Westminster Hall
Tuesday 10 July 2007
[David Taylor in the Chair]
Airport Security
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Khan.]
9.30 am
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Taylor. You normally sit next to me on the Back Benches, but it is nice to see you in an appropriate place. I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing us to have this important debate, which is timely given the circumstances of the past few weeks.
I wish to place on record my appreciation of the unsung heroes who did their bit to show, to use local Glasgow parlance, that the UK will not be messed with in circumstances such as those at Glasgow airport. That goes for police, on or off duty, baggage handlers and of course the obligatory taxi driver, all of whom served the occasion extremely well.
I also wish to record my appreciation of my own airport, Glasgow Prestwick. The management and staff immediately swung into action and put in place what later became the guidance given to them by the airport security directors by blocking off all the car routes into the airport and to the terminal buildings. It is only right for me to congratulate them on ensuring that that was done without any delays to scheduled flights, despite their having to put up with a number of diverted planes from Glasgow airport.
The Government need to address airport security urgently. Over a great number of years, there have been major incidents such as Lockerbie and the one that caused the most concern to the industry, that of 11 September 2001. We must be careful about what we say, because the last thing that we want to do is to give any information to anyone who is likely to use it for all the wrong reasons.
As a Member of Parliament from north of the border, I travel frequently on airlines. One could almost describe me as a seasoned traveller. By using airports twice a week, I have got to know the system pretty well, although perhaps not all of it. In addition, I have used airports regularly as a member of the Select Committee on Transport for some 14 years. We regularly examine security at airports, and as a consequence I have picked up something about the system. From that, I recognise that there are four areas of responsibility in airport security: that of the passenger, who in turn expects the airport authorities and airlines to be well versed in their areas of responsibility. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, there are the responsibilities given to the Government and, through them, to agencies such as Transec.
The passenger has been affected over the years by increased restrictions, which have been in place for a considerable time. Some of them have regularly created chaos at a substantial number of airports, and at
particular airports it has become the norm to have chaos. The question for the passenger is whether they perceive the restrictions that have been imposed as being over the top. One thing that passengers certainly have to put up with, and that I have had to put up with over the years and particularly in the past few months, is the inconsistency of security. In addition, they have to watch other passengers who are travelling through airports for perhaps the first time in their lives and do not have a single clue about how to deal with security, thereby cluttering up the approaches to security areas.
One faces other problems. I do not know whether it is parliamentary to show them, but I have with me a knife and fork that were presented to me by a constituent after he had collected them airside at Glasgow airport. He had been to Spain and was refused permission to carry a set of cutlery on to the plane as a wedding present. He went through security and came out the other side, went for a meal and was presented with the knife and fork that I have with me. Now, tell me that they could not damage somebody. The inconsistencies of the system need to be examined better by the Government and their agencies.
By virtue of the fact that the airlines have had additional costs, passengers’ fares are being loaded to the extent that they are becoming out of the reach of many of my constituents and, I am sure, those of many of my colleagues. British Airways and Virgin Atlantic tell me that one issue alone is costing them millions of pounds a month: items of hand luggage, on which there is a discrepancy between the UK and the rest of Europe. That has meant that business travellers in particular, instead of coming through Heathrow to interconnect and come back to God’s country, Scotland, are going through Schipol, Charles de Gaulle or Frankfurt airports. That is nonsense, and for too long it has been left as part of the review that is taking place. It needs to be addressed more urgently.
Baggage loss in interconnections is another factor. The amount of baggage lost must have security implications. Every time I have interconnected at Heathrow in the past year, I have lost my bags for at least a day and on one occasion for a week. What concerned me on that occasion was that nobody seemed to know where my bag was. Nobody had a clue. They tell people that there is a website on which you can see where your bag is and what the state of play is, but from day one to day seven the information was exactly the same—absolutely zilch. That needs to be examined seriously, because it is clear to me that there are major security implications.
Why, at some airports, do passengers who are reconnecting have to go through a second round of security checks? I have never understood that. They come off a plane that has flown from across the Atlantic, where security is tight. They come to Heathrow to connect to a flight northwards and have to go through the security system all over again. That seems to be using unnecessary manpower and should be examined. Surely it is time to consider what is known in the industry as “reasoned selection”. It is plainly folly that passengers go through the exercise of security twice, which causes long queues and is often responsible for considerable delays in aircraft taking off. I have even had some constituents complain that they have missed flights as a result of such delays.
Unless those issues are dealt with, the industry, which is already suffering, will continue to suffer.
Let me turn from passengers to the airports themselves. Airports are required properly to resource the security element, and that is right. Although at times there has been a marked improvement—I have to admit that there have been times when such queues were not normal—it is also the case that passengers can guarantee that if they hit Heathrow at a certain time of the day there will be queues out the door.
