Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Berkeley (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 October 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Policing and Crime Bill.


Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. We are talking about a situation where the users are paying for the specific work of policing at airports, which is not normal. To some extent, the police authority has the airport over a barrel. It will decide and say how much it is going to cost. I had this experience 20 years ago when I was working on the Channel Tunnel. All the frontier control authorities made bids to have the maximum facilities and maximum number of people there—of course, it was all very necessary in their books—and Eurotunnel had to provide a police station at Folkestone for 80 officers. It was complete with everything that they could possibly want, including darkened windows so that nobody could look in. It was for everything apart from law and order, which was still going to be done by Kent Police. The cost to the company was enormous. One day, I asked the head of the police what they would have done if they had had to fund it themselves. The answer was that they would have had two policemen visiting part-time from Ashford. I was shocked by that. They were being greedy. I know that they needed money and wanted to have all the lovely equipment but, in terms of a judgment about what is required, the difference between two part-timers and 80 takes some beating. I fear that we have the same situation today. Of course, the police will say that everything is necessary and that they have to have the most wonderful equipment. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, the British Transport Police could do an extremely good job. With the Metropolitan Police’s record on using firearms in the Underground, it is probably better that there are no firearms around. More seriously, as the operator has to pay, it is entirely reasonable that he should be able to get more than one quote, including one from the British Transport Police, because at somewhere like Birmingham International Airport the BTP will be on the railway but will not be allowed to take one step into the airport. That is crazy; it will come up in a later amendment. I hope that my noble friend will have something positive to say about this and, most important, will explain how the airport operator can be protected from the monopolistic and sometimes grabbing attitudes of the police, who know that they have the operator over a barrel.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c619-20 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disclosure of information Criminal records Codes of practice Accountability Crime prevention Crime Bail Demonstrations Assets Costs Confiscation orders Crown dependencies Aircraft Airports Customs officers British Transport Police Department for Transport Crown Court Finance Fees and charges Licensing Extradition Human rights Immigration Genetics Drugs Isle of Man Home Office Independent Police Complaints Commission Ministerial powers Parking Personal records Northern Ireland Police Powers Public appointments Proceeds of crime Property Railway stations Magistrates' courts Proof of identity Police authorities Scotland Vetting Stop and search Republic of Ireland Training Security Trespass Right of search Video recordings Rendition Sex establishments Airspace Common travel area European arrest warrants
Legislation
Policing and Crime Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk