| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 228:
- Page 48, line 2, leave out "the motor vehicle is or is believed" and insert "he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a point that was raised in an opposition amendment that was considered in Committee. We gave an undertaking to accept the point. The amendment's subject matter has been redrafted by parliamentary counsel. The amendment relates to police powers to enter premises for the purpose of seizing a vehicle that has been misused in a manner that will be caught by Clause 53. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, once again, I express my gratitude to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Power of Secretary of State to add to relevant authorities]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 229:
- Page 51, line 12, after "In" insert "subsection (2) of".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment and Amendment No. 230 make minor drafting changes to the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 230:
- Page 53, line 39, leave out "order".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Authorised persons under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 231:
- Page 54, line 36, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 allows for certain motoring offences to be dealt with by the issue of a "fixed penalty notice". That includes offences such as failure to comply with traffic signs, driving without a licence and not wearing a seatbelt. Where such an offence has been committed and witnessed by a police constable, a fixed penalty notice may be issued that allows the offender to discharge his liability for the offence provided that he pays the financial penalty that is stated on the notice.
"Conditional offers" can be issued under the fixed penalty regime where a constable has not witnessed a motoring offence but an enforcement camera has detected it. The British Transport Police at present cannot issue "conditional offers" under current legislation as they are not included within the phrase "chief officer of police", which is used in the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
The amendments will bring the British Transport Police within those provisions. That will allow them to deal more effectively with routine motoring offences, especially those committed at a railway level crossing. The BTP, together with the railway industry, are increasingly deploying enforcement cameras at railway level crossings to deter motorists from committing offences at those locations. Such offences can be extremely dangerous.
It is worth placing some statistics on the record. In 2000-01, the report from Her Majesty's Railways Inspectorate recorded 27 incidents of train accidents at level crossings and three fatalities where trains struck road vehicles. There were also 141 incidents of road vehicles damaging level crossing equipment. There are currently some 8,100 level crossings on the national rail network. Recent accidents have highlighted the potential dangers of trains colliding with road vehicles and it is important that we seek to reduce the number of traffic offences at level crossings.
The amendments will cover only England and Wales. We are, apparently, currently discussing with the Scottish Parliament the need for any similar changes to the legislation regarding conditional offers for motoring offences in Scotland and the inclusion of the British Transport Police. If changes are necessary, they will be brought forward in appropriate legislation when a suitable opportunity arises.
This helpful group of amendments deals with public safety. It is designed to ensure that we do not have horrible accidents at railway crossings; that when offences take place they are properly and appropriately punished; and that the BTP have the same range of powers as will be available to other Home Office police services. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 232 and 233:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Monson—I notice that he has just arrived.
Clause 67 [Nationality requirements applicable to police officers etc.]:
Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 234:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I must admit that I did not expect us to get through everything at such a pace today.
With this group of amendments we come to the controversial clause that would allow foreign nationals to join our police forces—a concession which, it appears, is granted by few if any other western industrial nations. No doubt the Minister will confirm that, or otherwise.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, finds Clause 67 so objectionable that he would rather it was removed in its entirety. I have some sympathy with that view but I felt that it might be better to seek a compromise.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked in Committee whether anyone would mind if their heart surgeon were of foreign nationality. Of course they would not, provided that he or she was a good surgeon and could communicate fluently with the rest of the operating theatre team. Hardly anyone would worry about the nationality of their greengrocer, television repair man, bank teller, doctor or university professor. Indeed, in certain disciplines it might be preferable if a university professor were of a different nationality. But the police are different. The police, uniquely, have authority over you, and you can be arrested and charged if you disobey them.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, claimed in Committee that the function of the police was to help people. Theoretically that is true. In an ideal world, the police would spend most of their time helping old ladies across the street and explaining patiently to bemused tourists the precise way to Trafalgar Square. But unhappily we do not live in an ideal world and, accordingly, the police are obliged to spend much of their time being tough rather than tender.
I suppose that my experiences are fairly typical of someone of my age and background. Most of my encounters with the police have been favourable; some have been exceptionally so, involving the recovery of stolen goods of great sentimental value in one instance and, in another, where the police displayed enormous efficiency and kindness following a traumatic high-speed motor accident 13 months ago caused by a Hungarian HGV driver dozing off at the wheel.
