HC Deb 15 July 1974 vol 877 cc175-88

11 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield):

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out from "state" to "in" in line 8 and insert shall by order designate for the purposes of this Act all aerodromes used for the purpose of civil aviation unless. following inspection of the arrangements made for policing any aerodrome, he is satisfied that the policing of that aerodrome need not". Essentially, the amendment proposes a change of emphasis. The clause as it stands permits the Government to put the security of airports under the charge of the regular police if they believe that to be necessary in the interests of the prevention of crime. The amendment would go further and would require the Government to put United Kingdom airports under the regular police unless they believed the security to be adequate. It would require the inspection of security arrangements at airports. We believe that in practice it would bring more airports under the charge of the regular police.

It is fair to say that this amendment reflects the division that there is between the Government and the Opposition in the passage of the Bill. The Government have made it clear that the only airport they intend to bring under the regular police is Heathrow, where the Metropolitan Police will be given the task. We entirely support that policy, but we believe that there is an urgent case for applying the Bill to other airports in the United Kingdom. Thus, I think there is a real difference between the two sides.

The first reason for the amendment is that the threat of terrorism is not confined to one area of the United Kingdom or to one airport. It is a national problem, and the bomb outrages last night at Birmingham and Manchester have underlined this fact. These were not the first bomb incidents to have taken place in these cities, nor was it the first time that terrorists have struck in major cities outside London. The fact must be faced that a terrorist may as easily strike in a major city in the Midlands or the North as in the capital.

Unfortunately, what can happen in our provincial city centres can also happen in our provincial airports. Birmingham and Manchester also have their airports, which could become terrorist targets, and they are not the only provincial airports we have. There are the remaining British Airports Authority airports like Gatwick, with a major international airport role, Stansted and the two Scottish airports at Prestwick and Edinburgh. All those airports share common features. They are possible terrorist targets. They are not under the charge of the regular police and there are no plans to change their policing arrangements.

No one wants to be alarmist about the terrorist threat, but it is essential that we should seek to understand the risk. Terrorists, being what they are—a cowardly breed—will strike at what they regard as the softest target. It is at least possible that if security at Heathrow is improved they will transfer their attentions to other airports, and it is that risk that we should guard against.

The second argument we would advance for the amendment is about the quality of policing. At present the policing of our airports is in the hands of forces outside the normal bloodstream of the regular police. The biggest of these forces is the British Airports Authority police, while some of the municipal airports have their own small forces. Let us take the British Airports Authority police. The Government have announced their intention to take those members of that force who now serve at Heathrow into the Metropolitan Police. That means that no fewer than 380 out of a total strength of 460 will become regular policemen in the Metropolitan Police. This reduces the BAA police to a total strength of 80. The force will become a mere shadow of its former self. These men will be spread between four airports hundreds of miles apart.

The question must arise whether this can possibly be a viable police force. The BAA has made no secret of the fact that it does not believe that it would be a viable force. Some might think that the BAA in this respect would know best, but we have had no statement of intent from the Government that these 80 men will be brought into the regular police and that these airports will be put under police control. Nor have we had any indication of which other airports, if any, the Government intend to bring under the regular police. Is Birmingham, for instance, an airport at which the Government intend the functions to be carried out by the regular police?

The merit of the amendment is that it brings more certainty to the Bill. It places on the Government a duty to be satisfied that the anti-terrorist security measures in British airports are sufficient. It requires what so far the Bill does not require; namely, that inspections shall be made of the security arrangements in all the airports. The amendment protects the public interest more surely than does the present wording of the Bill, and I urge the Government to accept it. I believe that it expresses what the Government intend.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)

As a matter of principle, I do not think that there is anything between the two sides. We share the detestation of terrorism and everything that it stands for that has been expressed in the Second Reading debate and in Commitee. What we are arguing about is the most effective way of dealing wiht that potential menace, and we have to decide whether what the Opposition ask us to do would be an effective way of dealing with the position here and now. While I well undertand the reasons which have motivated the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) in moving the amendment, I believe it to be misconceived for several reasons.

