| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Hughes : I wish that the hon. Gentleman would show on his face that he was listening.
I do not doubt his word that people say, "Come to Southampton because the security is cheaper than elsewhere." I am surprised that he does not condemn whichever shipping company he was referring to for taking that attitude, instead of using it as a bonus point for his argument. It is disgraceful that people should say, "Come to us because our security is cheaper," as if cheaper security were something that people sought. It is a bogus argument, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
Mr. Wilshire : If the hon. Gentleman was under the impression that I was saying that cheap security was an advertising plus, I apologise. That was not what I intended to say. I said that both shipping lines and passengers regard security as an opportunity to cut costs. Shipping
Column 621
lines and passengers appear to prefer cheaper security. I do not applaud that ; I deplore it. I was merely observing that that is what happens.5.45 pm
Mr. Hughes : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and for accepting the point of my argument. If a percentage of the cost of the ticket is levied and collected centrally, it could be distributed centrally so that there does not appear to be a difference between the cost of tickets at different airports.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : The hon. Gentleman makes his pitch for the idea of a levy collected as a percentage of the cost of ticket, which would be held centrally and disbursed among airports to ensure proper security. Does he accept that security is as strong as the weakest link in the international chain? How would he deal with the problems of international terrorism and inadequate security at other airports--for example, in Third-world countries? To operate properly, any levy system would have to be operated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation on an international basis. Everyone would have to comply with it, because otherwise it would be pointless.
Mr. Hughes : I do not know what proportion of people buy tickets in this country and travel out and back compared to the proportion who buy tickets outside and travel in and out again. If a levy were collected on every passenger's fare, it would be possible to organise collection of the levy from all carriers, whether they originated in Britain or elsewhere. People doing return journeys have to leave the country again. The argument that people who buy a ticket in the United States, for example, do not benefit from the levy because the point of origin is not in Britain, does not hold. Such passengers have to return. There would have to be an international agreement for collecting the money.
I shall not be diverted into a detailed discussion about safety. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) argued that, if one boards a flight outside this country, one does not know the standard of safety. That is true, but there is nothing that one can do about it. There is no way to guarantee the safety of someone who boards an aircraft in another country, whether Japan, Australia or elsewhere. I hope that, if we take the lead, we can persuade other countries to do likewise and enhance the system of security throughout the world.
Carriers and airport authorities wish to provide the safest possible method of travel because that is their business. If a major disaster is caused by terrorist activity, they will lose money through cancellations. However, this is not an issue about cash--as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has said, the debate is about the price of lack of safety, which is the price of a life.
The new clause would provide a good way of collecting the money and of ensuring that people understand what it is all about. It would also provide the Government with a better opportunity for putting leverage on everyone, to ensure that they do the research and apply the existing equipment as soon as possible.
Column 622
Mr. Portillo : The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) made not only his own speech but mine. His speech was full of references to previous statements of Government policy. As the Government's policy on this matter is fairly well understood, it may not be necessary for me to dwell on it for long.
Two distinct issues have been raised in the debate. The first is whether there should be Government grants to fund an aviation security programme, and the second is whether we should recycle money from the airlines, through Government, and back to the airports. The first point about whether there should be Government grants for aviation security is the issue addressed specifically by the hon. Gentleman's new clause. However, the new clause is unnecessary, because the power that it seeks to place in the Secretary of State already exists. Under section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982, as amended by this Bill, the Secretary of State can, with the consent of the Treasury, defray, out of moneys provided by Parliament, all or part of the expenses of the persons described in subsection (1) of the new clause for purposes to which part II of the 1982 Act applies--that is, protection of aircraft, aerodromes and air navigation installations against acts of violence.
I do not wish to extend the list in the way in which the hon. Gentleman proposes in his new clause, but the power already exists. I do not want to deny for a moment that the Government have not sought to use that power of making grants for security purposes, because we believe that security should be paid for by the airport, the airline and the passenger. I have no doubt that passengers are willing to pay for it ; it is simply a question of how they are asked to pay for it.
