Examination of Witnesses (Questions 42-72)
PAUL CLARK
MP AND MS
NIKI TOMPKINSON
26 JANUARY 2010
Q42 Chairman: Minister, thank you
very much for coming. I am sorry that you were kept waiting. The
Committee was also looking at the issue of the decision by the
Government to raise the threat level on security at the weekend.
Presumably the Department of Transport was informed that it had
gone up from "substantial" to "severe", is
that right?
Paul Clark: Yes, of course, Chairman.
Let me say right at the beginning, thank you for this opportunity
to obviously come here to run through some of the aviation security
issues. Yes, you are absolutely right, and obviously there is
close working between relevant departments and agencies in terms
of the intelligence.
Q43 Chairman: When were you informed?
When was your Department informed that the threat level was going
to go up?
Paul Clark: Could I, in terms
of the specifics, in terms of the time and date we were informed,
ask Niki who is head of our transport security side because that
is the day-to-day operations.
Q44 Chairman: Ms Tompkinson, when
were ministers informed that the threat level had gone?
Ms Tompkinson: We were informed
straight away that JTAC had made their decision.
Q45 Chairman: What is "straight
away", on Friday?
Ms Tompkinson: On Friday afternoon.
Q46 Chairman: At what time?
Ms Tompkinson: We were informed
that they were actively considering it during Friday afternoon.
The decision was taken finally mid/late afternoon and I immediately
informed the Secretary of State, who was not in London at the
time but was out of town but I conveyed a message to him.
Q47 Chairman: The Committee is not
concerned but wants to raise a couple of points about the territory
between the Department of Transport and the Home Office, and that
is why you are giving evidence to the Home Affairs select committee
today. We were keen to have a Home Office minister and we got
one in the end, for different reasons. Why is the deployment of
full body scanners in response to an attempted terrorist attack
a Department of Transport rather than a Home Office responsibility?
Paul Clark: You will appreciate,
Chairman, that there needs to be a responsible department for
whatever the issue is. In terms of this, we are responsible as
the Department of Transport for transport security and the issues
arising from that; but of course, as you know, we do not work
in isolation and that is why there is working across the National
Security Committee. Of course, at official level there is regular
contact; and indeed Ms Tompkinson and partners sit on various
bodies, including working with JTAC and so on, and a range of
intelligence agencies.
Q48 Chairman: You are part of JTAC
and part of COBR, are you?
Paul Clark: Certainly in terms
of COBR; but in terms of day-to-day workings and so on, we will
be involved clearly with the intelligence agencies, and working
together with Home Office and, indeed, other colleagues across
government and other sectors.
Q49 Chairman: You do not feel it
is a little bit fragmented having your Department responsible
for security aspects of body scanners, and the Home Office responsible
for policy?
Paul Clark: No, I do not believe
so. These are complex areas. They raise a number of issues which
you have either read in the press, or of course the committee
members here are well aware that raise a number of issues across
a number of areas of responsibility within government—whether
that be issues about privacy, whether that be issues about the
health side of issues, as well of course protecting the public
in terms of being able to travel safely to and from the United
Kingdom.
Q50 Martin Salter: Minister, we have
just seen a very brief demonstration of the new explosive detectors
which look useful but a simple question: surely now all a would-be
bomb attacker would have to do is pack their explosives with gloves
on and make sure they do not leave traces on their body?
Paul Clark: What has been raised
there, and very clearly, is the need for us to be constantly vigilant
about ways that people will attempt to work around security provisions
that we put in place; but, having said that, the new equipment
which indeed I saw recently in place being utilised as part of
the process of checking people has proved effective. I would say,
the whole approach of course to security is multi-layered. There
is no one operation or process that will guarantee you everything
that you need. Having a multi-layered approach actually helps
to make sure that you have a much stronger security regime.
Q51 Martin Salter: Obviously there
is not a lot of point only installing state-of-the-art equipment
in airports like Heathrow and JFK if flights coming into Britain
from other countries, perhaps less developed countries, have not
got similar equipment. Terrorist outrage can take place over any
airspace obviously. What efforts and what steps are the British
Government going to make to ensure that countries not as wealthy
as us are able to install similarly high-tech equipment in order
to protect the travelling public as a whole?
Paul Clark: It is a very important
point in terms of the work that we do with other countries, and
other countries in terms of their security as well. Indeed, part
of that process is working closely with countries where there
are issues of concern in terms of security levels coming to this
country; and indeed, through various resources both in the counter-terrorism
budgets and indeed with expertise and skills that are within the
aviation or security areas, and aviation in particular, we actually
do help and support countries to raise that security level at
their airports as well. In fact we have discussions with a number
of interested countries. I do not know whether there is anything
particularly Niki would want to add.
Ms Tompkinson: No.
Q52 David Davies: Mr Clark, in a
letter to you I asked you about whether or not everyone would
be selected to go through these machines and I was not quite clear
from the response whether that is the case. Are people going to
be randomly singled out to go through a body scanner, or will
everyone go through?
Paul Clark: The provision at the
moment is that it would be used as a secondary level requirement
of checking, and it would be on a basis of random approach and
of course various other measures that could be taken into account,
in terms of selecting people to go through those body scanners.
There will be no right to refuse to go through the body scanner.
Q53 David Davies: So some people
randomly chosen; some people chosen because they fit certain criteria?
Paul Clark: Yes.
Q54 Mrs Dean: Minister, yesterday
members of the Committee heard that airport security is reactive
and driven by events and there is a lack of forward planning by
governments. Do you think that is a fair assessment?
Paul Clark: No, I do not think
it is fair. We obviously do have to respond to information we
receive. Indeed, JTAC have clearly done that on the assessment
of all the information that is there, with our own agencies as
well as at an international level, to have a level of threat that
we can clearly respond to, and clearly partners in the transport
industry can respond to. In a sense, there is some reaction of
course after 25 December events. The way that those explosives
were carried on was deliberately in such a way to circumvent clearly
the regimes that we have in place; that is exactly why it was
done, so we need to respond in that way but there is a great deal
of work. Perhaps at this stage, Chairman, I would just put on
record thanks to all those, whether government officials, those
in the aviation industry, those at the frontline services, and
indeed passengers who did experience delay immediately after 25
December, for their patience in the work that has been done and
undertaken since 25 December.
Q55 Mr Streeter: Minister, we have
also been told that there are no internationally agreed standards
in airport security. Do you think that there should be; and what
are we trying to do to achieve such things?
Paul Clark: We are working very
closely. By nature obviously aviation is an international issue,
and indeed the previous question in terms of what work do we do
with airports in other countries where there are issues concerning
security, and how can we help and support in that way. There are
standards within the European Union and we have worked through
that because it is far better that we have an international agreement
in terms of security specifics.
Ms Tompkinson: There are standards
set by ICAO, so at an international level there are standards;
and there are standards set by the European Union which are at
a bit of a higher level, and they set a baseline for all of the
European Union countries. So there are standards there. The international
bodies like ICAO, like the European Union, have teams of inspectors
to inspect other countries against those standards.
Q56 Mr Streeter: If you wanted to
fly a bomb into Britain, if you were an informed person there
presumably would be a number of airports you would chose rather
than other airports. If you know that, surely our enemies know
that? What are you going to do about it?
Paul Clark: Through JTAC there
is a process in terms of looking very carefully at the security
levels, and concerns of which airports and countries are of concern.
Obviously in terms of the intelligence agencies and so on which
respond clearly to that information, that is why a great deal
of work that does go on is coordinated not only in this country
but in others as well in terms of the assessment of risk; and
we continue, as I say, to work with countries in helping to raise
the level in terms of security levels that are in existence.
Q57 Mr Streeter: Finally, do you
have the power to prevent an airline from taking flights from
certain countries if you are concerned about the security of those
airports; and have you ever used that power?
Paul Clark: In terms of whether
we have ever used that power, I will ask Niki in a moment. You
will be well aware of the recent decision in conjunction with
the Yemen Government, for example, in terms of no direct flight,
which was a weekly flight that was coming here; and of course
there is provision and indeed we do have the watch list that exists
and, as the Prime Minister announced to the House back on 20 January,
the issue about developing the no-fly list and so on, that would
be a further development in terms of that. Whether we have ever
stopped—
Ms Tompkinson: I do not think
in practice we have had to use the powers. Obviously the UK issues
permits for airlines to fly into the country. What has happened
in practice when we have had concerns about a particular country,
the standards, whatever, is to negotiate with that country a reasonable
outcome. As the Minister said earlier, we do work overseas to
offer advice, support and assistance to countries where we think
the vulnerabilities are greatest. In our experience, working through
colleagues in the Foreign Office, because we can offer help and
advice, usually countries are quite keen to take us up on that.
We can normally negotiate a successful outcome that way without
having to use these powers.
Q58 Chairman: Is this not the Achilles
heel of the present system, which is that we may be doing the
best we can with the best scanners and equipment and so may the
other EU partners, but it is those who come from outside that
there is a problem? Should we not be in the forefront of trying
to get some firm international standards? Is that not how the
problems have occurred, in terms of the Detroit incident? The
gentleman came from Nigeria right across to Amsterdam, to Schiphol,
and then went to the United States. We have to stop it happening
in countries outside the EU, so we should be pressing for better,
more firm and stronger international standards, should we not?
Paul Clark: I think you are right
in that it should be part of the process that continues. As Niki
has indicated, there are international standards, but we need
to continue to recognise threats that do exist and the challenges
that are placed by ever inventive people who want to circumvent
those; we need to continue to keep that under review; and that
is why we need to continue to have a multi-layered approach, whether
here in the UK or abroad. Equally, part and parcel of that comes
through the development of clearly the whole e.Borders programme.
Q59 Chairman: Minister, the e-Borders
will take time, and part of it, as the Committee has said, is
probably illegal in terms of EU law, but we will leave that to
one side. The fact is it is ministers who keep telling us that
this matter is urgent; nobody can wait for committee papers to
be passed around DGs at Brussels. What is this Government doing
to try and make sure we have firmer and stronger international
standards?
Paul Clark: We have certainly
been arguing clearly for stronger standards and so on within the
EU, and with our EU partners to be putting pressure on at ICAO
level and so on in terms of raising those standards across the
board. You will appreciate there are limits to what we can insist
on. We have to get that through agreement; but, as we have indicated,
clearly there are many countries that are happy to work with us
and the expertise, information and skills that we have within
this country, and indeed other countries, to actually develop
stronger security systems as well. We will continue, the Committee
can rest assured, to push for the highest baseline of security
levels that are required; and indeed individual countries still
have the requirement to then have higher levels of security to
reflect their own situations. I am sure all members of the Committee
would recognise that there needs to be that flexibility as well
in the system, as well as a baseline to have that flexibility
for other major stringent measures.
Q60 Chairman: Tomorrow we have a
conference on Yemen. It is the Department of Transport that have
stopped direct flights from Yemen. Your officials have just arrived
back having looked at Sanaa Airport; a report is going to be written
which is then going to be put before the Yemeni authorities. Surely
one way of helping the situation is for our Government to provide
the scanners that a country like Yemen needs in order to search
passengers before they get on the aircraft, rather than diverting
aircraft through Paris and Cairo?
Paul Clark: You are absolutely
right, Chairman, that our officials have just returned from Yemen
and have worked with and had great cooperation from the authorities
there, both at government, airport and airline level. I say that—a
report is being written, as you will appreciate, in terms of what
were the issues and concerns there and how we may go forward.
Indeed, as I indicated earlier, together with provisions within
counter-terrorism funds, together with expertise, for example,
from the Department of Transport we are in a position to be able
to look at the possibilities of assisting countries who require
that assistance, such as Yemen.
Q61 Chairman: It all sounds very
long, that is the problem?
Paul Clark: May I just say, they
have literally just returned from Yemen, and that report is literally
being prepared as we speak.
Q62 Chairman: If you accept what
the Prime Minister said, Yemen has been in difficulties for many,
many years: why has it all happened in the last week?
Paul Clark: With Yemen we actually
have been working across government; and other departments as
well have been working with Yemen in terms of a range of issues,
not just security but also political and economic.
Q63 Patrick Mercer: Minister, I am
flabbergasted by what I am hearing at the moment. I appreciate
that scanners and search equipment are not the only answer to
this, of course not; and I entirely get your point about concentric
rings of security; but since at least 2006 trials have been in
place (trials, notice) of various different equipment at various
different transport hubs, not just airports; none of this equipment
to the best of my knowledge has so far been deployed on a permanent
basis; and yet only when the threat develops, only when the President
of the United States get airiated at Christmas do we get some
form of firm action in this country, which is essentially action
this day. Why has it taken four years at least, if not longer,
for this to happen?
