Schedule 5
Policing and Crime Bill
6:15 pm
Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)
The amendment is clearly designed to ensure that the Secretary of State’s determination in resolving disputes about policing at aerodromes is transparent, fair and proportionate and that it provides value for money. Those are the very factors that were considered in drafting the schedule so I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to ensure that it has that effect. As I mentioned, stakeholders in industry and the police have welcomed the decision to change the final arbiter in disputes from a panel of independent experts to the Secretary of State for Transport precisely because they believe that it will provide sufficient accountability for decisions and will be fair and proportionate.
The amendment seeks to achieve the desired outcome by placing specific requirements on the Secretary of State, which we believe add no value to provisions that already provide broad powers to ensure that a fair and thorough determination is made.
Proposed new section 29C (5) is drafted in broad terms to allow the Secretary of State to gather information from relevant parties, whoever those may be. That extends to the airport operator and the police as well as other relevant organisations. The measure was included to ensure that the relevant police force supplies information on resourcing, as described in the amendment under proposed section 29C (8). By using powers under proposed new section 29C (5), the Secretary of State will look for clear evidence that police resources are justified in making any determination. Prescribing the specific types of information that the Secretary of State should consider is unnecessary as those powers are already in the Bill.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the police do not impose an unreasonable level of their resources at the airport, which the aerodrome manager will be required to pay for. It is also about ensuring that airports receive value for money, and we understand that. The Government are conscious of those issues, which is partly why we are instituting an end-to-end process for security planning that builds in collective agreement for the necessary security measures based on agreement between all those with an interest in airport security.
The Government believe that subsections (9) and (10) to proposed new section 29C should not be included in the Bill. We all agree on the principles of transparency and accountability and they run through the entirety of the current provisions. The act of producing a risk report and an airport security plan to support security decisions—both of which will be available to all relevant parties—is wholly transparent and provides a clear set of accountabilities. The amendment would provide no added value as such measures already exist.
Subsection (10)(a) to proposed new section 29C would create a hypothetical situation whereby the Secretary of State would need to consider whether another police force would have made different operational resource decisions. It would not be possible do that adequately without asking another police force to make such a judgment. That would be impractical since the other force would not have been privy to the discussions and arrangements that led to the final decision. It would have to go back to the start, take evidence and weigh it up. Therefore, the process would be time-consuming and could leave the Secretary of State in a dilemma as to which force’s view should be given greater credence.
If, however, the Secretary of State feels that such advice would be helpful, that can be pursued under the existing provisions as drafted in the schedule. It would not be appropriate for the legislation to prescribe that in every instance when it is not relevant to the dispute. If accepted, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider whether another police force would have provided resources at a lower rate. That implies that policing of airports is a competitive, commercial venture—that was the discussion that we had at the beginning of the debate on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
Resourcing costs are calculated on numerous factors such as shift patterns, management structures and the like, which may vary from force to force. The costs must reflect the circumstances of each force and the Secretary of State must consider those factors when determining if something is proportionate, rather than considering whether another force could have provided the resources more cheaply.
The schedule is designed to ensure that the procedures followed by the Secretary of State in determining a dispute are impartial and transparent, and that the determination is fair and proportionate. Comprehensive guidance material will clarify the more detailed issues raised by the amendment. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.