| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 Apr 2003 : Column 789—continued
British Transport Police
10. Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): If he will make a statement on the role of the British Transport police in responding to major terrorist incidents. [105794]
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The British Transport police play a full part in the British police service within their railways jurisdiction, including the prevention and detection of terrorism. Due to the critical nature of anti-terrorist work the handling of any confirmed incident on the railways would be a joint response involving the BTP, the local police force, the anti-terrorist branch and other emergency services, if necessary.
Mr. Heath : The Minister will realise that the British Transport police could be faced with a serious emergency, especially on the London underground, in the case of terrorist attack. Is he convinced that the current funding mechanisms allow for the enhanced responsibilities that the BTP may have in that respect? Is the Home Office able to direct additional funds to the BTP without the agreement of the train operating companies? Have the transport police been issued with radiation monitoring equipment, which has, we understand, been issued to the Metropolitan police and some other forces?
Mr. Spellar: I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that there is close liaison between the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police, in protocols, man-management and commitment. Handling anti-terrorism has, unfortunately, been a staple for the BTP for a considerable number of years, especially due to the threat in one of the main areas covered by the force—the London underground—and also on the mainline London stations. That is part and parcel of the BTP's ordinary work. If any of that work was constrained by financial issues, we should address them.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): Does my right hon. Friend recall yesterday's debate about rail safety and the British Transport police and agree that the many favourable comments that were made then suggest that there should be an increase in the staffing of
the transport police for many other reasons as well as those cited by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)?
Mr. Spellar: Yes. I forbear, for the benefit of the rest of the House, from replaying the whole of the rather lengthy debate that we had on the British Transport police during an extremely prolonged debate. When I say that my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) participated in that debate, hon. Members who were not present will get a flavour of the detailed scrutiny that we applied to that subject. What was very clear during the debate was the very high regard in all parts of the House for the work of the British Transport police, and also the increasing effectiveness of those police.
Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North is absolutely right that questions were raised with regard to work on other transport facilities, but we did indicate at that time that that was not what we had consulted on more widely, that this was very much the work of the relevant Home Office or Scottish police forces, but we did recognise the need for extensive joint working in order to contain any potential terrorist threat.
CABINET OFFICE
The Minister of State was asked—
Regulatory Impact Assessments
19. Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): If he will make a statement on the Government's progress with developing regulatory impact assessments. [105841]
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Cabinet Office has a continuous programme of work with Departments to improve the quality of regulatory impact assessments. We published revised guidance in January this year and officials are promoting it with a series of seminars and workshops in Departments. RIAs provide a more open system of assessing the risks, costs and benefits of new legislative proposals.
Dr. Cable: I acknowledge the usefulness of those assessments in quantifying the costs of regulation, but does the Minister accept the criticism of the Better Regulation Task Force that too many of them are of very poor quality, as with the regulation of care homes; some of them have simply disappeared, as with the regulation of animal movements; and most of them are inconsistent and lacking in independence? How does he propose to improve the situation?
Mr. Alexander: The Better Regulation Task Force firmly supports the regulatory impact assessments as a tool to endeavour to help Government improve the quality of the legislation that is passed. That is why the BRTF has drawn to the attention of the National Audit Office in its annual report, "Champions of Better Regulation", a number of RIAs that it believes need to
be of higher quality. That work continues and I believe will be a useful contribution to our better regulation endeavours.
Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley): Is not my hon. Friend disappointed that the regulatory reform procedure is still not used by as many Departments as it could be, to remove unnecessary burdens?
Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point in terms of the scale of work that we are endeavouring to take forward to improve better regulation across Government. There is little better that I can do than to quote the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which said:
- "The United Kingdom is at the forefront of regulatory reform in the OECD. It has already made major improvements and has planned more".
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): I do not understand that.
Mr. Alexander: I have sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend from a sedentary position.
We need to be careful not to create a structure that is too bureaucratic in order to reduce bureaucracy and regulation. However, the work that the National Audit Office is taking forward is important. I believe that it will strengthen the quality of the RIA procedures, and that is why I believe that the OECD is correct in recognising the strength of commitment of the British Government to this important area of policy.
Communication Systems
20. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): What discussions he has had with owners of communication systems of strategic and economic importance about the protection of the systems' integrity; and if he will make a statement. [105842]
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the national infrastructure security co-ordination centre. That centre is charged with protecting the critical national infrastructure against electronic attack. Of course, our major communications networks are a key part of that infrastructure.
My officials have a continual dialogue with a wide range of communication system owners across both the public and private sectors. In addition I met with Andrew Pinder the e-Envoy only last week.
Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the work carried out by the emergency planning college, Hawkhills, run by Dr. Rooke, near Easingwold in the Vale of York, and I hope that he will join me in paying tribute to the excellent work that it does. What regard has the college had to the damage that could be done to strategic communications systems in the event of a terrorist strike? Has it liased with the owners of such systems about how to pre-empt such a terrorist strike?
Mr. Alexander: I can assure the hon. Lady that a range of work has been done with various telecommunications and electronic network providers. That work is obviously ongoing. The college to which she refers is in her constituency, and I certainly join her in paying tribute to the work that it undertakes. The college has a key role in developing and promulgating the new United Kingdom resilience doctrine, including those aspects that will flow from the new legislation and developing cross-organisational communities throughout the UK to deliver it.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): Is the Minister confident that the national air traffic control system—which was so disastrously part-privatised by our own Government and which has continually come back with the begging bowl to No. 11 Downing street ever since—is robust enough to resist any attempt by terrorists to infiltrate its systems?
Mr. Alexander: As I said at the outset, the Home Secretary has responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's approach to all those issues and, in that capacity, he chairs a number of Cabinet Sub-Committees, one of which includes the Department for Transport, which obviously addresses the issue that my hon. Friend raises, but I shall be happy to pass on his comments directly to the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): Does the Minister recognise the fact that there are weaknesses in the law governing malicious attacks on communication networks at present? Would he therefore welcome an updating of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 better to reflect the growth of the internet, so that he could fulfil his role in protecting Government information technology systems all the better?
Mr. Alexander: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest and expertise in such issues, and I am certainly not complacent about the risks of cyber terrorism. That is why I am confident that our major communications providers are taking appropriate precautions now, but that is an ongoing process of work and we clearly keep those matters under review.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |