Airport Policing, Funding and Security Planning

Table of contents

• Foreword by the Secretary of State for Transport and Home Secretary
• Executive Summary
• 2. How to respond
• 3. Introduction and background
• Q1. Do you agree that the concerns identified in the Independent Review form the right premise for Government action?
• 4. Current legal framework
• 5. The need for change
• Police funding
• 6. A new approach
• Q2. Do these objectives reflect your understanding of what is needed?
• Q3. Are there any further objectives we should consider?
• Q4. (Taking the document as a whole) do you agree that the new security planning process should apply to all NASP airports?
• Q5. If not, which airports should this apply to?
• Stage 1: Risk Assessment
• Q6. Do you think this reflects the appropriate membership for a risk assessment group?
• Q7. Which agencies are essential and should their presence be mandatory?
• Q8. How effective is the MATRA group you attend?
• Q9. To what extent are actions agreed at MATRA meetings being followed up and delivered?
• Q10. What value, if any, do you see in carrying out multi-agency threat and risk assessment?
• Q11. What are the practical implications of a mandatory threat and risk assessment process?
• Q12. What improvements would you like to see made to the current MATRA guidance?
• Stage 2: Collective responsibility
• Q13. Is this the right representation for an executive group?
• Q14. Do you see benefits arising from the executive group's function, and if so, what are they?
• Q15. What are the practical implications for an executive group to perform the function set out above?
• (this can be done via application to DfT). Are there any implications for your organisation in complying with this requirement?
• Stage 3: Airport Security Plans
• Q17. Do you see benefits arising from the development of an ASP, and if so, what are they?
• Q18. Is the scope of the ASP correct? Should it be supplemented by additional elements?
• Q19. How frequently should Airport Security Plans be agreed and reviewed?
• Q20. What might trigger the need for a review of the Airport Security Plan?
• Q21. What are the practical implications of the requirement for security stakeholders to produce an Airport Security Plan?
• Current Requirement for Airport Security Committees and Programmes
• Stage 4: Funding police activities
• Q22. Is the police role at the airport clearly understood by you/other security stakeholders?
• Q23. [Non-designated airports] Does the airport operator contribute to the costs of any police presence at your airport?
• Q24. If so, what contribution is made?
• Police Service Agreements
• Q25. What are the practical implications arising from the requirement to produce a Police Services Agreement?
• Stage 5: Dispute Resolution
• Q26. What are the issues which might generate dispute when negotiating:
• Q27. Is this a workable process for ensuring that disputes over police and other security activities and resourcing at airports can be resolved?
• Q28. Taken as a whole, would this new framework work at your airport?
• 7. What this means for you
• 8. Guidance
• Q29. What specific elements of the security planning process would you like to see covered in national guidance?
• Impact Assessment
• Q30. Does the Impact Assessment provide an accurate representation of the costs and benefits of each option?
• Q31. Do the first round costs set out on pages 12-14 of the impact assessment reflect the scale of costs and impacts as you see them?
• Q32. If not, what areas would you challenge (please provide evidence or data to support your comments)?
• Q33. What factors will influence future policing costs? How can these be quantified (if at all)?
• What Happens Next?
• Code of Practice on Consultation
• Consultation criteria
• List of consultees
• Footnotes
• Foreword by the Secretary of State for Transport and Home Secretary
• Executive Summary
• 2. How to respond
• 3. Introduction and background
• Q1. Do you agree that the concerns identified in the Independent Review form the right premise for Government action?
• 4. Current legal framework
• 5. The need for change
• Police funding
• 6. A new approach
• Q2. Do these objectives reflect your understanding of what is needed?
• Q3. Are there any further objectives we should consider?
• Q4. (Taking the document as a whole) do you agree that the new security planning process should apply to all NASP airports?
• Q5. If not, which airports should this apply to?
• Stage 1: Risk Assessment
• Q6. Do you think this reflects the appropriate membership for a risk assessment group?
• Q7. Which agencies are essential and should their presence be mandatory?
• Q8. How effective is the MATRA group you attend?
• Q9. To what extent are actions agreed at MATRA meetings being followed up and delivered?
• Q10. What value, if any, do you see in carrying out multi-agency threat and risk assessment?
• Q11. What are the practical implications of a mandatory threat and risk assessment process?
• Q12. What improvements would you like to see made to the current MATRA guidance?
• Stage 2: Collective responsibility
• Q13. Is this the right representation for an executive group?
• Q14. Do you see benefits arising from the executive group's function, and if so, what are they?
• Q15. What are the practical implications for an executive group to perform the function set out above?
• (this can be done via application to DfT). Are there any implications for your organisation in complying with this requirement?
• Stage 3: Airport Security Plans
• Q17. Do you see benefits arising from the development of an ASP, and if so, what are they?
