| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 July 2007 : Column 365WH—continued
Jim Fitzpatrick:
I shall address that point, particularly why the one-bag screening option has been chosen for the UK. My hon. Friend also talked about the problems experienced by transfer passengers who arrive in the UK with more than one cabin bag to board another aircraft departing from a UK airport and by those carrying duty-free liquids that were bought in non-EU states. The industry has suggested
that international passengers are choosing to transfer at airports outside the UK because of the difficulties they face in the UK, and airlines and airports tell us that they are suffering financial losses as a result, which is having an impact on UK plc.
The Government are acutely aware that the baggage restrictions are extremely challenging, but we are equally aware of the very good reasons behind them. Allowing only one item of cabin baggage reduces the number of X-ray images per passenger, thereby ensuring that security checks can be carried out to the highest possible standard. We have always said that we stand ready to remove the one bag limit, but it would be irresponsible to do so if the industry were not then capable of delivering the expected security standards. That offer remains, but the industry agrees that we must not rush into doing that, which is why we are assessing how well airports handle having to screen more than one cabin bag per passenger.
We must look further ahead and explore other, smarter solutions to the liquid explosives challenge. We are working closely with industry and manufacturers to progress developments in technology that are now available and we are undertaking several trials of new technology as a matter of urgency to assist the security process—the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked about that. We also continue to look for new technology that could reduce the burden on airports and improve the situation for passengers.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the serious events that happened earlier this month in London, and especially those in Glasgow.
Mr. Brazier: The industry is concerned that the working party that the Government have asked to look into the technology is fairly light on people who are experts on that technology. The party does not appear to be focusing on technology that is already available, off the shelf, which is working very successfully in countries such as New Zealand and some of the Gulf states.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the security summit convened and called for by the Secretary of State, which should be happening next week, will address those or any other apparent deficiencies. The hon. Gentleman’s comments will be taken into account in preparation for that summit.
The recent situations in London and, especially, in Glasgow demonstrated that the form of threat is not consistent—it is constantly evolving. That emphasises that we cannot be complacent in our attitude and action. Terrorism is a problem that we know we will face for the long term. Experience has also shown that the significant investment in infrastructure protection that our airports are making is well placed, and we will continue to urge airports to implement improvements where vulnerabilities are identified. I would like to place on record, as I have done before, our thanks to the police, to Glasgow airport staff and passengers, and to all the others who worked tirelessly over the past week to apprehend those involved in recent incidents.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of counter-terrorist checks for new airport staff. Operational deployment is not dependent upon completion of the whole CTC
process and alleviation has been in place for some time, at the industry’s request. That allows the employer to deploy an officer—anybody who is on the appropriate security side—pending CTC clearance, providing they have passed a criminal record check and have been resident in the UK for the previous five years.
My hon. Friend asked about profiling. Passengers are selected for various security processes irrespective of their age, gender, ethnic background or religious beliefs. The purpose is to ensure that no prohibited articles are taken into the restricted zone or on to the plane. One of the basic tenets of aviation security in the UK is that each passenger is screened and has an equal chance of being selected for an additional search, irrespective of their age, ethnic background or religious belief. No one can adopt a particular profile believing that they may not be selected for additional searches.
My hon. Friend raised questions and gave us a demonstration about cutlery. As he said, passengers cannot take knives through airport security, but they are available airside at restaurants. Current security measures allow metal cutlery within certain specifications—they must have a blunt edge and a specific blade length; that was what he demonstrated—to be used as part of an airline’s in-flight catering regime or by airside catering establishments, such as restaurants or cafés. That approach does not apply to passengers, who since 9/11 have been prohibited from taking knives through UK airport security points. The aim is to avoid any additional pressure being placed on X-ray operators at those points. Metal cutlery knives are, of course, permitted in hold baggage.
