Examination of Witness (Questions 494
- 499)
TUESDAY 30 JANUARY 2001
MR COLIN
MCKERRACHER
Chairman
494. Good morning. Can I welcome Mr Colin McKerracher.
You are the Assistant Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and
member of ACPOs General Policing Standing Committee. Can I thank
you very much for coming along this morning and agreeing to allow
us to take some oral evidence from you on the issues that have
been raised with us by your own organisation, and indeed by others
in the evidence sessions we have already heard, on the proposals
in the Armed Forces Bill to possibly extend powers of the Ministry
of Defence Police. Before we go straight into questions, is there
anything you would like to say as an opening statement? We have
obviously had some of the written evidence from your organisation.
(Mr McKerracher) Thank you very much.
I have obviously had time to read a lot of the papers that are
relevant to the items you are discussing. The Scottish Police
Service has a very good relationship with the Ministry of Defence
Police; certainly we do not have any major issues with a clarification
of their position with regard to some of the instances you have
already discussed. I think it would be helpful to us, to the Ministry
of Defence Police and to the general public if some of these issues
were clarified. We welcome the opportunity to take part in this
particular debate.
495. Thank you very much for that. I am very
reassured because, confessing an interest of having a constituency
that has Rosyth dockyard in it, from my own observations I have
always gained the impression that there is a very good relationship
between the local constabulary and the Ministry of Defence Police.
It is reassuring that it does exist, but you clearly have genuine
concerns. Can I ask you to enlarge a little on what currently
works well at a practical level; and what problems have arisen,
particularly thinking of some of the demonstrations that occur
on a fairly regular basis somewhere like the Clyde Naval Base,
Faslane, and the working arrangements there between the Strathclyde
Police Force and the Ministry of Defence Police and others?
(Mr McKerracher) The demonstrations are a particular
event obviously, and they are an event where there is excellent
communication between the Ministry of Defence Police and ourselves.
We hold regular meetings to ensure before any demonstration that
both the Ministry of Defence Police and our own officers know
exactly their roles and responsibilities. Basically what happens
is that outside the fence Strathclyde Police police the demonstration,
and only if we were to request the Ministry of Defence Police
to come out and help us would that happen. Offences that take
place along the perimeter fence, or should anyone encroach into
Ministry of Defence property, the Ministry of Defence Police would
take primacy there. As far as problems are concerned, the problems
are usually that there are too many protesters and not enough
Strathclyde police officers. However, we do call on the mutual
aid from within our own Force to deal with that. We do not necessarily
call on mutual aid from Ministry of Defence Police; although the
Commander of L Division, which covers Faslane, would indeed (should
he need to) request that Ministry of Defence Police come over
to the other side of the fence to help. They do with minor tasks
sometimes—if there were a lot of arrests. Last February
there were 185 arrests at a demonstration. With the process of
booking in prisoners, to allow our officers to go back into mainline
policing, Ministry of Defence police officers stood with one of
our officers and the prisoners to ensure they were booked through;
and that allowed us to get half of our strength back to the frontline,
as it were. In that situation of a demonstration, we work very
well and there are not too many difficulties which arise.
496. Do difficulties, which arise, arise in
the unpredictable situations? As you say, with a demonstration
you know pretty well in advance it is going to take place so it
is possible to plan very closely. The difficulties which ACPOS
have experienced, have those been the one-off unpredictable incidents?
(Mr McKerracher) I think it would be unfair of me
to say there were difficulties, to be perfectly honest. I think
what we have is that there are situations which need clarifying.
They tend to be the very issue that has been discussed before
in this Committee, that where Ministry of Defence Police are passing
between properties, defence properties, they naturally come across
incidents where the public see them as police officers and if
they are in distress or not they expect that police officer would
stop and deal with the situation. What you have is a situation
where they certainly would stop in our experience, but what they
are is really a reporter to us. They stop and will take whatever
action they need to take within their own limited powers at that
time. It is basically citizen's arrest powers and they call very
quickly on the local police to come and bring that situation to
a conclusion. Those instances are not great in number, I have
to say. The local Commander in that area, Faslane, which is the
main area for that sort of presence, would say he recognises the
value of their passing between bases, because to all intents and
purposes it is another police presence in the area. The public
are aware of that presence; and I do not know they distinguish
very quickly between Strathclyde Police and Ministry of Defence
Police, but they know they are there. In that situation they do
have a whole range of issues then, because the Ministry of Defence
Police officers then become witnesses to a case, rather than reporting
officers. There is an untidiness about it, which would be an appropriate
way to describe it.