The first misconception is that the present arrangements for ensuring the security of our airports are ineffective. That is not right. The whole basis underlying the Bill in relation to Heathrow is not that our security measures are ineffective but that they can be enhanced by the procedure that we propose in the Bill.

Unity of command at Heathrow is important because, whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, the nature of Heathrow is different from that of other airports. To put the matter in perspec- tive, I will recount some of the developments that have occurred since we debated this matter in Committee a fortnight ago—developments which I think will please the hon. Gentleman.

In Committee we undertook to open consultations with the people concerned about the designation of BAA airports other than Heathrow. Those consultations have already been put in hand, and I give an assurance that the Government have no intention of allowing the situation to drift. We are aware of the urgency of the matter, but it always has to be borne in mind that if the Bill is to be enacted before the House rises for the Summer Recess—as I am confident it will be—it will be possible to deal only with the principal airport in respect of which the threat primarily exists, and that is Heathrow. To go further would involve the process of consultation, and would mean that we could not introduce the Bill at this stage.

The amendment, unlike some of those we discussed in Committee, would not bind the Secretary of State to a course of designation, nor alter the criteria on which he might act, but he would have to designate or satisfy himself that existing policing arrangements were adequate in the case of each and every aerodrome in the country.

We recognise the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the need for the Government to satisfy themselves of the adequacy of the security measures at airports, but during the past two years the House has been advised of the programme of security of surveys of all our international airports undertaken by my Department and the Ministry of Defence. The initial surveys are complete, but the advisers to the Department maintain a comprehensive series of follow-up visits to monitor the implementation of their recommendations, to check that existing measures are being maintained, to determine whether further measures in the light of the circumstances, which change from time to time, are necessary, and to make available all possible advice and guidance.

It is clear that these steps have been welcomed by the airlines and by the airport authorities, and I emphasise that this activity applies to all our international airports and that all measures are kept under continuous review. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the steps we take in this regard are inadequate, I hope he will accept that we maintain the closest surveillance of the position.

Mr. Norman Fowler

Does this survey include the policing arrangements of these other airports?

Mr. Davis

It relates to the entirety of the security measures, including policing. There is another factor, which relates to the Protection of Aircraft Act. Under Section 17 the Secretary of State has power to inspect the security measures at any aerodrome in the United Kingdom. We have not found it necessary to rely upon that provision because we have had the voluntary co-operation of the airport authorities throughout the country.

The amendment would require us to have security inspections of all aerodromes, whether they have international services or not, regardless of the size of the aerodrome or of the aircraft using it, and it would insist that the inspections should be carried out without regard to whether there was any reason to believe that the aerodrome was under threat—and in order to ensure an efficient deployment of resources we have to take into account the fact that all security measures must be related to the current threat. If we failed to do that, we should not be making the most efficient use of the resources available.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the effectiveness of what he proposes is, therefore, seriously in doubt. I do not believe it to be a realistic way of approaching the matter. We have, in addition to those matters to which I have referred, the closest contact with the police services throughout the country, and they keep us closely in touch with the assessments they make of the security threat.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not complacent about this matter but we have to keep it in proportion. We have to determine, in taking action under the Bill, how most effective that action can be. There are 126 aerodromes licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority and there are several hundred other, unlicensed, aerodromes. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we should take action in relation to all those here and now? I cannot believe that that is the case.

11.15 p.m.

If hon. Members reflect and recognise the real security threat, I hope that they will think that the way in which we are dealing with the matter is the best way of deploying our resources. If we were to operate the plan envisaged by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield we should be deflecting our security personnel from the serious problems which present-day threats have created at major international airports like Heathrow.