• Q18. Is the scope of the ASP correct? Should it be supplemented by additional elements?
• Q19. How frequently should Airport Security Plans be agreed and reviewed?
• Q20. What might trigger the need for a review of the Airport Security Plan?
• Q21. What are the practical implications of the requirement for security stakeholders to produce an Airport Security Plan?
• Current Requirement for Airport Security Committees and Programmes
• Stage 4: Funding police activities
• Q22. Is the police role at the airport clearly understood by you/other security stakeholders?
• Q23. [Non-designated airports] Does the airport operator contribute to the costs of any police presence at your airport?
• Q24. If so, what contribution is made?
• Police Service Agreements
• Q25. What are the practical implications arising from the requirement to produce a Police Services Agreement?
• Stage 5: Dispute Resolution
• Q26. What are the issues which might generate dispute when negotiating:
• Q27. Is this a workable process for ensuring that disputes over police and other security activities and resourcing at airports can be resolved?
• Q28. Taken as a whole, would this new framework work at your airport?
• 7. What this means for you
• 8. Guidance
• Q29. What specific elements of the security planning process would you like to see covered in national guidance?
• Impact Assessment
• Q30. Does the Impact Assessment provide an accurate representation of the costs and benefits of each option?
• Q31. Do the first round costs set out on pages 12-14 of the impact assessment reflect the scale of costs and impacts as you see them?
• Q32. If not, what areas would you challenge (please provide evidence or data to support your comments)?
• Q33. What factors will influence future policing costs? How can these be quantified (if at all)?
• What Happens Next?
• Code of Practice on Consultation
• Consultation criteria
• List of consultees
• Footnotes
• Foreword by the Secretary of State for Transport and Home Secretary
• Executive Summary
• 2. How to respond
• 3. Introduction and background
• Q1. Do you agree that the concerns identified in the Independent Review form the right premise for Government action?
• 4. Current legal framework
• 5. The need for change
• Police funding
• 6. A new approach
• Q2. Do these objectives reflect your understanding of what is needed?
• Q3. Are there any further objectives we should consider?
• Q4. (Taking the document as a whole) do you agree that the new security planning process should apply to all NASP airports?
• Q5. If not, which airports should this apply to?
• Stage 1: Risk Assessment
• Q6. Do you think this reflects the appropriate membership for a risk assessment group?
• Q7. Which agencies are essential and should their presence be mandatory?
• Q8. How effective is the MATRA group you attend?
• Q9. To what extent are actions agreed at MATRA meetings being followed up and delivered?
• Q10. What value, if any, do you see in carrying out multi-agency threat and risk assessment?
• Q11. What are the practical implications of a mandatory threat and risk assessment process?
• Q12. What improvements would you like to see made to the current MATRA guidance?
• Stage 2: Collective responsibility
• Q13. Is this the right representation for an executive group?
• Q14. Do you see benefits arising from the executive group's function, and if so, what are they?
• Q15. What are the practical implications for an executive group to perform the function set out above?
• (this can be done via application to DfT). Are there any implications for your organisation in complying with this requirement?
• Stage 3: Airport Security Plans
• Q17. Do you see benefits arising from the development of an ASP, and if so, what are they?
• Q18. Is the scope of the ASP correct? Should it be supplemented by additional elements?
• Q19. How frequently should Airport Security Plans be agreed and reviewed?
• Q20. What might trigger the need for a review of the Airport Security Plan?
• Q21. What are the practical implications of the requirement for security stakeholders to produce an Airport Security Plan?
• Current Requirement for Airport Security Committees and Programmes
• Stage 4: Funding police activities
• Q22. Is the police role at the airport clearly understood by you/other security stakeholders?
• Q23. [Non-designated airports] Does the airport operator contribute to the costs of any police presence at your airport?
• Q24. If so, what contribution is made?
• Police Service Agreements
• Q25. What are the practical implications arising from the requirement to produce a Police Services Agreement?
• Stage 5: Dispute Resolution
• Q26. What are the issues which might generate dispute when negotiating:
• Q27. Is this a workable process for ensuring that disputes over police and other security activities and resourcing at airports can be resolved?
• Q28. Taken as a whole, would this new framework work at your airport?
• 7. What this means for you
• 8. Guidance
• Q29. What specific elements of the security planning process would you like to see covered in national guidance?
• Impact Assessment
• Q30. Does the Impact Assessment provide an accurate representation of the costs and benefits of each option?
• Q31. Do the first round costs set out on pages 12-14 of the impact assessment reflect the scale of costs and impacts as you see them?
• Q32. If not, what areas would you challenge (please provide evidence or data to support your comments)?
• Q33. What factors will influence future policing costs? How can these be quantified (if at all)?
• What Happens Next?