I am satisfied with the present arrangements, which are that the Government specify the level of security arrangements that must be made in airports. Money does not enter into those considerations. People are required to meet the directions that the Secretary of State makes, and the Secretary of State makes the directions that he considers appropriate for the level of security he thinks fit, reflecting the degree of risk assessed for him by the security forces from time to time.
I have listened carefully to all the speeches, but no hon. Member has argued that our present security arrangements are inadequate or, if they are, how the directions should be reinforced. I have heard no evidence that finance or lack of finance could be said to be prejudicing the security in our airports. Some hon. Members seemed to assume that, without a fund recycled through the Government, there must be a lack of money and a lack of security provision. That is wholly illogical and fallacious.
The way in which the Government arrived at the present position of wishing to wind up the old aviation security fund and the reasons for doing so were spelt out for Parliament in a statement by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Cockfield in another place. Extensive consultations preceded that decision, which embraced not only the airlines and airport operators, but also the British Air Line Pilots Association, the Transport and General Workers Union, the Air Transport Users Committee, the Association of British Travel Agents Ltd. and the International Air Transport Association. At that time, the Government weighed all the pros and cons of having a centralised fund into which moneys were paid and then paid out again.
Column 623
The Department of Trade was responsible for such matters in those days and considered the measures that applied elsewhere. My right hon. and noble Friend said :"The research showed that in continental Europe, with certain exceptions, airport security duties were generally carried out by national and local police and as a rule were not directly funded by revenue from airport operations. In contrast the research also showed that in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Switzerland, searching was paid for by arlines, and that in the United States and Canada all other aspects of airport security were also, in the end, paid for by the airlines. No other country operated a fund system along the lines of the United Kingdom model." My right hon. and noble Friend thought that the arguments were fairly evenly balanced, but said that he was concerned that "unnecessary and complex procedures would be avoided, incentives to carry out security measures efficiently would be increased, and cross-subsidisation eliminated, if the fund were wound up and airports and airlines financed security costs in the same way as their other operating expenditure."--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 July 1982 ; Vol. 434, c. 359.]
Therefore, over a period, the Government have been straightforward in explaining how they have arrived at this position.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East wanted to know why we thought that it would be bureaucratic and unnecessary to proceed in this way. I remind him that, in the old days, a fund level per passenger had to be set, airport charges had to be collected, payments by the airports had to be made to the Government, claims by the airports and airlines for expenditure that they were to incur had to be made and then assessed and paid by the Department. The net result was that the security measures that the Government required to be taken were paid for by the passenger, but only after that enormous rigmarole, and the great procedure of recycling the money. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know how much all that would cost. If we were were to reinstate it today, it would probably cost my Department about £50,000 for the officials who would be needed to implement the provisions, but that would be only the beginning--
Mr. Portillo : The hon. Gentleman says, "Appoint a quango." I am sure that he would be happy about that, but I believe that that is an unjustified cost, which does not even begin to deal with the costs that would unnecessarily fall on the airline industry. I repeat that the Government's approach is to specify the level of security and to ensure that that level is met--and that has nothing to do with money. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East was also concerned that there should be frankness and that the airports should tell the airlines the cost of security. For the sake of brevity, I refer him to what I said at columns 67 and 68 in Committee. I accept that any customer and supplier relationship should result in a willingness by the supplier to account for the reasoning behind his prices, and pointed out that section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 provides that designated airports must have adequate facilities for discussing the management of the airports. The Civil Aviation Authority conducts a quinquennial review of specified airports, covering user charges, including security.
That point also covers many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), whom I was pleased to see in his place, because he speaks
Column 624
with great experience and considerable knowledge of these matters. The question whether up-to-date equipment is made available is really a question about whether the Government have specified the level of security that is to be met. The Government will insist that that level is adhered to by the operators. It has nothing to do with whether sufficient funding is available, because the Government will always require airports and airlines to take such measures. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to the difficulties of the Third world. I am not sure that a fund would be the right way to set about the problem. When dealing with the Third world, our problems go far beyond funding. It is not just a question of installing the correct machinery ; it is also a question of the training and the discipline that should go hand in hand with it. Each nation that has great experience of aviation is now trying to contact those Third-world countries with which it has a special relationship, so that we can help in a variety of ways to establish the appropriate aviation security programmes. Our own airlines continue to haveresponsibilities when they operate to those places.