However, over the past 55 years there have been a few less pleasant encounters, some of them my fault, some of them definitely not. Human nature being what it is, one unfortunately tends to remember the few disagreeable encounters much more vividly than the far more numerous happy ones. If that is the case for what might be described as a "university-educated"
My amendments are divided into two pairs. The first would demand a residence qualification a little more rigorous than that sought in the amendment proposed by the Conservative Front Bench—at any rate, in its effect. An exception would be made for those born, and in most cases brought up, here so as to cover the example of those who may have emigrated to, say, Toronto or Melbourne in their early 20s and taken up Canadian or Australian citizenship but who now wish to return to this country. Another example would be police who had been recruited to serve in Zimbabwe and who had adopted the citizenship of that country but who were now being made unwelcome by Mr Mugabe.
The essential reasoning behind the amendments is that any non-British subject recruited to the police should, so far as possible, be steeped in our Anglo-Saxon common law tradition where everything is permitted unless it is specifically forbidden rather than the continental tradition where everything is forbidden unless it is specifically permitted.
My second pair of amendments would make it mandatory rather than optional for certain conditions—for example, fluency in the English language—to be imposed upon candidates. They would also stipulate that candidates should have arrived in this country legally and that, where they sought promotion, they should, by that time, have adopted British citizenship. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked in Committee, why do not foreign candidates for the police become naturalised? How much more force that argument has when they have been in this country long enough to become eligible for promotion. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 235 is grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and properly so. One must assume that the reason that we have a clause in the Bill prescribing the nationality requirements applicable to police officers is that the Government feel that the existing law is no longer satisfactory. I can think of no other reason why it should be included. My concern is that this clause may well be equally unsatisfactory. Therefore, the first question that I want to ask the Minister is: what is specifically unsatisfactory about the present situation? Only when we know that shall we be in a position to judge whether this new clause is any more or, indeed, less satisfactory.
Without wishing to stoke any awkward emotions, we should think carefully about the wording in the clause before us. It states:
On the face of it, the wording of the clause does not appear to me to be satisfactory. I believe that it is too wide open and that some form of qualification is necessary. If one is on the electoral roll in this country, that indicates a real commitment to life in this country without implying anything as to place of birth or, indeed, in certain circumstances, nationality. That perhaps would imply a commitment to the democratic processes of this country and, therefore, a commitment to this country. That is the reasoning behind my amendment.
"( ) Part 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (fixed penalties) shall be amended as follows."
Page 54, line 37, leave out "of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)"
Page 54, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) In section 75(1) (conditional offers in England and Wales), at the end there shall be inserted "or, if the constable is a member of the British Transport Police, by or on behalf of the chief constable of the British Transport Police".
( ) In section 76(2) (limitation on proceedings), in paragraph (a), for "the chief officer" there shall be substituted "the person by or on whose behalf the conditional offer was sent".
( ) In section 87 (guidance from the Secretary of State), after "areas" there shall be inserted "and to the chief constable of the British Transport Police".
( ) In section 89 (interpretation of Part 3), after the definition of "authorised person" there shall be inserted—
"'British Transport Police' means the force of constables appointed under the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix);"."
Page 59, line 34, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (2A) below,"
6.45 p.m.
"Irrespective of his place of birth, a person of any nationality may be ... a member of a police force"—
let us say in the United Kingdom in order to abbreviate everything before us. Those are the opening words of
the clause. There are some subsequent qualifications which finish, in subsection (4), with the words:
"Without prejudice to the generality of any power conferred apart from this section, the provision falling within subsection (3) that may be made by any such regulations, terms and conditions or arrangements as are mentioned in that subsection"—
put that into plain English if you can!—
"may include provision imposing any of the following requirements".
The following requirements are,
"requirements with respect to the competence in written and spoken English of candidates for appointment . . . requirements with respect to the immigration status of such candidates"—
that is entirely understandable—and,
"requirements with respect to nationality in the case of particular ranks, offices or positions".
Once one goes down that road, of course, one calls into question the opening phrase of the clause.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page