Schedule
5Amendment
of Part 3 of the Aviation Security Act
1982
Mr.
Ruffley: I beg to move amendment 258, in
schedule 5, page 133, line 8, at
end insert—
‘(8) In relation to disputes to which this
section applies, the Secretary of State shall require that the police
provider provides all parties to the dispute full and transparent
information about the resource deployments and justifications for those
deployments. (9) In determining
disputes under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard
to the principles of transparency and accountability in relation to the
policing costs that are reasonable to be born by the aerodrome
manager. (10) Such principles
will have regard, inter alia, to the
following— (a) whether
an alternative police provider would have made different operational
resource judgements based on the identified risks (and such comparison
may include references to other airports with similar risk
profiles); (b) whether an
alternative police provider would have provided those resources at a
lower
cost.’. Clause
61 and the introduction of schedule 5 are important. Schedule 5 will
omit sections 25, 25A and 25B of the Aviation Security Act 1982 and
insert new text. It will change the current regime and remove the
system of designation whereby only some aerodrome operators pay for
policing at their aerodromes. All airport operators requiring a
dedicated police presence at their aerodrome—not all
do—will have to pay for services provided by the police. There
must be agreement on whether police services are required at an
aerodrome. Dispute
resolution, which has been alluded to in a different context, is at the
heart of amendment 258, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member
for Hornchurch. It would amend the schedule so that in relation to
disputes, “the
Secretary of State shall require that the police provider provides all
parties to the dispute full and transparent information about the
resource deployments and justifications for those
deployments.” It
also
states: “the
Secretary of State shall have regard to the principles of transparency
and accountability in relation to the policing costs that are
reasonable to be born by the aerodrome
manager.” As
was alluded to in earlier debates, there must also be regard
to “whether
an alternative police provider would have made different operational
resource judgements based on the identified
risks” and
to “whether
an alternative police provider would have provided those resources at a
lower
cost.” In
short, the purpose of the amendment is to tease out once again the
transparency of policing costs and the requirements that must be met in
that
regard. The
Minister should give a full reply to this debate because cost is an
issue that most concerns those who have contacted Committee members.
What has struck me is not that aerodrome managers and operators are
going to die in the ditch over the concept that they have to cough up
for policing. Some think that it is totally iniquitous, but many
believe that the principle in the Bill is sound. However, they wish to
ensure that any payments they must make are levied in a transparent
way. I gave examples earlier of operators who have suggested that under
the current regime some police forces will merely say, “This is
a security risk and this is the level of policing. Now pay your
money.” The purpose of the amendment is to tease out how we
might improve the current regime, which appears to be inadequate for
many operators.
Jim
Fitzpatrick: 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.
Mr.
Ruffley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
6.30
pm
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I beg to move amendment 303, in
schedule 5, page 134, line 35, at
end insert— ‘10A
Omit section 30 (supplementary
orders).’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 304 to 306.
Jim
Fitzpatrick: Amendments 303, 305 and 306 provide for
section 30 to be repealed with saving provisions to ensure that any
orders made under the section are preserved. In practice, section 30
has principally been used where airports have been designated to effect
the transfer of private forces to local Home Office constabularies and
to make associated arrangements. The relevant orders date back to the
late 1970s. As the aviation security provisions in the Policing and
Crime Bill will remove the concept of designation, there is no longer
any need for the Secretary of State to retain such a
power. Amendment
304 ensures that a standard definition is employed in schedule 5
wherever the
phrase “dispute
about the policing of a relevant
aerodrome” occurs
in the provisions. I beg to move the
amendments. Amendment
agreed to.
Amendments
made: 304, in schedule 5, page 134, line 41, at end
insert— ‘(ba) before the
definition of “immigration officer”
insert— ‘“dispute
about the policing of a relevant aerodrome” has the meaning
given by section
29A(2);”,’. Amendment
305, in
schedule 5, page 136, line 24, at
end insert— ‘14 (1) The
repeal of section 30 of the 1982 Act by paragraph 10A of
this Schedule does not
affect— (a) the validity
of an order made under that section (“a section 30
order”) before commencement, or
(b) the operation of subsections (4) and (5) of that
section in relation to such an
order. (2) In relation to any
time on or after commencement, any reference in a provision of a
section 30 order to a designated airport is (if that provision is
capable of having continuing effect) to be read as a reference to a
relevant aerodrome. (3) In this
paragraph “commencement” and “the 1982 Act”
have the same meanings as in paragraph 13.’.—(Jim
Fitzpatrick.) Schedule
5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause
62Renaming
of Independent Barring
Board
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Mr. Alan Campbell): I beg to move amendment
308, in
clause 62, page 86, line 36, leave
out
‘31,’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendments 309 and
310. Government
new clause 27—Notification of proposal to include person in
barred list: England and Wales.
This amendment requires the IBB to
notify any registered party, and empowers the IBB to notify anyone else
whom it is satisfied is an interested party, with reasons, when it
proposes to bar someone from working with children or vulnerable
adults. A further notification must give the IBB’s final
decisions.
Government
new clause 28—Notification of proposal to include person in
barred list: Northern Ireland.
