|Railways and Transport Safety Bill
Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is as courteous and charming as ever. If the constable is not present, how can he reasonably suspect anything? Will he rely on information being provided by other people that an offence has occurred
Column Number: 422or is reasonably suspected of having occurred? If he is not physically present, how can he know?
Mr. Jamieson: The information will have been provided to the constable by the marine official, or he may have had a reasonable suspicion in the first place because of information that had been given to him.
The hon. Lady asked where the test would be carried out. The screening test on board the vessel would be conducted by a constable in uniform. Evidential testing is to be done by the police, and I understand that any such test must be carried out by a constable in uniform. I repeat that there will be no random testing. We may need to consider precisely what is meant by uniform if the hat has blown off and so on. There is plenty of case law on road policing in such matters, which we may explore if we want further information.
Legislation on the constable in uniform would apply to the local police, the ports police and, if appropriate, the British Transport police. In practice, it is likely to be the local police, as they will have the equipment and the expertise to enforce this part of the Bill. Marine officials will have the power to detain vessels until the police arrive and, as I said earlier, they can detain the vessel only when they have requested the police to attend.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency plans to train a strategic number of police officers to board vessels in order to conduct the tests. The police will also have access to vessels used by harbour authorities and water authorities, should that be required.
The hon. Lady asked about hot pursuit, which is probably unlikely, although there are cases in which it is suspected that a serious offence has taken place and when pursuit is thought to be appropriate. There would be the power to track a vessel to see in which direction it was going, but in practice hot pursuit would not apply, although it would depend on what was deemed to be the severity of the situation.
The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the definition of United Kingdom ships and foreign ships, which is set out in clause 88, which we shall discuss later this morning if time allows. We were asked about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, which are civilian, not military, vessels. Clause 87 applies the Bill, except for clause 81, to those ships. Those on board will be covered by all the measures in this part of the Bill except that which applies to detaining ships in clause 81, for reasons which will be obvious to the Committee.
The hon. Lady also asked about consular officials; it is important that they have the power that she mentions because part 4 applies to United Kingdom ships anywhere in the world, not just off our coasts. Therefore, it may be appropriate for a consular official to act in such a capacity.
The hon. Lady asked several times about resources. I refer her to the explanatory notes to the Bill. The issue of any extra funding required is set out on page 25 in paragraph 92, headed ''Public sector financial and manpower cost''. I will not detain the Committee by reading it out, as it makes the points well. I hope
Column Number: 423that I have given a helpful summary of the clause and that we can move on.
Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his explanations, as far as they went. He referred to paragraph 92, and it was remiss of me not to mention it earlier. It says:
That may be difficult, but it is incumbent on the Government to do it. They are putting additional costs on several organisations—I will not list them again—who are concerned about the costs and whether they can pay them.
Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend is correct. If the notes had said that it was impossible to quantify the financial costs, we could let the Department off the hook, but as it is just 'difficult', the Department should come up with an answer.
Miss McIntosh: Indeed. The Government have a Department dedicated to transport policy, so although it may be difficult to quantify costs, they should do it. The notes go on to say:
For the benefit of the Committee, it is only thanks to our successful local campaign that the Portland helicopters were saved. They were about to be axed.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is aware that we are not debating helicopters.
Miss McIntosh: The Minister referred me to the explanatory notes. We are debating helicopters because we are told that search and rescue helicopters will be doing the job, but they have only just been rescued themselves. If they had not been rescued, who would have been doing the work?
The notes say:
I hope that the Department has allowed itself enough time to do that. The notes add that
Having tried the latter twice, I can say that it is the most inelegant exercise and is fraught with danger. I was pushed out of the way by an admiral.
Mr. Randall: Was he a hero?
Miss McIntosh: We will not go into that. The point is that people can break their legs or do themselves even worse damage. Considerable training is required, and I would not like to undertake it.
The notes say:
Column Number: 424
I thought that I made an eloquent argument for using the testing equipment used on railways, but that seemed to fall on deaf ears. However, there is still time before the Bill comes into force. We are told that the number of tests required is expected to be low, as is the number cases prosecuted.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that the provisions will apply to all vessels in UK waters, irrespective of flag. I also welcome his assurance that breath-testing should primarily be carried out after an accident or if there is reason to suspect a breach of the law and that there will not be random testing. That is welcome.
We will certainly hold the Government to their commitment in paragraph 93 of the explanatory notes:
No doubt, once the Bill is in force, we will have cause to revisit that.
The question of hot pursuit is a reasonable one that we will pursue on subsequent clauses. I am deeply uneasy about the reasonable time pending the arrival of the police because the Minister has confirmed that the police will conduct hot pursuit. The effects of alcohol may have worn off over the 24-hour detention period, and that could weaken the provisions of the clause. I share my hon. Friend's concern that the absence of the constable himself could be a hostage to fortune. I cannot speak for British Waterways, but I hope that it is happy to take on these new responsibilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|©Parliamentary copyright 2003||Prepared 4 March 2003|