Jan 2009 19

In the Line of Fire0

Several years ago, the European Council agreed to establish a "European network for the protection of public figures". The rationale behind this was that, "The growing number of visits made by public figures to the Union has prompted the Council to adopt a decision to set up a European network for the protection of public figures that will act as an official communication and consultation channel for national authorities."

Of course it makes sense for international cooperation to take place behind the scenes to make sure we don't have a 'grassy knoll' moment here. What was a concern at the time was the seeming lack of parliamentary awareness of the development, and a general lack of information on what public costs would additionally emerge.

The issue arises again because the Council, in Decision 2008/C 330/03, has now gone a stage further by adding "a need to better protect non-officials who are deemed to be under threat because of their contribution to or impact on the public debate."

That means looking after people who appear on the television news.

Again, who can argue that it's sensible for police forces to be able to work together smoothly for whenever Salman Rushdie takes a holiday, or a Theo van Gogh character attends a university debate abroad? But some questions remain unanswered.

Will British police forces be required to stump up to provide an amount of personal protection to a celebrity that is equal to that he or she expects in his own country, even where that parity is not required? Will it change the amount of protection (and taxpayers' cost) currently given to, say, holocaust deniers, or Islamic fundamentalists, visiting this country?

Will people be given a level of armed protection not normally allowed? Does it over time give a new level of authorisation for foreign policemen and bodyguards to be allowed to operate armed in this country?

Does this affect the role of the European Communities' own security staff, who were some years back revealed astonishingly to own machine guns and sniper rifles with silencers?

And will it change the nature of armed protection itself, specifically the rules of engagement of these bodyguards?

The operating handbook spelling some of these answers out is, quite rightly, a caveated document and not for public consumption. But we live in a democracy, and the crunch concern is surely this: has someone in parliament at least had the opportunity to check the new rules are in keeping with national traditions and laws, and that the public is not expected to pay for any unnecessary  extra burden on our police?

Related Posts