• Code of Practice on Consultation
• Consultation criteria
• List of consultees
• Footnotes
• Foreword by the Secretary of State for Transport and Home Secretary
• Executive Summary
• 2. How to respond
• 3. Introduction and background
• Q1. Do you agree that the concerns identified in the Independent Review form the right premise for Government action?
• 4. Current legal framework
• 5. The need for change
• Police funding
• 6. A new approach
• Q2. Do these objectives reflect your understanding of what is needed?
• Q3. Are there any further objectives we should consider?
• Q4. (Taking the document as a whole) do you agree that the new security planning process should apply to all NASP airports?
• Q5. If not, which airports should this apply to?
• Stage 1: Risk Assessment
• Q6. Do you think this reflects the appropriate membership for a risk assessment group?
• Q7. Which agencies are essential and should their presence be mandatory?
• Q8. How effective is the MATRA group you attend?
• Q9. To what extent are actions agreed at MATRA meetings being followed up and delivered?
• Q10. What value, if any, do you see in carrying out multi-agency threat and risk assessment?
• Q11. What are the practical implications of a mandatory threat and risk assessment process?
• Q12. What improvements would you like to see made to the current MATRA guidance?
• Stage 2: Collective responsibility
• Q13. Is this the right representation for an executive group?
• Q14. Do you see benefits arising from the executive group's function, and if so, what are they?
• Q15. What are the practical implications for an executive group to perform the function set out above?
• (this can be done via application to DfT). Are there any implications for your organisation in complying with this requirement?
• Stage 3: Airport Security Plans
• Q17. Do you see benefits arising from the development of an ASP, and if so, what are they?
• Q18. Is the scope of the ASP correct? Should it be supplemented by additional elements?
• Q19. How frequently should Airport Security Plans be agreed and reviewed?
• Q20. What might trigger the need for a review of the Airport Security Plan?
• Q21. What are the practical implications of the requirement for security stakeholders to produce an Airport Security Plan?
• Current Requirement for Airport Security Committees and Programmes
• Stage 4: Funding police activities
• Q22. Is the police role at the airport clearly understood by you/other security stakeholders?
• Q23. [Non-designated airports] Does the airport operator contribute to the costs of any police presence at your airport?
• Q24. If so, what contribution is made?
• Police Service Agreements
• Q25. What are the practical implications arising from the requirement to produce a Police Services Agreement?
• Stage 5: Dispute Resolution
• Q26. What are the issues which might generate dispute when negotiating:
• Q27. Is this a workable process for ensuring that disputes over police and other security activities and resourcing at airports can be resolved?
• Q28. Taken as a whole, would this new framework work at your airport?
• 7. What this means for you
• 8. Guidance
• Q29. What specific elements of the security planning process would you like to see covered in national guidance?
• Impact Assessment
• Q30. Does the Impact Assessment provide an accurate representation of the costs and benefits of each option?
• Q31. Do the first round costs set out on pages 12-14 of the impact assessment reflect the scale of costs and impacts as you see them?
• Q32. If not, what areas would you challenge (please provide evidence or data to support your comments)?
• Q33. What factors will influence future policing costs? How can these be quantified (if at all)?
• What Happens Next?
• Code of Practice on Consultation
• Consultation criteria
• List of consultees
• Footnotes
• Foreword by the Secretary of State for Transport and Home Secretary
• Executive Summary
• 2. How to respond
• 3. Introduction and background
• Q1. Do you agree that the concerns identified in the Independent Review form the right premise for Government action?
• 4. Current legal framework
• 5. The need for change
• Police funding
• 6. A new approach
• Q2. Do these objectives reflect your understanding of what is needed?
• Q3. Are there any further objectives we should consider?
• Q4. (Taking the document as a whole) do you agree that the new security planning process should apply to all NASP airports?
• Q5. If not, which airports should this apply to?
• Stage 1: Risk Assessment
• Q6. Do you think this reflects the appropriate membership for a risk assessment group?
• Q7. Which agencies are essential and should their presence be mandatory?
• Q8. How effective is the MATRA group you attend?
• Q9. To what extent are actions agreed at MATRA meetings being followed up and delivered?
• Q10. What value, if any, do you see in carrying out multi-agency threat and risk assessment?
• Q11. What are the practical implications of a mandatory threat and risk assessment process?
• Q12. What improvements would you like to see made to the current MATRA guidance?
• Stage 2: Collective responsibility
• Q13. Is this the right representation for an executive group?
• Q14. Do you see benefits arising from the executive group's function, and if so, what are they?
• Q15. What are the practical implications for an executive group to perform the function set out above?
• (this can be done via application to DfT). Are there any implications for your organisation in complying with this requirement?
• Stage 3: Airport Security Plans
• Q17. Do you see benefits arising from the development of an ASP, and if so, what are they?
• Q18. Is the scope of the ASP correct? Should it be supplemented by additional elements?