I have given an assurance about consultations on the designation of other BAA airports. I have referred to the vigilance of the Government in reviewing all these matters. I have explained that the present drafting of the Bill need not inhibit action in any of the circumstances envisaged in Committee by hon. Members on both sides. Assurances have also been given about the British Airports Authority Constabulary "rump" to which the hon. Gentleman referred. This is a matter which will necessitate the most careful consultation between chief officers of police, police authorities and airport authorities. Any bypassing would be a grave error of judgment. It would not be acceptable to those authorities? I do not think it would be acceptable even to the BAAC, whose members would wish to have these matters thought out and worked out. I think that it would be contrary to the best interests of Parliament, which needs to discuss these designations, because different problems arise in different parts of the country.

For all those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)

I am sorry that the Minister was quite so unkind to the amendment, although I was fascinated to hear him say that one of the many reasons why it should be rejected was that Parliament needed to discuss the making of other designation orders.

The Bill is designed carefully to allow designation orders to go through on the negative procedure, and very few hon. Members regard that as the way in which Parliament normally gets a great deal of discussion about these matters. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was hinting that the Government intended to enable the House to debate each order at a reasonable time of the day. If he was not, it was unkind, not to say unfair, to introduce that as an argument against the amendment.

I welcomed what the Minister said about the Government having no intention of allowing the situation to drift. However, he appeared to take a stand on the situation at Heathrow, where, he said, security measures were not ineffective but could be enhanced. If that is the criterion on which we are working, surely it is fair to point out that the other main airports in the country have security arrangements which, although not ineffective, could certainly be enhanced. We seek merely to urge the hon. Gentleman along this route.

Then the Minister said that to go into other fields would involve a long process of consultation, and that that was why it was not possible to express an intention to designate the four other BAA airfields. We can understand well enough that the completion of consultations is bound to take some time. But the decision to designate does not have to await the completion of consultations.

I return again to the answer to Written Question No. 137 on Monday 29th April by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). The right hon. Gentleman said: As a result I have agreed that the Metropolitan Police should assume responsibility for all policing at Heathrow. The necessary consultations are in progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1974; Vol. 872, c. 371.] The consultations have not been completed but have been started. The right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that designation was right before the consultations were completed. Why could he not come to that conclusion regarding the other airfields?

I am still puzzled. I am still not satisfied about this matter. I should be happier if the hon. Gentleman could give us a clear indication of how long these consultations will take, their pace, and who is engaged in them. Are Ministers giving them their personal attention? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that every Monday morning he says "How far have these consultations got?" Will reports be made to him regularly, or will the matter drift on in a gentlemanly fashion until some threat manifests itself at one of these airports?

These threats are made swiftly and cannot be foreseen. Only yesterday the Army arrived again at Heathrow. We do not know why. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows. We certainly would not ask him to tell us. But few other people know. The Army appeared at the airport, stayed for a while, and then went away. The threat had arrived suddenly. Presumably it went away suddenly, like the Army.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that these threats are made not against aerodromes but against aeroplanes and their passengers. If he thinks that by closing one bolt hole he can take it easy in the process of looking at the others, he is much mistaken.

I hope that even if the Minister feels that there are defects in the amendment—clearly, to ask for 120 airfields to be examined in this way is a bit much—he will give us an assurance that consultations will take place with great urgency, that he will call for reports on how they are progressing, and that he will report back to the House on the process of consultations and will designate the four other airports certainly before we meet again after the Summer Recess.

Mr. A. J. Keith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

It should not be difficult for the Under-Secretary of State to see why various hon. Members feel drawn to the substance of the amendment, even though they recognise some of the problems which he has specified.

If the process of inspection of security arrangements in general, including policing, on a continuous basis at all aerodromes is as the hon. Gentleman described, it ought not to be so far-fetched to suggest that the information is available, at least in part, on which designation decisions could begin to be made for some of the airfields to which reference has been made.

It is difficult to be satisfied with what the hon. Gentleman said about the remaining British Airports Authority's aerodromes or airfields and those about which he said almost nothing; namely, the local authority airfields, the non-BAA civil airfields, which in some cases carry an increasing volume of international traffic.