In addition, I understand from discussions about what is happening behind the scenes that, because there are still problems with giving clearance to staff, catering and baggage handling are affected. That is all down to the fact that the airports do not seem to have a grip on the situation. Those are factors that delay airlines and aircraft in doing what they are there to do, which is, of course, to fly. I believe that it was my good friend Michael O’Leary who once said that planes do not make any money when they are sitting on the tarmac. It is clear that frustrations are building up, and many of them are partly caused by airport inefficiencies.
It is perhaps unavoidable that I should cite one particular airport owner, given that it controls the great bulk of passenger miles undertaken in this country. The company is BAA. We are told by Mr. Nelson, its chief executive, that it plans to put another £40 million into security, but that it still expects long queues on occasion while it is doing that. That is not good enough. Nor is it good enough to suggest that there is to be an extra 1,400 security guards. That in itself will not help the position greatly unless and until the company starts paying its staff at appropriate rates. In my 15 years of regular plane travel—and, before that, another 15 years of travelling just within Scotland by plane—I have never seen the same security guard at Heathrow twice. That suggests that there is enormous turnover of security staff at Heathrow. The company may be training them, but it is not paying them, and as long as it does not pay them, it is not providing the security that I and, I believe, my constituents require in order to feel safe as we move through airports.
Mr. Nelson promises that he will cut queuing to five minutes or less. I cannot envisage that happening in the foreseeable future unless there is an enormous change of emphasis.
Finally, on airports, baggage is still going missing. I have already dealt with that in part. I was told that at one time 40 per cent. of the baggage was missing. That is a ridiculously high level, but that was the figure on one day. That is unacceptable. The fact that the companies do not seem to know where bags are at any given time is a clear indication that something is fundamentally wrong with the organisation as it stands.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about baggage. Indeed, the newspapers are always full of stories about how many bags are still in storage because they have not been given to their owners. Does he believe that the announcement yesterday by British Airways that it is considering electronically tagging bags so that it will be able to find them more quickly may help the situation?
Mr. Donohoe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct. It is issues such as that which the Government and their agencies should be looking at and enforcing, if need be, because, as I have already said, there is clearly a security risk if baggage is not known to be in a certain place. There must be implications for security.
My final point about baggage is that I have been on planes when the bags have been loaded but passengers have gone AWOL. In one case just last week, the plane was delayed for three hours. First, we were told that the passengers were in transit and then, because they could not be found, that their bags would be taken off the plane. However, because of the system on that plane and because the bags were at the very front—they had been the first to be loaded—all the bags would have to be removed to get the missing passengers’ bags off. Believe it or not, by that time the passengers had turned up and the whole process started all over again. The situation is absolutely nonsensical, but that is what is happening in our airports. It does nothing for passenger safety.
On the policing of airports, I have to declare an interest, in that I am a member of the British Transport police and walk the beat now and again on the streets of London. It could be said that I have a degree of responsibility in that sense, but I also have experience that is not available to other Members. Regardless, I believe that we are now required—and, given the events of a few days ago, even more so—to consider having a dedicated police service for our airports such as we have at present for our train stations. I argue that it would be sensible to have such a service for our airports.
It is clear that airports have become a terrorist target. As a consequence, we require people who have specific experience to be able to deal with terrorism. At the very least, the issue needs more attention. The chief constable of Greater Manchester police said that we can have all the new technology that we like, but, just as in this place, it will never be a substitute for a dedicated police service that knows precisely what it is about. He said that
“new technology is not a substitute for a distinct presence at airports. Officers should be used to create a hostile environment for terrorists.”
That is a fundamental point, and it needs to be addressed by the Government.
Airlines themselves also have a responsibility. A spokesman for BA, which pays BAA £360 million a year for the benefit of flying in and out of its airports, recently said that it wanted Heathrow, its landlord, to be more efficient. It has called for a supervisory committee that includes airline representation to be set up to oversee BAA’s investment. I believe that the Government should support that common-sense proposal. Perhaps we should consider including on such a committee somebody to represent passengers—I am not bidding for the job—because it is clear that many of the elements that passengers face are not taken into consideration by anyone responsible.
The US Air Line Pilots Association believes that the focus on banned objects rather than behavioural patterns or passenger profiling leaves aviation unnecessarily vulnerable to future attacks by terrorists. I agree with that. Because of terrorists’ ingenuity, it is difficult to predict accurately the form of a future
attack on an airliner or, for that matter, on an airport. Such a proposal may take some work, but there is no doubt whatever that suicidal hijackers and bombers exhibit behaviour patterns that can lead to their detection prior to their arriving at the airport or boarding a plane, even if their tools are not detected. That is surely the route that the Government and their agencies should take.
I turn to the Government and their agencies. It is good to see the Minister in his place. I should have said at the outset that I welcome him to his new role as Minister in the Department for Transport. The Government have announced several reviews over the years. I was fortunate to be given a briefing by the Library on this subject a few days ago. It is obvious that there have been several reviews over a considerable number of years, but that very little action has actually taken place, other than that which frustrates passengers and for which no explanation is given. We need much greater consistency in the decision-making process; that must become a priority. Dealing with passenger fatigue with sometimes incomprehensible instructions must also be a priority.
