Post by Humberside on Jan 1, 2009 12:07:11 GMT
BOSSES at privately-owned airports in Yorkshire have been criticised after new figures revealed taxpayers in the region are footing a multi-million pound policing bill.
The region's airports are not currently obliged to help with the cost of law enforcement on their sites, despite the fact that their parent companies make large profits.
Instead, the money must be found from public funds, and figures obtained by the Yorkshire Post show the bill for just two airports has hit more than £1.7m in less than four years.
South Yorkshire Police have been forced to find £1,240,563 to fund police at Doncaster's Robin Hood Airport since April 2005, with the cost of policing rising every financial year.
Humberside Airport has cost the local force £471,298 over the same period.
West Yorkshire Police refused to give details of costs at Leeds Bradford for reasons of "national security" and said terrorists may use the information to launch an attack in the wake of recent events at Stansted Airport.
Robin Hood Airport is owned by Manchester-based property giant Peel Holdings, which also owns airports in Durham and Liverpool, as well as the huge Trafford retail centre and the Manchester Ship Canal.
The Humberside site is part of the Manchester Airports Group, alongside Manchester, East Midlands and Bournemouth airports. All 10 of the Greater Manchester councils have a stake in the group.
Manchester Airports Group's operating profit for the six months to September 2008 was £68.4m. Robin Hood Airport is currently making a loss, but its parent, the Peel Group, says in its corporate brochure that it has assets valued at £1.6bn.
A spokesman for Humberside Police said: "It must be stressed that in real terms Humberside Police have not spent anything in regard to the cost of policing Humberside Airport over the years illustrated.
"This is because each year we submit a grant bid to the Home Office for funding which has covered the costs."
But public representatives said taxpayers should not be expected to "subsidise" private companies – whether the cash for their policing requirements came from a regional or national pot.
Coun Reg Littleboy, vice-chairman of the South Yorkshire Police Authority which oversees the work and budget of the county's force, said the £1.7m figure was "unacceptable".
He added: "At the moment the taxpayer has got to foot the bill and as a police authority we think that is wrong. The demands of the airport security situation are putting pressure on our policing budget.
"The airports should make a contribution – that is not unreasonable. These costs are an increasing burden on public funds while the parent company which owns the airport is making a profit.
"In the meantime, we have to take the threats an international airport poses seriously and can't just say 'sorry, we're not going to provide police for the airport any more'."
National legislation is currently being considered by Whitehall that may force airports to meet at least a portion of the costs of policing by 2010.
Currently only nine airports including Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester and Glasgow, are required to contribute to policing costs under the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
The new law would see the other 63 airports across the country fall into line.
Robin Hood Airport director Mike Morton said he and fellow airport chiefs were currently lobbying against the proposals because they felt it could jeopardise their future.
He added: "There is no requirement to have police at the airport. Currently police that operate from the airport are in accommodation that we provide free of charge.
"They also cover the local community so it works for both sides. What we are required to do under the current National Aviation Security Programme is provide security staff for the airport.
"We use a private security company and safety, security and compliance are at the top of our agenda. Although we don't pay anything towards the police presence, we comply with what we have to comply with.
"New legislation may mean that we make a contribution towards policing costs but I would argue against that. But if it becomes law in 2010 we would need to sit down with South Yorkshire Police to look at the numbers we need.
"My position at this moment in time is that we have huge costs just to operate and we are making huge losses each month. If you are asking me whether I want to increase those costs I would say no."
The region's airports are not currently obliged to help with the cost of law enforcement on their sites, despite the fact that their parent companies make large profits.
Instead, the money must be found from public funds, and figures obtained by the Yorkshire Post show the bill for just two airports has hit more than £1.7m in less than four years.
South Yorkshire Police have been forced to find £1,240,563 to fund police at Doncaster's Robin Hood Airport since April 2005, with the cost of policing rising every financial year.
Humberside Airport has cost the local force £471,298 over the same period.
West Yorkshire Police refused to give details of costs at Leeds Bradford for reasons of "national security" and said terrorists may use the information to launch an attack in the wake of recent events at Stansted Airport.
Robin Hood Airport is owned by Manchester-based property giant Peel Holdings, which also owns airports in Durham and Liverpool, as well as the huge Trafford retail centre and the Manchester Ship Canal.
The Humberside site is part of the Manchester Airports Group, alongside Manchester, East Midlands and Bournemouth airports. All 10 of the Greater Manchester councils have a stake in the group.
Manchester Airports Group's operating profit for the six months to September 2008 was £68.4m. Robin Hood Airport is currently making a loss, but its parent, the Peel Group, says in its corporate brochure that it has assets valued at £1.6bn.
A spokesman for Humberside Police said: "It must be stressed that in real terms Humberside Police have not spent anything in regard to the cost of policing Humberside Airport over the years illustrated.
"This is because each year we submit a grant bid to the Home Office for funding which has covered the costs."
But public representatives said taxpayers should not be expected to "subsidise" private companies – whether the cash for their policing requirements came from a regional or national pot.
Coun Reg Littleboy, vice-chairman of the South Yorkshire Police Authority which oversees the work and budget of the county's force, said the £1.7m figure was "unacceptable".
He added: "At the moment the taxpayer has got to foot the bill and as a police authority we think that is wrong. The demands of the airport security situation are putting pressure on our policing budget.
"The airports should make a contribution – that is not unreasonable. These costs are an increasing burden on public funds while the parent company which owns the airport is making a profit.
"In the meantime, we have to take the threats an international airport poses seriously and can't just say 'sorry, we're not going to provide police for the airport any more'."
National legislation is currently being considered by Whitehall that may force airports to meet at least a portion of the costs of policing by 2010.
Currently only nine airports including Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester and Glasgow, are required to contribute to policing costs under the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
The new law would see the other 63 airports across the country fall into line.
Robin Hood Airport director Mike Morton said he and fellow airport chiefs were currently lobbying against the proposals because they felt it could jeopardise their future.
He added: "There is no requirement to have police at the airport. Currently police that operate from the airport are in accommodation that we provide free of charge.
"They also cover the local community so it works for both sides. What we are required to do under the current National Aviation Security Programme is provide security staff for the airport.
"We use a private security company and safety, security and compliance are at the top of our agenda. Although we don't pay anything towards the police presence, we comply with what we have to comply with.
"New legislation may mean that we make a contribution towards policing costs but I would argue against that. But if it becomes law in 2010 we would need to sit down with South Yorkshire Police to look at the numbers we need.
"My position at this moment in time is that we have huge costs just to operate and we are making huge losses each month. If you are asking me whether I want to increase those costs I would say no."
www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Taxpayers-footing-skyhigh-police-bill.4837114.jp