6 pm
Space at airports was debated in Committee. It is our intention that all hold baggage should be screened before it goes into the aircraft. That will take some time to achieve, but we wish to proceed in an ordered fashion towards that goal. We do not wish to find that certain airlines that come first in the queue are pre-empting space. It is important that machines should be installed and measures introduced in the order dictated by the security considerations that prevail in each instance, so that we meet the maximum security risk in the most timely fashion.
Some of the remarks about machinery being installed at airports were rather unfair. These are immensely complex matters that bear on passenger safety, space, and getting things in the right place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, with the TNA machine the issue of radioactivity has to be considered. The necessary certificate from the United States National Radiological Protection Board has only recently been granted. In fact, it was granted last week. As I have said, these are extremely complex matters.
I do not believe that there would be any advantage in recycling moneys in a long and cumbersome fashion, as some hon. Members have proposed. If they are saying that there should be powers for the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to be able to defray moneys with the approval of the Treasury, I tell the House that those powers already exist. I have heard no evidence during the debate that our levels of security are inadequate. I have heard no evidence that lack of funding has produced an undesirable situation. I have heard nothing to make me think that the recycling of moneys through a fund commends itself to me any more than it commended itself to Lord Cockfield when a thorough review was conducted, after considerable consultation, in 1982.
The House will be aware of the results which were announced by my noble Friend. I ask the House to reject the new clause.
Mr. Snape : I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have found the Minister's reply somewhat disappointing. The main thrust of his argument was that
Column 625
security had not suffered since the abolition of the aviation security levy, because the Government had at all times provided adequate funds. I have before me a draft parliamentary answer which was prepared for the previous Secretary of State for Transport after the Lockerbie disaster. It is the contention of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that aviation security--this was argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)--comes to the forefront only after a disaster. The Minister of State has told us that funds have never been lacking and security has always been adequate.In the draft reply, however--it looks as if it was the result of a planted question--there is reference to a package of measures to provide better security at restricted areas, the screening of all baggage and doubling the strength of the Department's aviation security division. Those provisions are introduced directly as a result of tragedy. The contention of the Opposition--it is the unanimous contention of two Select Committees over the past few years--is that these measures could be better provided for financially if adequate funds were made available from the beginning through the provision of an aviation security levy.
Mr. Portillo : Now that the hon. Gentleman has the floor again, will he use the opportunity to make good a deficiency in his previous remarks? Will he demonstrate that there has been a lack of financing or that our security has suffered through a lack of finance, or that it would be improved by recycling moneys in a wasteful fashion through Government?
Mr. Snape : My purpose is to illustrate the argument that security issues arise only as a result of tragedy. Money has not been spent. Had it been available, it could and should have been spent to improve security. If it had been spent in the form of an aviation security levy, perhaps some of the gaps outlined in the draft repy to which I have referred would have been closed earlier, and perhaps before the Lockerbie disaster. I can put it no higher than that.
I ask the House to recollect the debate that took place on the Civil Aviation Bill on 16 January 1978, when the levy was first introduced. The then spokesman for the then Conservative Opposition was the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), who is now the Secretary of State for Transport. In those days, he was an avid supporter of the setting up of the aviation security fund. During the debate, he said :
"Many people argue that it is the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens and therefore the cost of providing that protection"--
that is, security at airports--
"should fall on the general body of taxpayers. It is argued that hijackers are seeking to pressure not individual airlines or airports but Governments, and therefore Governments should assume responsibility for meeting the cost of protection."