A considerable reduction in the number of people travelling by air has resulted from the restrictions. I know Members of Parliament who now travel by train from Glasgow and Scotland in general, and more and more business men are doing the same because of the restrictions associated with air travel. Without giving ideas to the terrorists, it might well be that because of the number of people who travel by train, they will turn their attention to that mode of transport. It does not take a degree in terrorism to work out that as many people travel by train as by plane. Someone can turn up at a train station, and get straight on a train that departs in seconds, but it takes hours to get through the system at an airport. The Government need to consider that issue.
I make a special plea to the Minister: as a matter of urgency, systems for dealing with hand luggage must be harmonised across Europe. The UK must be brought into line with the rest of Europe in that respect, otherwise our airline industry will continue to lose substantial revenue. As I have already mentioned, the issue of specialised policing should be considered. The British Transport police are after all the responsibility of the Department for Transport. The Government could easily apply their mind to that subject.
More emphasis should be put on watching potential terrorist bombers. In technical terms, border security and passenger data should be seriously considered as that would enable the screening of passengers for security and immigration purposes. The advancement of technology has created far more opportunities to streamline and to enhance the passenger travel process, rather than treating passengers like cattle, as we do now. Passenger name record—known in the industry as PNR—should be employed as a matter of urgency. I am told that there are indications that the PNR might be omitted from the UK’s e-borders programme. That could seriously undermine the effectiveness of any scheme introduced in the UK and requires immediate rebuttal by the Government.
The issue of “authority to carry” also requires immediate attention. We need the relevant information to check against a “watch list” of undesirable
passengers and the Government must be proactive in securing that. Some 95 per cent. of passengers create no problems at all; it is the remaining 5 per cent. who cause all the problems. However, 95 per cent. of passengers are affected by security measures, while the remaining 5 per cent. go undetected. It is obvious that we have not had much success in dealing with that 5 per cent.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. The central issue is that we will get the measures that he has talked about only when we use existing off-the-shelf technology, which focuses on the ticketing process. Instead we currently have expensive Government-led IT projects based on flight manifests that by definition are too late; the aircraft has taken off by the time the search has been done.
Mr. Donohoe: The Opposition spokesman is absolutely right. I have received a briefing from an organisation that is employed in that sector. Why try to invent something when we have something that can operate as a system and that has proven itself in many countries? It is clear that that is another issue that needs to be looked at.
As I have said, if the Government intend to kick into touch the passenger name record, that will affect airport trade and aircraft travel for many years to come.
Biometrics is another issue that the Government should consider. It is a technology that already exists and automatically confirms the identity of a person by comparing patterns of physical characteristics. I do not understand why we do not use it more widely. Presently, I think that biometrics are used at Heathrow in terminals 2 and 3, but not in terminals 1 and 4. I understand that it is to be used in terminal 5, but not at this stage in terminals 1 and 4—the two busiest at Heathrow.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman makes another powerful point. I went to Armenia in April to monitor its elections and on my return journey, my fingerprints were checked and a copy of my passport was made. When I got to the boarding stage, I had to put my finger in something to ensure that they knew it was definitely me getting on the plane. If I had destroyed my passport for any reason, there would have a been a link. Such a system should be rolled out widely to ensure that the level of security is heightened.
Mr. Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Again, that is something that we should seriously consider. We are adopting a number of such systems and there are other systems that we would love to adopt but cannot possibly afford. We would all like to fly in Israeli planes because they are so safe, but putting such high numbers of passengers—some 90 million—through that process on an annual basis in the UK would be virtually impossible. We must be realistic about that.
The Government must hasten the development of ways of enhancing security. It is also important to speed up clearance and to alleviate delays at airports. As a frequent flyer, I think that more could be done
and I speak on behalf of a growing band of travellers, when I say that I do not accept that making our lives better would compromise safely. I am not opposed to using biometrics or any other form of individual identification, such as fingerprints, if it smoothes the frustration of getting to my work and getting my fellow business men and travellers to work. At present, what we must face is quite unreal.
Following the recent terror threats in the UK, security measures have impacted greatly on the aviation industry because of immediate costs caused by the cancellation of flights and because of the impact on consumer confidence, which has been reflected in forward bookings. We need worldwide standards not only to ensure the safety of passengers, but to provide a clear and coherent message to the travelling public.
All that passengers want is to feel safe when they travel, and to get to their destination at the scheduled time. Every individual connected to air travel believes that passengers understand the need for enhanced security, but only if measures are well communicated, efficient and consistent. That is what I need to hear from the Minister this morning. Airlines, the Government and their agencies, and airport operators need to work together to ensure that that goal is achieved. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to other contributions.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |