Airport Security (Hansard, 24 April 1989)

§ 35. Mr. David Evans (Welwyn Hatfield)
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent steps have been taken to help improve security at Britain's airports; and if he will make a statement.

§ The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon)
Immediately after Lockerbie increased security measures were ordered for American airlines, particularly for hold baggage. Soon afterwards I decided to bring in further measures for them in relation to cabin baggage, hold baggage and cargo. On 6 April I announced a package of measures to provide better security of restricted areas and for aircraft, passengers and baggage in those areas.
I have now set firm objectives for a further tightening of security, particularly in relation to items that might be used to conceal explosive devices; the screening of all hold baggage; cargo, mail and courier, consignments; the physical separation of inbound and outbound passengers; and the design of aircraft interiors.
I intend to more than double the strength of my Department's aviation security division so that it can carry out more inspections and spot checks, as well as special surveys to determine whether new measures are needed. To emphasise its monitoring role, the team of aviation security advisers will be reconstituted as the aviation security inspectorate.
There are certain areas where my powers under the Aviation Security Act 1982 are more limited than I should like. I shall therefore seek new powers from Parliament to secure more effective implementation of security measures.
I am doubling the budget for the current financial year for research and development into equipment, to include the continuing examination of commercially available equipment and the development of new techniques for the detection of explosives.
We have now received the Federal Aviation Administration's proposal to install one of the first production thermal neutron analysis machines at Gatwick or Heathrow later this year. We have kept in touch with progress on a similar British project and we are discussing with its sponsors the possibility of funding further work.
With the United States of America we initiated an ambitious programme of work by the International Civil Aviation Organisation designed to improve security standards worldwide. I look forward to a further discussion with the United States Secretary of Transportation when he visits London later this week.
My written answer today to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) gives further details of my review of aviation security.

§ Mr. David Evans
I thank my right hon. Friend for those far-reaching initiatives, which I am sure the House will also welcome. Could he be more specific about what he means by his reference to tightening up the security services? In future, will airports be safer place to which to go? When will the initiatives be implemented?

§ Mr. Channon
The timing of the initiatives will vary. Some of those that I have announced this afternoon will 658 take some time to implement, but my hon. Friend will know that I announced a package of measures on 6 April, some of which can take effect almost immediately.
The initiatives I have announced today are part of a continuing process. This is not the end and we shall continue to improve aviation security. I am now aiming for a set of internationally agreed rules on security procedures on, for example, radios and other electrical items. I am tightening up the requirements for screening hold baggage and the security requirements for cargo. I assure my hon. Friend that there is still more to be done, but I am determined to do anything within my power to improve security at airports.

§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)
Would not this question have been better answered by way of a statement? Will the new powers that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking from Parliament be sought in this Session because of their urgency? What will be his response to American pressures to impose their standards on our airports?

§ Mr. Channon
My answer today represents a progress report on the continuing review of security. I made some announcements on 6 April and I am always open to the House to make a statement, if that is what it would like. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) had a question down and it seemed right that I should answer it at the end of Question Time as his question was not reached earlier.
It is not for me to say exactly when the required legislation will come forward, but it will do so at the earliest convenient date. There is, however, already a heavy programme of legislation for the present Session of Parliament.
With regard to the United States Government, I am looking forward to discussing the relevant matters with the Secretary of Transportation during the next few days. We are in total agreement about the need to improve aviation security. If there are any differences, which I doubt, I am sure that they are small ones that can be resolved quickly.

§ Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is sensible to take a question at the end of Question Time occasionally when most people who are interested in a particular subject happen to be in the House? Can my right hon. Friend be more specific about the proposals he has in mind with regard to extending the 1982 Act? I welcome the doubling in the budget that my right hon. Friend has mentioned.

§ Mr. Channon
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We worked off the questions today and, as my right hon. Friend has said, this is a time when most people interested in transport are likely to be here. I shall try to ensure that the aviation security inspectorate, which I have announced, will have adequate powers to ensure that aviation security requirements are properly implemented. I also want to consider whether there should be sanctions for lax security or powers over persons other than airports or airlines. At the moment the powers are limited to airports and airlines.

§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
When the Secretary of State meets Secretary Skinner for discussions, will he ask him about recent reports that show that just a few hours before the Lockerbie disaster the United States issued further warnings of immediate priority about possible hijacks or explosions on aircraft, which, 659 admittedly, Secretary Skinner's Department did not pass on to the British Government? Will he take up that matter with the United States Secretary of Transportation?

§ Mr. Channon
I shall examine what the hon. Gentleman has said. As to the general question of Lockerbie, the House will know that I made a full reply to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition on 21 March. At this stage I have nothing else to add.

§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this package. Is he now satisfied with the arrangements for liasion between the British Airports Authority and his Department on security matters? Has he given any consideration to the establishment of a land border guard similar to that in Germany and other countries with specific control of airport security alone?

§ Mr. Channon
No, so far we have not considered that matter. Obviously we shall keep airport security under continuous review, and what my hon. Friend has suggested is an important subject which needs further study. At the moment however, I do not believe that it would be an appropriate procedure for the United Kingdom.
I am satisfied about liaison with BAA. Between us we must work to try to ensure improved airport security. The House must be under no illusions, however, of the great difficulties that always exist in this regard. At Heathrow, 50,000 people are employed and 100,000 people are employed at the four largest airports of the United Kingdom. I shall do my best, and so will my officers and all those concerned, to improve security at airports, but the House will be aware from the figures I have given what an enormous task it is.