He then said :
"It is our considered view"--
that is, the Conservative party's considered view, as it was the Labour Government's view at that time--
"that there are even stronger arguments in favour of transferring the cost- -some £19 million"--
that says much about inflation over the past decade, as well as security--
Column 626
"from the taxpayers generally to those who benefit from the service provided, namely, those who travel by air. Such a proposal recognises something that many Labour Members are often reluctant to recognise--there is no such thing as a free lunch."The right hon. Member for Hertsmere, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, has changed his mind twice. He is against the provision of an aviation security levy and he is a living, walking and talking exponent of the free lunch if ever I saw one in this place. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that debate in a way that I hope will still appeal to some of his hon. Friends who have listened to today's debate :
"Why should the vast majority, who never set foot aboard an aeroplane, contribute to the cost which arises directly and identifiably from those who do? Why should pensioners, who have never travelled by plane in their lives and who never will, pay the costs of people who go on holiday to Majorca and to the Caribbean?"--[ Official Report, 16 January 1978 ; Vol. 942, c. 78-80.]
The right hon. Gentleman has revised his views since then, but the Opposition have not. That is the reason
Mr. Portillo : I am genuinely puzzled by the argument that leads the hon. Gentleman to claim that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was speaking on the hon. Gentleman's side of the argument. My right hon. Friend said that, in future, the costs would be borne by those who travel and not by the British taxpayer. That is what we stand for. That is the present arrangement. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that the fund should be recycled through Government, a proposal with which we disagree, or that it should be paid for by taxpayers generally. My right hon. Friend was explicit when he said that he thought that it would be wrong for taxpayers to bear the burden.
Mr. Snape : It is clear that the Minister has not read the report of the entire debate. We were talking about the principle of the aviation security levy in 1978. The right hon. Member for Hertsmere, who is now the Secretary of State, was then in favour of that sort of levy at the time, and so were the then Labour Government. We have remained consistent, even if the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench have not. That is why we shall be pressing the new clause to a Division. Conservative Members who share our concern about security should vote for the new clause.
Mr. Robert Hughes : Does my hon. Friend agree that the logic of the Minister of State is at fault? He said in defence of the argument against the levy that the Government were prepared to find the money. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Snape : The illogical nature of the Minister's reply will dawn on him when he reads the Hansard report of our debate tomorrow. I cannot find a sufficiently emotive phrase to end the debate again, and I do not think that the House would wish me to do so. The Opposition intend to pursue the matter this evening, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who support the principle of better security will vote for the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :
The House divided : Ayes 135, Noes 203.
Column 627
Division No. 101] [6.08 pmAYES
Allen, Graham
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashton, Joe
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Battle, John
Beckett, Margaret
Bermingham, Gerald
Bidwell, Sydney
Blair, Tony
Blunkett, David
Boyes, Roland
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Buchan, Norman
Buckley, George J.
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Canavan, Dennis
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Coleman, Donald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Cryer, Bob
Cunningham, Dr John
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Doran, Frank
Duffy, A. E. P.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Eadie, Alexander
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Fearn, Ronald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Fisher, Mark
Flannery, Martin
Flynn, Paul
Foster, Derek
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
George, Bruce
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mildred
Gould, Bryan
Graham, Thomas
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Haynes, Frank
Heffer, Eric S.
Henderson, Doug
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Hood, Jimmy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Janner, Greville
Lamond, James
Leighton, Ron
Lewis, Terry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Loyden, Eddie
McAllion, John
McAvoy, Thomas
McFall, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
McKelvey, William
Maclennan, Robert
McNamara, Kevin
McWilliam, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice
Marek, Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Maxton, John
Michael, Alun
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Moonie, Dr Lewis
Morgan, Rhodri
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mowlam, Marjorie
Mullin, Chris
Murphy, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
O'Brien, William
O'Neill, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Pike, Peter L.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Prescott, John
Primarolo, Dawn
Quin, Ms Joyce
Radice, Giles
Redmond, Martin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Reid, Dr John
Robertson, George
Rogers, Allan
Rooker, Jeff
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Ruddock, Joan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Short, Clare
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Snape, Peter
Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel
Stott, Roger
Turner, Dennis
Walley, Joan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wareing, Robert N.
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Wilson, Brian
Winnick, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Worthington, Tony
Wray, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. Ken Eastham and
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.
NOES
Allason, Rupert
Amess, David
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Ashby, David
Atkins, Robert
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Baldry, Tony
Batiste, Spencer
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bellingham, Henry
| Next Section
| Home Page |