I thank the Minister for his reply and he is right to say that it was long. We seem to have two sets of discrete issues in one bunch of amendments, which I shall take in order. I listened careful to what the Minister said about the membership of these groups. I still find his reasons for discrepancy not entirely convincing, although I accept that there is diversity in the security conditions at different airports, which will require different patterns. It seems to me that, given that this new regime is coming into effect, it would be helpful if the Government would undertake to monitor carefully whether the provisions put in place by statute are working, and show willingness to amend if it turns out that there is a real problem.
I am grateful for what the Minister said about collaborative agreements between the police, which is an important part of getting the regime to work. As things stand, it seems entirely at the discretion of the police force which is policing the airport, rather than there being any ability on the part of the police force in the area to take any initiative. I would hope that those policemen could talk to each other sufficiently frequently so that if there is a need for a collaborative agreement or active help from the police force in the area, it will be forthcoming. This is a case of ensuring that the letter of the law translates into a sensible and practical regime, which really secures the airport and is done on a basis which pays attention to local security consideration and observes certain national norms.
I have an amendment coming up on cost. It might have been better if these amendments had been grouped, but that is as it is. There is plenty of practical evidence that the costs of policing airports have varied considerably. Not only do they vary from airport to airport, as does the rate at which certain services provided by the police are charged to the airport operator, but they change when a new police chief constable comes along and sets them again. There is not consistency in practice and there is not yet confidence in the basis on which the police charge. I do not see in the present arrangements any incentive to the police to keep their costs down. They are being paid for by someone else. I have great sympathy with the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. The Government should have a strong eye to the reasonableness of these charges. In the next amendment, I have a thought to put to the House, which may help.
In relation to the amendments standing in my name, I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about my suggestion and, on that basis, I hope that I will be able to withdraw my amendment.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Neville-Jones
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 October 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c624-5 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:25:37 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586437
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586437
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586437