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the problems is the number of subcontractors, who have a rapid turnover of staff? As it is known that it takes at least three months to get a security clearance, is it not obvious that the rules applying to subcontractors working at major airports must be not only clearly laid out but rigidly enforced?

§ Mr. Channon
It could well be that the powers I seek to take in due course will cover the specific point which the hon. Lady has raised and about which she is quite correct. She has put her finger on an important problem.

§ Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)
I revert to the matter of the discussions that my right hon. Friend is to have with the United States Secretary of Transportation. Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that the American authorities intend to seek to impose their standards of security on what, to them, are foreign airlines and foreign airports? As, by implication, that would mean an attempt by the United States to impose its rules on British airways at Heathrow and Gatwick, will the Secretary of State, in discussions with Secretary Skinner, make clear to him that such a proposal would not be acceptable and that the rules relating to British airports and airlines must remain firmly with the Department of Transport and other agencies in this country?

§ Mr. Channon
My hon. Friend is entirely right about that point. I shall want to discuss this matter with Mr. Skinner, bearing in mind that the United Kingdom 660 Government are responsible for aviation security in this country. I am sure that the object of the American initiative is to achieve better security in other countries, where, perhaps, Governments do not take their responsibility in this area as seriously as we do. I am sure that we will have no problem about this matter and that we will amicably conclude our discussions, because both Governments share a belief in the overriding need to improve security. We have worked extremely well together in Montreal at the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and I am sure that we will do so again on this occasion.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
How much new money will be spent on this package of proposals? Will it be greater or less than the £500 million doled out by the Prime Minister to save a dozen Tory-held Kent constituencies? Is this Government more concerned about looking after their interests in constituencies they hold than in saving lives?

§ Mr. Channon
The serious answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, if there are security requirements that should be enforced on their merits, lack of finance will in no way be allowed to stand in the way.

§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)
I appreciate the importance of the figures to which the Secretary of State referred a few moments ago of the huge number of employees involved at airports, and I also recognise that the West German authorities and PanAm, to name just two groups involved, are trying to put the blame for what has happened on this country. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when it comes to the security of aircraft and to the checking of baggage and tickets, the airlines are responsible and must be forced to carry out their duties properly?

§ Mr. Channon
It is extremely important that airlines carry out their duties properly. Being well aware of the fact, the airlines are energetically following this course. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that point. We are continually emphasising to airlines the great importance of the security measures they should undertake.

§ Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)
Can my righ hon. Friend assure us that the checks at airports to detect persons carrying explosives are as scrupulous as the checks made of persons entering the Palace of Westminster?

§ Mr. Channon
That is certainly what I intend should occur, and I hope that it will. It must be the rule that, if security staff are in any doubt about a radio, a cassette recorder or other item being carried, they should forbid its carriage.

§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)
I must protest that the Secretary of State has just given what was really a statement. In fact, he spends most of his time either avoiding making statements to the House or using Question Time to make points. As all hon. Members know, under the procedure for statements in this place, an hon. Member can obtain a copy of the statement and make a judgment about it.
The Secretary of State knows that, if what he said today in his statement improves security at airports, we will welcome it, because mistakes and confusion which affect airport security alarm American and other authorities.
661 Will the Secretary of State confirm that most of the recommendations that he has just made were made by the Select Committee in 1986 but were then totally rejected by the Department? The right hon. Gentleman confirmed that rejection a few weeks ago in correspondence to me. What made him change his mind? I am pleased that he has changed his mind, because checks on luggage into Heathrow will improve security, but how much will it cost, and will that cost be borne by the passenger or the taxpayer, or financed by a levy fund system as recommended by the Select Committee? The last method is the one overall way to deal with the financing of airport security.
What about the other recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be someone in overall control of security and directly responsible when a mistake such as those that we have seen in the past few months is made?
As the Secretary of State referred to the view of the Americans—there is a report about it in The Independent today—can he tell us whether he agrees that the American authorities feel that our security is so bad that they will impose their higher conditions of security on their aeroplanes? That is a comment on our level of security. Does the Secretary of State accept that, as he so often avoided his responsibilities by saying that the breach of airport security on the PanAm flight was the responsibility of PanAm, the operator, rather than his responsibility, that is why the Americans take the view that there is inadequate security and control, particularly by the Secretary of State, of airport security in the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Channon
That was a typical question from the hon. Gentleman. If he thinks that I spend my time trying to avoid making statements to the House, I may say that I have not been particularly successful over the past few months.
To answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), I have announced a progress report on what is a continuing review.
To answer the hon. Gentleman, the cost will be borne by the passenger; extra costs on airlines and airports will inevitably be passed on. I am not persuaded by the case for a levy, which would raise no new money. It is merely a way of transferring money from one pocket to another and will not raise a single extra halfpenny. The person in overall control is the airport manager, and the new inspectorate will have an important role in inspecting airports even more energetically than at present. I reject completely the hon. Gentleman's view of the United States' opinion of our aviation security. There is not the faintest evidence to back up his unfounded and irresponsible claim. I shall be discussing this matter with Mr. Skinner, and I shall be amazed if he takes the Prescott line.