I acknowledge the points that several hon. Members have made about inconsistencies in application. The fact that the additional screening for potential liquid explosives and so on is a relatively new procedure means that there are anomalies, but they are being ironed out as the procedure becomes more familiar to passengers and staff.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of immigration and border controls. As he knows, that is a matter for the Home Office, with which we work closely. I am happy to bring his comments and those of other hon. Members to the attention of our friends in the Home Office.
My hon. Friend raised the important question of a proposed advisory committee to assist in this process. We agree that airlines and airports should discuss these issues. The aim is to get security to be part of normal business, not just an add-on. I shall return to that point.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of hand luggage, to which I tried to respond in my opening comments. To reinforce the point, I should say that limiting passengers to a smaller bag enables a reasonable amount of personal items to be carried while giving the X-ray screeners a less cluttered X-ray signature, thus making the task of identifying potentially dangerous liquids and other possible threat items easier for them. That measure, together with the limit of a single bag, helps to reduce potential delays at the screening point, given that the search regime is more intensive. We are in close consultation with the industry to ensure that the new measures are capable of being delivered for as long as is necessary. As I have outlined, the measures are
kept under review, including in the light of developments in training and screening techniques. The threat from liquid explosives represents a step change that will need to be taken into account on a continuing basis in the security measures of all airports.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised the issue of the urgent need to get passengers through. As he was saying, there must be a balance between throughput and thoroughness to ensure security at airports and for airlines. He also asked whether the electronic tagging of bags by British Airways would help. When baggage has been screened on entry to the airport, the bag is clean, so no matter how long it is stored, it is secure and safe. In that sense, the matter is taken forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked what element of the ticketing price is earmarked for security and where the money goes. The breakdown of the cost of the ticket and where the funds go is varied. There is an element of security in the cost of the ticket. If permitted to do so, I shall write to him and to the other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, as I am sure that they will be interested in further information on this. I acknowledge the point that he raises about designing safety and security into all public buildings, including airports. I am sure that he realises that that is very much a matter of modern architecture, particularly in respect of specific buildings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland (Dr. Kumar) asked about matters affecting Durham Tees Valley airport. I am confident that the Ministry of Defence will have discussed these items with its management and that they can use the airport as they currently do. Again, I shall pass his comments on to the MOD and try to ensure that he receives a response on this issue.
All airports are considering the security position on approaches by car, and as we have seen on our TV screens and know from hearing about the personal experiences of colleagues, many have adopted new methods to deal with the matter.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) raised the issue of policing costs. The independent review of policing at airports by Stephen Boys Smith was completed last year and the report was submitted to the then Secretary of State and the Home Secretary. The then Secretary of State issued a written statement at that time welcoming its broad thrust. On 14 June, he issued a further written statement reporting on progress, including constructive dialogue with stakeholders and agreement on a direction for work. It recommended continued and enhanced liaison between key stakeholders, including Departments, the police service and airport operators at both national and local level, to maintain a consistent response to the threats and risks. As the hon. Lady mentioned, it also endorsed the current multi-agency threat and risk assessment approach in place at UK airports. These matters are still under discussion and review, so I am not in a position to comment further despite their being raised by her and by the hon. Member for Canterbury.
Mr. Donohoe: Has the Minister addressed the question of having dedicated police?
Jim Fitzpatrick: The whole question of policing is under review and I am not in a position to say anything further on that. I am sure that the matter will also be raised at the summit to which I referred.
The hon. Lady raised questions about our review of arrangements, and I shall cover that in my conclusion. She also mentioned vehicle access barriers, and, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland, since the incident at Glasgow, the Department is actively examining the best ways to mitigate against vehicle-carried devices. Barriers are not the only option, and these matters are in hand.
I am only too aware that the very necessary measures that we have in place mean that both aviation staff and passengers are being tested. We will do what we can, particularly in explaining to the travelling public why these measures are necessary. As a first step, we will host a security summit later this month. It will bring together key players across the industry to make sure that we plan effectively and in a co-ordinated way for higher volumes of passengers, especially over the summer months.
