---

Civil Aviation Bill

moved Amendment No. 29:"After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—" ““POLICING OF AIRPORTS    Schedule (Policing of airports) makes provision about the policing of aerodromes designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of Part 3 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36).”” The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 48, which are also government amendments. The Government gave notice of their intention to make these amendments in a Written Statement by the Secretary of State for Transport on 21 November. I wrote to noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading to draw their attention to this statement and to these amendments when they were tabled last week. I hope that was helpful in setting out the Government’s reason for bringing forward the amendments. I should point out that, since then, we have made one or two drafting improvements—I hasten to add that that is what they are—incorporating the version of the amendments which are printed in the second Marshalled List. These amendments are tidying amendments and do not alter the substance which I communicated to Members of the Committee after Second Reading. Amendment No. 29 inserts a new clause into the Bill, giving effect to the schedule on policing of airports—Amendment No. 48. The schedule amends the Aviation Security Act 1982 in relation to the policing of airports that have been designated under Section 25 of the Act. Airports designated under that section are Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. Recently, it has become clear that we need to clarify the relationship between security activities and policing activities at designated airports. Increased clarity on this point should prevent future disputes between airport managers and the police. It has also become clear that we need to design a robust mechanism for resolving any disputes that arise. The amendments to Section 26 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 will define and clarify the relationship between the activities of an airport manager and other directed parties at an airport, and policing activities. Our intention in doing so is to prevent disputes on this point and to ensure that the aerodrome manager and chief officer of police work closely together in protecting an airport. These amendments are in paragraph 3 of the schedule. Where an aerodrome has been designated under Section 25 of the 1982 Act, the manager of the aerodrome, the police authority and the chief officer of police will be required to enter into a police services agreement. This specific requirement is in new Section 25B, which is inserted in the 1982 Act by paragraph 2 of the schedule. To remove any ambiguity over roles and responsibilities, this agreement should set out the level of policing services to be provided by the police, the amount to be paid for that policing by the airport manager and the facilities to be provided by him to the police. That is set out in Section 25B(3). The specification of payments in the agreement may also include references to amounts paid to the police authority towards policing at the airport from sources other than the airport manager. We are thinking here of, for example, where Home Office grants might fund a particular initiative for protection at an airport. The agreement will need to recognise that circumstances might change during the course of the year. Section 25A(6) requires an agreement to include provisions that will allow it to be varied where there is a material change in circumstances. Before concluding an agreement, and in order to determine the appropriate level of policing services, the aerodrome manager and the chief officer of police will be required to consult with the relevant stakeholders: those in receipt of directions under Part II of the Aviation Security Act 1982, customs officers and immigration officers. New Section 25A makes provision for this necessary consultation. Section 25A includes a delegated power for the Secretary of State to modify the consultation requirements—Section 25A(4). The degree of parliamentary scrutiny prescribed is dependent on whether there is any controversy about these changes. The Committee will wish to be aware that a supplementary memorandum on this delegated power was submitted to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform for its consideration. It reported today that it did not wish to bring to the attention of the Committee any aspect of this amendment. I am sorry for the short notice and for the result of the committee’s deliberations. However, noble Lords will recognise the pressures under which we have been working. Where the parties—the aerodrome manager, police authority and chief officer of police—cannot reach an agreement because they disagree on a particular aspect, such as the level of policing to be provided, or are in dispute over the terms, construction or operation of an agreement, the matter will be referred to determination by an independent expert or tribunal of experts. Paragraph 4 of the schedule therefore inserts new Sections 29A to 29D into the Act. Under subsection (1) of new Section 29A, any of the three parties is entitled to ask the Secretary of State to set up the expert determination. The expert should be an independent person appointed by the Secretary of State for the particular dispute, and agreed by the aerodrome manager on one side and the police parties on the other. If the parties cannot agree, the Secretary of State will require each side to appoint an expert, and those two experts to appoint a further panel member to act as chairman. New Section 29B makes provision for these arrangements. New Section 29C makes provision for the removal of an expert by the Secretary of State in specified circumstances and how any vacancies in the tribunal are to be filled. New Section 29D then sets out how the expert or experts—referred to as the ““tribunal””—should go about making a determination. Whatever the procedure determined by the expert in exercise of his powers under subsection (2), subsection (3)(b) ensures that each party to the dispute has the opportunity to make representations. The Secretary of State is also given an opportunity to make representations before the expert, since the policing of airports is part of the wider security measures that the Secretary of State puts in place at an airport. Where the case is referred because the parties cannot reach an agreement, subsections (5) to (7) of new Section 29D provide for the expert to declare what the terms of the agreement should be. The expert may also make an order about costs. Where the dispute concerns a police services agreement which has already been signed, new Section 29D(4) enables the expert to give a declaration about how a provision of an agreement is to be construed or operated, to vary the terms of an agreement, to determine that one party is obliged to pay a specified sum to the other party, and to make an order about costs. The expert or tribunal’s decision will be final and binding, save that a party may appeal to the High Court. An expert’s decision may, with the permission of the High Court, be enforced as if it were a judgment of the High Court and may, in particular, be enforced by the use of powers in relation to contempt of court. These provisions are set out in Section 29D(8) to (10). There are also two consequential amendments to Clause 13. Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 will ensure that these provisions come into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. Paragraph 6 of the schedule sets out the transitional provisions that will apply in the period from 21 November, the date on which the Secretary of State made the announcement regarding these amendments, until Royal Assent. I believe that these amendments will spell out the roles and responsibilities of those involved in airport security activities and policing activities. All Members of the Committee will recognise how significant those activities are for the foreseeable future. For those cases where it is not possible for the relevant parties to reach agreement, we have designed a robust and independent resolution mechanism that will call upon relevant experts to reach a conclusion. I beg to move.