While no one expects an instant overnight designation of the whole of these airfields, involving a number of different police forces, I think that many of us feel that more should be forthcoming about the Government's intentions for both these sectors.

It should be stressed that it is not necessarily a criticism of the present work or the activities of the various police forces which operate at these airfields that we are asking for the designation to be made. It is not necessarily an indication that they are falling down on their job. It is not said in that spirit.

Indeed, the argument ought to appeal to the Minister that if we are asking the public to co-operate increasingly with more and more stringent security measures, it is reasonable to ask that these measures should, wherever possible, be enforced by a public police force. The kind of contact with the general public and the kind of measures that are called for by situations in which we are threatened by terrorism require both the experience and the attitude of the public police towards members of the public and the accountability which we associate with the public police.

For those reasons, rather than any sweeping criticism of the work of non-public police forces, of local airport security police and other bodies, I ask the Minister to recognise the extent of feeling and accept that he must look at other airports more carefully than he seems to have done so far. I join other Members in asking the Minister to go a little further than he has done.

Mr. Norman Fowler

I think the Minister will have noted that there is support for at least the spirit of the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The Minister said that he was acting at Heathrow not because security was insufficient but because it could be enhanced. To a large extent that is a terminological argument. I am prepared to rest our case on the ground that security at other provincial airports can also be enhanced.

The Minister said something about British Airports Authority airports, but he said nothing about provincial airports, or about municipal and local authority airports, particularly the major ones such as Manchester and Birmingham.

May we take the consultations that are going on with the BAA police in the other airports as a statement of intent? We are trying to get from the Government a statement of their intent in relation to these four other airports which have the 80 remaining members of the BAA police. May we take it that if, after the consultations have taken place, the Government's view is that security could be improved the Minister intends to designate these other airports as well as Heathrow?

Mr. Clinton Davis

The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has taken what I said in my opening remarks as envisaging a full-scale debate on the question of designation. What I was trying to say, perhaps inelegantly—certainly not as elegantly as the hon. Gentleman would wish me to offer my remarks—is that Parliament has a right to consider these matters. I think that that right must be preserved, and that is what we have sought to do in the Bill. I do not go any further than that, but whether it is the negative or the affirmative procedure the fact is that Members have a right to raise these matters.

The points made by the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), Ching-ford, and Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) were similar in certain respects. I accept the integrity of their observations. Of course they are trying to improve the Bill. I do not say that the Bill is incapable of improvement, but I do not believe that the amendment would be effective. I think that it would be far too wide and would destroy the efficacy of what we are trying to do.

11.30 p.m.

However, it is the spirit of the amendment that the hon. Gentleman asks me to consider. The Government will give every consideration to the observations about security which have been made on both sides of the House. If it is thought that we are going too slow on the question of determining whether designation should take place, hon. Members are at liberty to give us a kick in the appropriate place.

The hon. Member for Chingford asked me whether we shall receive a letter every Monday morning on the pace of the consultations. We may receive a letter from him every Monday morning. I would not complain; at least the hon. Gentleman would be doing something useful. But I must not be too provocative, because I want to engage his support. I have tried to assert that we are not relaxing. I repeat my undertaking that we give this matter the highest priority.

We are also asked to decide to designate as a matter of principle. I do not think it would be right to do that. The hon. Member is factually incorrect when he says that we decided to designate Heathrow as a matter of principle before any consultations. That is not right. In fact, we entered into the closest consultations with the Metropolitan Police to determine whether that was an effective course of action. They were undertaken by the Conservative Government before we took over in March.

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. I did not say "before any consultation took place" but made the point that the designation decision was reached before the consultation process was completed, because I was told in the Secretary of State's reply: The necessary consultations are in progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 371.]

Mr. Davis

We did say that they were in progress, but it is a question of degree. It may be that the decision was taken before we went into discussions with the trade unions and finalised the discussions with the airport authorities. But the question whether this was to be an effective procedure was dependent upon the co-operation of the Metropolitan Police and whether it thought that it would be an effective procedure.