That will be backed up by a media and marketing campaign, which started yesterday, aimed at passengers, reminding them to arrive prepared when they travel to airports this summer. They should be aware that restrictions are still in place at UK airports and at a growing number of others across the world. Hon. Members asked for such an approach. We will do everything that we can to ensure that this issue gets as much exposure as possible.
The summit that we expect to take place next week will provide an opportunity for Government and senior industry representatives to look ahead to see how industry operational needs and security requirements can be handled in a holistic fashion.
I would like to express my appreciation to hon. Members for the constructive way in which this morning’s discussion has been handled and for the tone used. I know from this debate that we all want the same objective: safe and efficient travel. I assure hon. Members who have participated in this debate and, indeed, the whole House, that we are as committed as they are in wanting to ensure that that aim is secured as quickly as possible.
WEEE Directive
11 am
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): It is a pleasure, Mr. Taylor, to see you in such an obvious and deserved position of authority today.
This debate has excited a lot of interest in the electrical industry, and I hope that it will excite some interest among elected Members of Parliament. The directive is a response to the growing volume of electrical and electronic waste, which is the fastest growing waste stream by volume and by weight. The UK produces 1.2 million tonnes a year, and the EU produces 14 kg per person a year, which is astonishingly high.
The causes are readily identifiable. Clearly, there is rising disposable income. There is also considerable technological development in mobile phones and the ever-ongoing IT revolution, which affects all aspects of our existence: home, workplace and leisure activities. There is a greater variety of electrical and electronic products to buy, such as simple things like toothbrushes and mowers, which used to be worked by hand and are now worked by electricity, and new developments such as DVD players and microwaves, the like of which previous generations did not see. There are new electrical products on the market.
There is also a strong element of planned obsolescence in the industry, which was formerly a feature of the automotive industry. We recall cars that were developed with rust pockets built into them, and the use of chromium alongside steel, which precipitates immediate rusting. We recall the time that almost every car in the street was rusting away shortly after it left the showroom. There is a similar syndrome in the electrical and electronic industry. We can all point to breakable plastic features of electrical equipment that forces us to cashier it although it is otherwise usable.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): One issue that the hon. Gentleman has not yet touched on is the digital switchover. There is a fear that many televisions and video recorders will be obsolete and that a huge mountain of them will have to be coped with. They may not even fall within the terms of the directive if they were bought some time ago. The fear is that many will end up in people’s gardens and be unsightly, or that they will be fly-tipped, which is another problem that may result from the directive.
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. Interventions should be brief.
Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my later comments. I think that probably every house in the country has a VHS recorder in a cupboard somewhere that will shortly be taken to a waste disposal site.
Another element is that many electrical goods are difficult and expensive to repair, and there is a general lack of repair facilities even when the fault is relatively minor. A worse vice to lay at the electrical industry’s door is the phasing of innovation to boost consumption artificially. DVD players were released, and a year or two later when most of them had been sold, out came DVD recorders. There was a push
towards widescreen TV and when everyone had one, along came high definition TV, which is not available on the previous widescreen TVs. Flip-top phones were introduced and MP3 players were added later, but it would have been possible to do that earlier. The industry markets sophisticated computers and then changes the software so that a new computer must be bought.
The result is that the life of electrical goods is short, even when quality is good. Much waste is either workable or reparable, unlike the car of the 1960s. There are huge quantities of 14-in and 15-in cathode ray tube monitors gracing every tip throughout the UK, and there is no reason to think that the trend will change. As the hon. Gentleman emphasised, the digital switchover will, if anything, accelerate that trend. As with the advent of 3G networks, the arrival of Windows Vista will add to the mountain of computers, TVs, phones and VHS recorders. The benefits of innovation are sometimes uncertain, but the effect on the waste stream is in no doubt.