• Q19. How frequently should Airport Security Plans be agreed and reviewed?
• Q20. What might trigger the need for a review of the Airport Security Plan?
• Q21. What are the practical implications of the requirement for security stakeholders to produce an Airport Security Plan?
• Current Requirement for Airport Security Committees and Programmes
• Stage 4: Funding police activities
• Q22. Is the police role at the airport clearly understood by you/other security stakeholders?
• Q23. [Non-designated airports] Does the airport operator contribute to the costs of any police presence at your airport?
• Q24. If so, what contribution is made?
• Police Service Agreements
• Q25. What are the practical implications arising from the requirement to produce a Police Services Agreement?
• Stage 5: Dispute Resolution
• Q26. What are the issues which might generate dispute when negotiating:
• Q27. Is this a workable process for ensuring that disputes over police and other security activities and resourcing at airports can be resolved?
• Q28. Taken as a whole, would this new framework work at your airport?
• 7. What this means for you
• 8. Guidance
• Q29. What specific elements of the security planning process would you like to see covered in national guidance?
• Impact Assessment
• Q30. Does the Impact Assessment provide an accurate representation of the costs and benefits of each option?
• Q31. Do the first round costs set out on pages 12-14 of the impact assessment reflect the scale of costs and impacts as you see them?
• Q32. If not, what areas would you challenge (please provide evidence or data to support your comments)?
• Q33. What factors will influence future policing costs? How can these be quantified (if at all)?
• What Happens Next?
• Code of Practice on Consultation
• Consultation criteria
• List of consultees
• Footnotes
• Foreword by the Secretary of State for Transport and Home Secretary
• Executive Summary
• 2. How to respond
• 3. Introduction and background
• Q1. Do you agree that the concerns identified in the Independent Review form the right premise for Government action?
• 4. Current legal framework
• 5. The need for change
• Police funding
• 6. A new approach
• Q2. Do these objectives reflect your understanding of what is needed?
• Q3. Are there any further objectives we should consider?
• Q4. (Taking the document as a whole) do you agree that the new security planning process should apply to all NASP airports?
• Q5. If not, which airports should this apply to?
• Stage 1: Risk Assessment
• Q6. Do you think this reflects the appropriate membership for a risk assessment group?
• Q7. Which agencies are essential and should their presence be mandatory?
• Q8. How effective is the MATRA group you attend?
• Q9. To what extent are actions agreed at MATRA meetings being followed up and delivered?
• Q10. What value, if any, do you see in carrying out multi-agency threat and risk assessment?
• Q11. What are the practical implications of a mandatory threat and risk assessment process?
• Q12. What improvements would you like to see made to the current MATRA guidance?
• Stage 2: Collective responsibility
• Q13. Is this the right representation for an executive group?
• Q14. Do you see benefits arising from the executive group's function, and if so, what are they?
• Q15. What are the practical implications for an executive group to perform the function set out above?
• (this can be done via application to DfT). Are there any implications for your organisation in complying with this requirement?
• Stage 3: Airport Security Plans
• Q17. Do you see benefits arising from the development of an ASP, and if so, what are they?
• Q18. Is the scope of the ASP correct? Should it be supplemented by additional elements?
• Q19. How frequently should Airport Security Plans be agreed and reviewed?
• Q20. What might trigger the need for a review of the Airport Security Plan?
• Q21. What are the practical implications of the requirement for security stakeholders to produce an Airport Security Plan?
• Current Requirement for Airport Security Committees and Programmes
• Stage 4: Funding police activities
• Q22. Is the police role at the airport clearly understood by you/other security stakeholders?
• Q23. [Non-designated airports] Does the airport operator contribute to the costs of any police presence at your airport?
• Q24. If so, what contribution is made?
• Police Service Agreements
• Q25. What are the practical implications arising from the requirement to produce a Police Services Agreement?
• Stage 5: Dispute Resolution
• Q26. What are the issues which might generate dispute when negotiating:
• Q27. Is this a workable process for ensuring that disputes over police and other security activities and resourcing at airports can be resolved?
• Q28. Taken as a whole, would this new framework work at your airport?
• 7. What this means for you
• 8. Guidance
• Q29. What specific elements of the security planning process would you like to see covered in national guidance?
• Impact Assessment
• Q30. Does the Impact Assessment provide an accurate representation of the costs and benefits of each option?
• Q31. Do the first round costs set out on pages 12-14 of the impact assessment reflect the scale of costs and impacts as you see them?
• Q32. If not, what areas would you challenge (please provide evidence or data to support your comments)?
• Q33. What factors will influence future policing costs? How can these be quantified (if at all)?
• What Happens Next?
• Code of Practice on Consultation
• Consultation criteria
• List of consultees
• Footnotes

Back to top