Policing and Crime Bill

I am speaking for the Government from the Dispatch Box and I have been thoroughly convinced by the case that has been put in front of me. My admiration for the fine job that the BTP does in policing our railways is well known in this House and, I know, is shared by both the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley. It delivers a highly effective policing service that helps to ensure that our railways are kept safe and secure and there is clearly merit in learning from the knowledge and experience that it has acquired through operating in a commercial environment. We shall, as I said, come back to the role of the BTP and its jurisdiction when we consider Amendment 159EA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. The Government do not feel that the railway-based policing model would work at airports. There are a significant issues here, including the lack of an armed capability, the challenges of providing flexible resources across a disparate and disconnected geographical area, the need fundamentally to change the existing structures to extend competence to airports and the fact that the BTP does not have a long-established Special Branch role. We believe that there is no justification for the cost and disruption that allowing the BTP to police airports would cause when we have a perfectly good solution already in place. On Amendments 152AM, 152AN and 152AT, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, for asking how police collaboration agreements will work in the context of these provisions. The provisions do not preclude a collaboration agreement between forces, as that would preserve the local chief constable’s position as the principal decision-maker. Collaboration agreements will continue to be an option where chief constables consider them to be more effective or efficient ways of delivering policing measures. However, for the reasons that I have already mentioned, we consider it important to retain the Bill’s current requirement that the local force, and not another force, should take the responsibility for policing its airports and therefore be represented on both the security executive group and the risk advisory group. That is not to say, however, that the chief officer of the local force could not work with colleagues from neighbouring forces in the delivery of policing services that he or she decided should be in place at the airport, either with the agreement of the airport operator under the terms of a police services agreement or in some other capacity. Where a chief officer felt that airport policing could be delivered effectively and efficiently through co-operation with another force, it would be open to that chief officer to enter into a collaboration agreement setting out the terms of this co-operation. It would also be possible for a representative of a force participating in a collaboration agreement to attend both risk advisory group and security executive group meetings in the capacity of an observer. Amendment 152AM would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to appoint observers to the risk advisory group. One of the reasons it is important for the Secretary of State to have this power is that, in the event of any doubt about the effectiveness of a group's operation, the Secretary of State will be able to appoint officials to witness the group’s proceedings. Officials will then be in a position to support the work of the group concerned and to advise the Secretary of State as may be necessary. Amendment 152AU proposes the removal of the provision providing specific authority for individuals to act as members of the risk advisory group and security executive group at a qualifying aerodrome. I should like to explain the rationale for the inclusion of this provision. United Kingdom airports vary considerably in size and in nature. We recognise that these provisions must work effectively at all sites. At some of the very smallest airports, the staff with responsibility for day-to-day risk assessment may also have responsibility for taking resourcing decisions and will therefore need to sit on risk advisory and security executive groups. The Bill provides for that and national guidance will contain governance advice regarding use of this provision. Amendments 152BGA and 152BGB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would require the Secretary of State to consider transparency and accountability when determining a dispute. These principles run through the entirety of the new process, so it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to overlook them. Producing a risk report and an airport security plan to support decisions is a wholly transparent process and provides a clear set of accountabilities which feed into the development of the police services agreement. These will be material considerations for the Secretary of State when making a determination, so the two principles do not need to be referenced explicitly in the Bill. The amendments would also require the Secretary of State to consider whether other police providers would have made different decisions or provided policing at lower costs and how policing services are provided at airports with a similar risk profile. The fundamental principle underpinning the security planning framework is that decisions about security planning should be based on relevant local circumstances and intelligence. Airports are very diverse and the risk profile at each will vary in accordance with the precise nature of each operation. The mix of security measures will also vary, with policing only one possible option. That is why the new planning process does not allow this to be prejudged as mitigating measures will be based on identified threats to each individual airport. It would be inappropriate explicitly to require the Secretary of State to consider how policing might be considered at another airport when it is unlikely to be a material factor. The amendments also assume that costs might somehow be inflated. The national guidance will make it quite clear that police forces and authorities will be expected to set out clearly what they charge airport operators so that all parties can understand how the costs are made up. The guidance will also be clear that costs may be recovered only for those aspects of policing that should be paid for by the airport operator, as opposed to the state. Finally—I apologise for the length of my response, but we have had 10 amendments to consider—with regard to Amendment 152BGB, I can reassure your Lordships that the Secretary of State, acting reasonably in the execution of his duties, would certainly seek the information described in the amendment before making a determination if the nature of the dispute necessitated this, and already has the powers to do so. He can instruct parties to share that information before determination is reached. We have considered a series of complex but related issues in these amendments and I hope that what I have said will collectively encourage the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, not to press their amendments.