Chairman: You have touched on one of
the key issues, that the public see somebody in what looks like
a police uniform and expect them to respond in the normal way.
Mr Key
497. First, can I say how grateful I was to
Sir Roy Cameron, for his very swift and detailed response to my
letter of December. I am most grateful for the constructive response
we had. Could I probe one or two aspects of the Protocol between
the Ministry of Defence Police and the police forces in Scotland.
That is Police Circular 14/1999 of the Scottish Executive Justice
Department Criminal Justice Division. There are some very interesting
and quite substantial differences between that Protocol and the
Protocol applying to Home Office police forces in the rest of
the UK. For example, in section 4 of the Protocol in the English
version it says that ". . . the Chief Constable MoD Police
will ensure prior consultation with the local Chief Constable
. . .". The Scottish version is far more detailed. For example,
it includes this section which is not in the English section,
"Where circumstances of extreme urgency e.g. public safety
consideration, loss of evidence or other similar circumstances
preclude such consultation, the local Chief Constable will be
notified of the event as soon as possible, e.g. as soon as it
is reasonably practicable thereafter". Why do you think it
was important in Scotland to have a rather more tightly drawn
arrangement?
(Mr McKerracher) I think because of the situation
I have outlined, that there is a public expectation there that
somebody in a police uniform is going to deal with a situation.
We understand that, whilst it would be nice on every occasion
for us to get an early call to say, "We're now going to deal
with the situation", if you have a violent person or a particularly
dangerous situation the first priority for any police officer
has to be the safety of the public and ensuring that lives are
not at risk. We would expect people to deal with the situation
and very quickly thereafter contact us, and tell us that a situation
is ongoing.
498. I fully understand that. I would be grateful
if you could just explain what you mean by "loss of evidence
or other similar circumstances". What did you have in mind
there?
(Mr McKerracher) I think loss of evidence could quite
simply be that a criminal is about to depart with stolen goods,
or any circumstantial evidence where you will miss the opportunity
to get hold of the criminal. There would be loss of evidence if
those officers felt they could not lay hands on and arrest that
person. Or a vehicle would leave the scene which would have evidential
value. A very basic and pragmatic situation.
499. That is perfectly reasonable but I would
like to return to that later. Could I please turn to section 7
of the Protocol. Again, the English version is only three lines
long and is very general, whereas the Scottish version is more
prescriptive. For example, you state that, "The Ministry
of Defence Police are legally entitled to possess firearms . .
.", which is assumed in England; but then you go on at the
end of section 7 to say that ". . . the Chief Constable of
the Ministry of Defence Police will discuss in advance with the
local Chief Constable the circumstances of those duties, and the
arrangements for deployment, security, method of carriage and
rules of engagement in respect of those firearms". That is
hugely more prescriptive than in the English version of the Protocol.
It could indicate (although you have said it does not) there is
less trust between the Ministry of Defence Police in Scotland
and ACPOS?
(Mr McKerracher) I do not think for a minute there
is less trust. I think what we jealously guard in Scotland, and
I am sure our English and Welsh colleagues do, is the fact that
we do not routinely arm our police officers. What we do not want
is a situation whereby Ministry of Defence Police officers, who
I have already said to all intents and purposes are police officers
in the public eye, are seen to be routinely armed and coming out
of bases with arms on show to the public. I think that the safeguard
is, from our experience, that they do not patrol with firearms.
If they are going between bases they will not have firearms showing.
What we are saying in the Protocol is, let us make sure that situation
does not arise; and let us have a protocol that is as tight as
we would both want it. So the Protocol is written, as you say,
in fairly prescriptive terms; but it does prevent that regular
routine, and maybe less well thought-out, deployment of firearms.
|
