§ 2.57 p.m.
§ Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Who is responsible for the provision and funding of transport policing and security.
§ Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, the British Transport Police, funded by the rail industry, is responsible for policing the national railways and London Underground. With some exceptions, police authorities are funded centrally and by council tax precepts and are responsible for policing generally.
The Department for Transport is responsible for aviation, maritime, Channel Tunnel and rail security. Industry must implement our requirements. It bears the operating costs, passing them on to its customers as it sees fit.
Lord BerkeleyMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that interesting Answer. In response to a Question last week, he said that the new sky marshals would be funded by government. He has just said that the British Transport Police is funded by the industry. Does he not see it as inequitable that the rail industry must pay for its own policing—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—although rail freight does not get much policing, whereas, for all other forms of transport, it is effectively mostly paid for by central government? Would not the 132 million a year that the rail industry pays be useful in these times of financial difficulty for the railways?
§ Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I shall correct my noble friend, preparatory to accepting a correction from him. First, other modes of transport pay their security costs. Ports and airports, if designated, must meet the costs of security; it is not just the rail industry.
My mistake, which my noble friend highlighted, was that, in trying to stress the extent to which sky marshals would be trained police officers introduced by government at the insistence of the airlines, I emphasised that the training of such officers was a national impost. I omitted to say that the seats that they will occupy will be provided by the airlines, so, in that respect as well, the industry is paying some proportion of the costs.
§ Viscount AstorMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the chief executive of British Airways, Rod 560 Eddington, revealed that on a recent British Airways flight one passenger remarked to his neighbour, "We have been planning this for six months, let's do it"? That exchange was overheard by a rather nervous, fellow passenger in the next seat, who alerted the crew. As a result, two Tornado fighter jets were scrambled to Heathrow Airport. It was a false alarm. The conversation was between a father and son discussing an imminent family reunion with a great aunt. If armed sky marshals had been aboard the flight, would a response using force have been justified? Would the newly agreed protocols, if they had been agreed, allow such a use of force?
§ Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am grateful for the anecdote, but I hope that we always err on the side of excessive security rather than take risks with the lives of passengers. Of course, the noble Lord has highlighted how extremely difficult security is with regard to aircraft. Judgments have to be employed, and have to be employed at very short notice. I hope that what the noble Lord has just illustrated is the most extreme case in which a misjudgment was made.