My Lords, in moving Amendment 63, I remind the Committee that we in this House have debated the role, jurisdiction and effectiveness of the British Transport Police on a number of occasions over the past decade, and on each occasion the unanimous view has been that it does a remarkably effective job, not just in helping to keep the railways of England, Wales and Scotland safe and free from crime but also in contributing to the policing of our society as a whole. It has been around since the earliest days of the railway. Indeed, the officers employed on the Stockton and Darlington railway in 1826 predate the passing of the Metropolitan Police Act by three years.
The force deploys capabilities similar to Home Office forces in undertaking counterterrorism, firearms, public order, response policing and criminal investigations. It participates in joint operations such as the G8 and the Olympics and in cable theft operations. The force has ACPO officers in command, trains its officers to national standards and has a high degree of interoperability with partner forces.
The situation relating to its jurisdiction is, however, neither straightforward nor satisfactory, and the purpose of my amendment is to put right one or two of those anomalies. I believe that it has the support of the Home Office and a section of the Department for Transport. It certainly has the support of the British Transport Police itself, and I hope that it will have the support of the Minister.
I start with Section 100 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Subsection (2) states:
“Members of the British Transport Police Force have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that police area—
(a) in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence, or
(b) if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or to prevent or minimise personal injury”.
That is fine until you read subsection (3), which states that members of the British Transport Police force,
“have powers and privileges by virtue of subsection (2) only if”
—I repeat: only if—
“(a) they are in uniform or have with them documentary evidence that they are members of that Force, and
(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that a power of a constable which they would not have apart from that subsection ought to be exercised and that, if it cannot be exercised until they secure the attendance of or a request under subsection (1) by a constable who has it, the purpose for which they believe it ought to be exercised will be frustrated or seriously prejudiced”.
I shall describe to the Committee what that means. Let us imagine that a BTP officer is off railway jurisdiction—perhaps walking between one railway station and another close by—and the officer comes across an incident where a member of the public requests his or her help and there may be a need to arrest someone. First, the officer has to check whether the local force will make a request for the BTP officer to deal with it. If it does, the BTP officer has the power to arrest. That could result, however, in considerable delay and lead to the loss of evidence and, worse, loss of the offender. It also damages public confidence in the police service, bearing in mind that the public do not distinguish between police officers from BTP and other forces. They see a police officer in uniform and expect a responsive and effective service.
There is an exception where making those inquires or requests could frustrate or seriously prejudice the exercise of the arrest function. The crucial point is: how are the circumstances that will amount to a frustration or serious prejudice defined? Different officers and different bystanders will have different interpretations, and that can lead to uncertainty, confusion and delay.
There is also a requirement for the BTP officer either to be in uniform or to be in possession of documentary evidence that they are a member of the force, such as a warrant card. For Home Office forces there is no such legislative requirement in general for making an arrest. Although it may be good practice to carry a warrant card, there seems to be no justification for making this rule apply solely to the BTP. That could compromise criminal cases where an off-duty BTP officer who was acting in the public good made an arrest but did not have the warrant card on them. I am, therefore, proposing the complete removal of subsection (3) from the Act.
My amendment also suggests the insertion of the words,
“or to prevent damage to property”,
at the end of subsection (2)(b). This is important and necessary because it will authorise the BTP to take action to prevent or detect incidents in a suddenly
escalating public disorder situation. Imagine that BTP officers come across incidents of disorder in a high street when they are passing by. The public and owners of businesses expect the police to protect their property when necessary, and they are not going to be interested in whether they are from a Home Office force or from the British Transport Police.
6.15 pm
The second part of my amendment deals with Section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and puts right the anomaly which prevents the BTP requiring the registered owner of a vehicle to give details of who the driver was at the time of an alleged offence. This stems from the term “chief officer of police”, which is not defined in the 1988 Act, and therefore paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 applies. The definition in the 1978 Act leads to Section 101(1) of the Police Act 1996, which does not include the chief officer of the BTP.
In the mid-1980s a similar problem was identified in the predecessor legislation to the Road Traffic Act 1988 —the Road Traffic Act 1972—and was corrected by the British Railways Act 1986. However, the wording of the new Road Traffic Act 1988 did not take account of that amendment. My amendment is straightforward. It would amend Section 172(2) of the 1988 Act to state that a “chief officer of police” should also include the chief officer of the British Transport Police.
The best example of why this change is necessary concerns offences committed on level crossings. These have the potential to result in fatalities, significant economic disruption and personal upheaval in the lives of large numbers of people. The British Transport Police supports Network Rail in addressing safety issues at railway crossings. It has a fleet of 15 vehicles equipped with closed-circuit television to enforce the Road Traffic Act legislation. However, because BTP officers are not allowed to require a driver’s details in their own right, they have to use what is called a “workaround” to obtain the information. This is an agreement drawn up with ACPO where permission is granted by the relevant chief constables and Home Office forces for BTP officers to request these details using that authority. This is an absurd and unsatisfactory position, and could potentially be subject to challenge by a clever defence lawyer, particularly in a high-profile case such as a train crash caused by a road user ignoring the lights or barriers on a level crossing. The ability of our learned friends to exploit a technicality caused by a fault in the law is almost unlimited, as noble Lords are all too aware.
However, it is not just at level crossings where BTP has an important public safety role in road traffic legislation. Let us take, for example, the service roads around railway stations and depots that are within BTP jurisdiction. Should a serious collision occur on a service road which leads to a fatality and the driver of the vehicle makes off from the scene, it is imperative that BTP should have unambiguous legislation to enable its officers to trace the driver, conduct an investigation and ensure that a prosecution takes place. That is why this modest and, I hope, wholly uncontroversial amendment is so necessary. I beg to move.