This amendment makes equivalent
provision in relation to Northern Ireland to that made in relation to
England and Wales by amendment
NC27. Government
new clause 29—Provision of safeguarding information to the
police: England and Wales.
This amendment empowers the IBB to
provide information that it has to the police, for use by the police
for the purposes set out in the
amendments. Government
new clause 30—Provision of safeguarding information to the
police: Northern Ireland.
This amendment makes equivalent
provision in relation to Northern Ireland to that made in relation to
England and Wales by amendment NC
29. Government
new clause 31—Barring process: England and
Wales. This amendment
adjusts the procedure for automatic barring so that it is the IBB that
must be satisfied that a person has met prescribed criteria before the
IBB is required to bar the person and makes a consequential change to
the duty on the Secretary of State to check
records. Government
new clause 32—Barring process: Northern
Ireland. This amendment
makes equivalent provision in relation to Northern Ireland to that made
in relation to England and Wales by amendment NC 31.
Government
amendments 307, 335 and
336 Welcome
back,
Minister.
Mr.
Campbell: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. Welcome back to you,
too.
This group of
amendments is designed to improve the working of the planned new
vetting and barring scheme provided for under the Safeguarding
Vulnerable
Groups Act 2006 and, as indicated by amendment 307,
the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order
2007. It
aims to improve the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults, and
builds on the outcome of a public consultation with stakeholders on the
details of the scheme's operation. We propose four main
changes. In
amendments 335 and 336 we propose to remove the redundant status
of “subject
to monitoring and undergoing
assessment” from
the online status check that will be available to employers who employ
people in regulated activity with children or vulnerable adults.
Undergoing assessment is too sensitive a status to appear in a publicly
available IT system. In addition, when people first apply to be subject
to monitoring by the scheme, they will inevitably be undergoing
assessment for a while, so giving them that status will be
meaningless. Instead,
guidance to employers will highlight that though new applications by
members of the work force to be made subject to monitoring will be
processed quickly, information may still be coming in to the CRB about
those people until the associated enhanced disclosure is ready to issue
a few weeks after the application. Until then, employers should apply
appropriate safeguards in relation to all new applicants as neither
they nor the ISA will yet have the full picture. Employers will have a
true guide to a person's status through a CRB enhanced disclosure,
which will say clearly if the person is under consideration for barring
by the
ISA. New
clauses 27 and 28 strengthen the notification of employers whose
employees may pose a risk of harm to the vulnerable groups. The
amendment provides that when the ISA has reached the advanced stage in
its consideration and proposes to bar someone from working with
children or vulnerable adults subject to their representations, it must
notify any interested party who has registered for notification of any
change in the person's status in the scheme—normally an employer
in regulated activity with the vulnerable
groups. Also,
if the ISA is satisfied that any other party has a legitimate interest
in the person, it may notify that party that it proposes to bar the
person. Such a party might be an employer of a person in regulated
activity who has not yet had the opportunity to register his or her
interest, because of the scheme's phasing-in
period. A
person whom the ISA proposes to bar has eight weeks to make
representation, and there might be a further period of time before the
ISA is able to make its final decision. We do not believe that it is
sustainable for the ISA to be aware of a risk posed by that person
during that period but that the employer not be aware. It will be for
employers to determine what action it is reasonable and appropriate for
them to take in those circumstances, and guidance to employers will
advise on what they might do if they receive such a
notification. For
example, they might suspend the person or move him to work other than
with the vulnerable groups. I stress again that the ISA is at an
advanced stage in its process when it makes the notification. It has
made a finding of fact and a judgment that it would be appropriate to
bar, and has invited the individual to make representation about its
decisions. New
clauses 29 and 30 give the ISA an explicit power to provide information
to the police about people who come to its notice where that is
necessary for the purposes
of crime prevention, detection or investigation.
Normally, the ISA will receive information from the police. However,
there may be exceptional circumstances where the ISA receives
information that is unavailable to a particular police force about a
person, but the ISA knows that that force has an interest in them and
can form a view that they pose a risk of harm. The ISA should then have
the power to inform the police in order to prevent crime. The police
might then notify any known employer, local children’s services
or adult social services, who would be able to take appropriate action
if
necessary. New
clauses 31 and 32 change the way in which the scheme will process
automatic barring. Certain criminal offences, which are set out in
secondary legislation, will cause the offender to be barred
automatically. Both the 2006 Act and the 2007 order envisaged the CRB
finding such offences in the police national computer, and the ISA then
simply being required to bar the offender. Practice has shown that life
is not so simple, because, in some cases, the circumstances in which
the offence was committed need to be checked. For example, in some
cases the age of the offender, and, occasionally, the victim, need to
be clarified before it can be confirmed whether the prescribed criteria
have been met, so an automatic bar should be applied.
ISA case
officers—rather than the CRB, whose function is data
processing—will establish the details of the circumstances in
which an offence was committed. Indeed, the ISA has already started
that work under transitional arrangements that were approved by
Parliament last November. We need to reflect such practical experience
in permanent legislative
provisions.
| 