It must follow that if that was the case at Heathrow it must be the case at other airports. We have to consider with the other constabularies which would be involved in designation whether they feel that their local problems would render the procedure ineffective or whether it is compatible with their local situations.

Mr. Tebbit

It is now about 10 weeks since the announcement of the intention to designate Heathrow. Can the Minister say how many chief constables of other police forces have been consulted during those 10 weeks?

Mr. Davis

To the best of my knowledge, all the chief constables who would be responsible for the areas involving other BAA airports have entered into preliminary consultations with the Department. If I am wrong—and I could be, because this is not a matter on which I have taken any specific instructions—I will put it right by writing to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the threat of 27th and 28th June at Heathrow. I do not know with what purpose that allusion was made, except to say, I suppose, that if the situation could occur at Heathrow there could be a sudden development at any other international airport in the country. That may be right, but looking at the balance of probabilities in this matter—looking at the situation that has occurred internationally—what we have seen is that, I think, virtually all the incidents have taken place at the premier international airports in the countries concerned. I do not rule out the possibility that we could have an attack at Birmingham or any municipal airport; of course we could. But the Government take the view that they must be sensitive to the views of local authorities and the constabularies concerned before making decisions in principle.

Mr. Norman Fowler

The hon. Member is making a broad generalisation. He is saying that it is the Government's view that almost the entire threat of terrorism is now centred on the major airports, and he prays in aid the experiences in various other countries. If that is the case, why in Germany do the police force police not only what the hon. Member considers to be the major airport but all the major airports in that country?

Mr. Davis

The experience of other countries in Europe and elsewhere varies from one to the other. It is true that in Germany the police force oversees the whole question of security, but in other countries it does not happen in that way. In any event, in this country we have effective police supervision of the BAA airports. Local authority airports employ their own local constabulary, or some form of constabulary, to deal with the situation affecting them. It is not as though there was no police presence; there is. It would be wrong for the House to come to any other conclusion.

We are considering how to achieve the most effective police presence, and how we can do that depends to a large extent upon the voluntary co-operation of the local constabularies.

I have taken to heart what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said in that regard. There is one other matter to which he referred, which has little to do with the amendment. It is the question of the public response to private security organisations operating at various airports, the question of public accountability and the rest, which we have discussed both on Second Reading and in Committee. I can only repeat in this connection that within a matter of a week or so of coming into office we put in hand within the Department an examination of the rôle of private security organisations. I have had the report presented to me, as I indicated when the hon. Member raised the matter on a previous occasion, and I assure him that I am giving the matter proper consideration. I cannot, however, give it the degree of active priority which the Bill demands. I think that the hon. Member will accept that.

Mr. Beith

The observations that I made on this occasion were with respect to the police forces operating at municipal airports rather than to private security forces. When I described private or non-public police forces I meant the various forms of police force other than the public constabulary and those which are operating in some non-BAA airports.

Mr. Davis

I take the hon. Member's point and I shall look at the question seriously.

I think that I have dealt with the major points that have been made. I am sorry that I cannot go as far as the hon. Member would like in making a statement of intent, for the reasons that I have given. I hope that the House will accept those reasons.

What divides us is not a matter of principle; it is simply a question of tactics in dealing with this threat, which we all abhor. I urge the House to recognise that the amendment, as drawn—and we have to deal with it as drawn—would represent a very ineffective way of dealing with the position and would not result in a satisfactory deployment of the resources that we have available. I therefore invite the hon. Member to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Norman Fowler

I would not like to pretend that I am altogether happy with that reply. It still leaves unsettled the question of the four airports, the British Airports Authority and the 80 men there. We still have not had a statement of intent. We have had no statement whatever on the future policing arrangements in the municipal airports. We do not want to delay the Bill, however. We welcome the consultations that have taken place. We want to see the security arrangements the hon. Gentleman has described taking place at Heathrow. Accordingly I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to
Forward to