Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, it would be a little churlish of me not to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his extremely helpful and supportive comment at the end of the debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rosser on the eloquence with which he moved Amendment 152AP, and other noble Lords who contributed to the debate. That amendment and the other amendments collectively seek to enable airport operators to recover the costs of agreed policing services and ensure that others contribute to them. We recognise that the exceptional economic circumstances affecting the global economy have an impact on everyone. However, we also have a system of funding airport policing that is both unfair and out of date. The designation of only nine airports so that they alone pay for their dedicated policing costs is a system that needs to change, and both the industry and the police agree with us. Frankly, it is not right that the taxpayer should fund airport policing costs when the airport operator, as the owner of the property on which a business is run for profit, benefits from the policing services provided there. The amendments would enable airport operators to recover policing costs from other parties—some airports consider that this would allow them to revisit their existing contracts—but it is an entirely commercial decision for the airport operator as to whether and how they wish to pass the costs of airport policing through to their users. Ministers have carefully considered whether the Government should intervene in commercial relations between airport operators and their customers and have not seen sufficient evidence that such a measure in the Bill is necessary. Indeed, some of these amendments restrict the relevant parties who can reimburse the airport operator to those who operate commercial enterprises at the airport, and exclude other relevant persons with statutory functions at the airport. That, in itself, is recognition of the fact that this is a commercial matter. This is not a decision that the Government have taken lightly. We have satisfied ourselves that airport operators are able to recover their costs as they renegotiate contracts, as they would do for any other operating costs. We appreciate that this is not always straightforward. Airport operators have known that these changes have been coming for three years, though, and the requirement to pay for dedicated policing will not arise until 2011 for the non-designated airports, so there is time for them to make arrangements. The amendments would also result in confusion over the distinct purpose and functions of airport security plans and police services agreements. The airport security plan may include details of any payments to be made by one relevant person to another, to allow the wider range of security partners to contribute to the cost of a security measure or project from which they benefit. However, this clause deliberately exempts detail about payments to be made by the airport to the police from the plan. This is because these payments should be specified in a police services agreement, as provided for in Schedule 6. The signatories to the agreement will be only the airport operator, the police and the police authority. It would not be appropriate to have an agreement that covered payments to be made by organisations that were not party to that agreement. It would also result in duplication if details for policing services were included in both the plan and the police services agreement. Extensive details about levels of policing services and corresponding airport payments are for the police services agreement, not the airport security plan. The amendments would also allow payments to be made by relevant persons—including those with statutory functions, not just commercial organisations at the airport—directly to the police authority. There is a risk that the commercial organisations would be required not only to make payments to reimburse the airport operator but to make payments to the police authority. It would be ill advised to create an extraordinarily complex process that presupposed that the benefit of dedicated policing could somehow be identified and divided between the parties. It is a legitimate part of running an airport that there will be associated costs. It remains a commercial decision for airport operators, as it is now for the nine designated airports, how they recover those costs. In turn, it remains open to airlines and others to decide whether and how they recover costs from their users. This is a fair and well established basis for conducting such arrangements. The economic situation is clearly affecting the industry, but it is time to move away from designation towards a fairer system for all in the industry. Amendment 152AUA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would allow the cost of policing to be raised as a matter of dispute before dedicated policing had even been agreed to be necessary. I can offer reassurance that there is a more appropriate provision in Schedule 6 to raise the cost of policing as a matter of dispute, once the requirement to draw up a police services agreement has been established. Amendments 152AR and 152BF, in the name of the noble Baroness, seek to ensure that greater transparency is introduced into relations between airport operators and police forces by requiring a breakdown of those costs that make up the elements of a police services agreement. The detail provided to airport operators in the past has not always been adequate. Like the noble Baroness, the Government want to ensure that airport operators are clear about what police services they are being charged for. That is exactly what the provisions as drafted already provide for. We have been working with national police representatives, as well as industry, to develop guidance that sets out a clear expectation that costs should be fully explained in billing information. The Bill requires that, when producing police services agreements, our security partners must pay due regard to this guidance. The Bill itself already ensures that a police services agreement must contain a description of the level of policing to be provided and a description of any corresponding payments. However, if an airport operator is unhappy about the level of cost breakdown detail that the police propose to provide when agreeing a police services agreement, it is open to the operator to require more information from the police, as it would with any other commercial transaction. If that detail is not forthcoming, the operator may ultimately take the issue to dispute. As part of any determination, the Secretary of State would require clarity on precisely what policing services the airport operator had a right to expect in exchange for the payments made. More than one noble Lord has suggested that the proposals would affect the financial viability of airports—indeed, that we run the risk of putting airlines out of business. The Government do not take that view because the costs of policing at airports generally represent a relatively small fraction of overall operating costs. The evidence provided by the industry suggests an impact of only around 8 per cent, and businesses are free to decide to pass these costs on to customers—through airport charges, for example—if they wish to do so. Airports operate in a competitive market. The current system of designation places some at unfair disadvantage, and that must be addressed. That is the reason behind this section of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey sought an assurance about security remaining paramount; we are, of course, able to give that unreservedly.