The waste electrical and electronic equipment directive endeavours to address the issue. Before discussing it in detail, I want to highlight two fundamental questions without going into them in depth. I want to park them. One issue is necessity: why the directive is necessary. Leaving aside the hazardous substances issue, if the waste is inert, the production materials are plentiful, consumers are happy, employment is maintained and the cost of recycling and reuse is high or intensive in energy consumption, why should we have the directive? I shall not go into that, but I am raising the matter simply to point to the fact that it exists.
Even if the waste is a problem and worth addressing—I think it is—there is still the question of whether that should be done on a European basis. During a debate in the House of Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke went into the matter in depth, and asked whether we needed a European solution. Unlike rules on air quality and rivers, it is not obvious that a pan-European solution is necessary rather than national solutions, although any national scheme based on producer responsibility would have to come to terms with single market regulations, which may be why we are approaching this problem in a pan-European way.
I wanted to highlight those problems, and park them, because I want to deal with what we have got. I am broadly sympathetic with the thrust of the directive. I view old machinery fondly as children of the human spirit. I grieve over old TVs when I throw them out. I even repair old computers and printers, and am something of a specialist on Hewlett Packard. I am emotionally shocked by skips full of perfectly usable equipment and repelled by the apparent wastefulness.
The WEEE directive tries to reduce the waste stream, and its policy is straightforward. It sets targets for reuse and recovery; it makes producers or importers liable for meeting those targets and, in so doing, it hopes to provide a stimulus for less wasteful production and better design. The general brief or prospectus is agreed and clear, and most people are sympathetic, but its economic effects are unknown. They may add to consumer costs, which to some extent
depends on whether the recycling and reuse market is profitable in the long term. I believe that it can be, but I am not certain.
The big problem is not the prospectus or its economic effects, but the practical implementation. The correct EU phrase for what the Government are expected to do is “transposition by the national state”. I have some sympathy with the Government because the directive is complex to transpose. There are distinctions to be drawn between historic pre-2005 waste and new waste, and between householders, who essentially have free disposal, and the rights of corporate customers, who have limited liability when not exchanging like-for-like-goods, but I believe they have a right to the collection of goods.
It is difficult for all nations to interpret their version of what individual producer responsibility amounts to and to work out how the directive’s overall objectives will be achieved. There is difficulty when discussing product types, which is important in cataloguing waste and billing it. There are different systems and different categories in different countries, and there is debate about whether something falls within the directive because it is a non-fixed asset and whether CCTV and so on is not covered because it is a fixed asset and part and parcel of a building.
National schemes are supposed to clarify those complex issues, and in the UK, rather than take a scheme off the peg from Johnny foreigner or whomever, we have devised our own—slowly, it must be said, because we have been warned several times to get on with it, and in our own individual way. To be fair to the Government, they have had all the usual accoutrements that one would expect to find attached to new legislation. There have been consultations, roadshows, notification to all the various bodies, and, as is always the case, a massive proliferation of acronyms, which so far I have managed to avoid using.
Essentially, the Government are seeking to stimulate or construct a network of responsibilities between producers, who are ultimately the funders, consumers, who have the stuff, waste collectors and receivers, who are normally but not exclusively local authorities, and recyclers, who are usually private companies or social enterprises. For the whole system to work and to hang together, each must understand their part in it, and they must be willing to play their part in a complex operation.
The “understanding” aspect has been extraordinarily slow and, perforce, difficult. Again, however, I have some sympathy with the Government’s problem in getting their message across, because an awful lot of people do not wake up to the imperative of new regulations, or of any change until it hits them. No matter how many prospectuses and advanced notifications one gives, many people work on a need-to-know basis, and respond, sit up and take note only when the regulations impact.
Research shows that only 2 per cent. of the public know anything about the directive, so we in the Chamber are a privileged group. Worse still, 43 per cent. of big producers are generally unsure about the demands that it may make of them, and 70 per cent. of small firms do not know that it exists, which is worrying.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |