) that the Palace of Westminster is not covered. The issue is under consideration and being discussed with the unions and the House authorities.

As provided by clause 7, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make an order to extend the health and safety legislation of Northern Ireland in the same way as the Bill provides for Great Britain. The aim is for the order to come into force on the date determined by the Home Secretary for the Bill to come into operation. That date will be determined in consultation with the Associations of Chief Police Officers.


Next Section

IndexHome Page