Paul Clark: The whole basis of
the provisions that you put into place of any security need to
be proportionate to the risks as then considered to be in existence
at that time; because we do not want—and I am sure members
of the Committee do not want—to clearly put in place security
measures that are deemed to be at that time unnecessary, to create
delays or inconvenience for the travelling public generally. That
is the first part. It is about making a decision about the proportionality
of the measures that you put in place to protect those concerned.
I recognise that there have been trials; and there have been trials
because, indeed, even on the market today there are different
scanners using different means as to what would be the best to
provide the best security possible. As I have already said, there
is never anything that is 100% and that is why it is a multi-layered
approach; but there is different equipment available, and monitoring,
and seeing and checking what does that mean in terms of the provision
and the success that it has, as well as the operational arrangements
that need to be in place.
Q64 Patrick Mercer: Minister, I am
sorry, that is simply not good enough. May I give you an example:
in 2006 a trial was mounted at one of the major stations (I cannot
remember immediately which one) for the Gatwick Express where
selected passengers were trialled with a particular form of equipment—it
does not matter what. That trial went on for a number of weeks;
similarly trials went on at Canary Wharf; similarly trials went
on at London Victoria; yet none of this equipment has ever been
deployed. That obviously was in response to Operation Overt, the
aircraft plot in the summer of 2006, and then apparently all goes
quiet, until yet again we have another incident where that ghastly
phrase is used, this time by the Prime Minister, "this is
a wake-up call". How many wake-up calls do we need? The Christmas
Day plot was clearly highly dangerous and now, only now, do we
hear that this equipment is going to be deployed. Why?
Paul Clark: Because of exactly
the reason I said in terms of assessing the threat levels that
there are at the given time and wanting to bring in measures that
are relevant for that given time. As I have already said in terms
of the Christmas Day attack, it was deliberately done to actually
circumvent the systems that were in place; that is why, clearly
through the intelligence work and so on that is undertaken, we
need to try and be as ahead as possible in terms of the potential
threat but, at the same time, making sure that the provisions
that we put into place are proportionate to that threat level.
Q65 Patrick Mercer: Minister, thank
you. Without being discourteous, I simply do not accept that.
Therefore, could you please answer this question? Yesterday the
Chairman and I visited Smiths Detection: a fascinating and extremely
well organised visit. We were told that body scanners provided
some of the answer but actually the other part of the answer is
the trace detectors. Why then are we going to have body scanners
in airports by the end of the month and trace detectors only by
the end of the year?
Paul Clark: In terms of body scanners,
absolutely right, but body scanners, along with trace detection,
are all part and parcel of that multi-layered approach. In terms
of body scanners, they will be in use at Heathrow and Manchester
by Sunday (31 January) with Birmingham coming on stream in February
and a national rollout to follow. In terms of trace detection,
immediately following the 25 December event we increased the level
of detection required, and I will say no more than that, but again
that is being further rolled out throughout airports across the
country.
Q66 Patrick Mercer: Can you give
me, Minister, please, a firm commitment for when this equipment
will be in place?
Paul Clark: We have said in terms
of the roll-out of body scanners that this will happen progressively
and we are working with the industry now; it is starting this
month, and then, in terms of the issue about trace detection,
it is already there in the vast majority of airports across the
country and we are working with the industry in terms of raising
the levels of the use of trace detection equipment and have a
deadline of the end of this year for that.
Chairman: I think what Mr Mercer is saying
is—
Patrick Mercer: There is no answer to
that, Chairman, I am sorry.
Q67 Chairman: No; I think what Mr
Mercer is saying is that the Committee is very concerned. After
all, it was the Government that raised the threat level at the
end of last week. We are obviously a target country. We do not
believe that having meetings and getting committee reports in
the EU is the answer.
Paul Clark: Absolutely.
Q68 Chairman: And we do not accept
your statement that you have to look at the inconvenience to the
public because, to be perfectly frank, the public put up with
a great deal because they know that it is for their security.
Overnight Douglas Alexander, when he was Transport Secretary,
announced that we had to put all these little liquids in these
plastic bags. The public accepted it. I think there is a desire
to see something happening urgently. Can you give us an assurance
that the Government regards this as an urgent and important issue?
Paul Clark: I think the statements
that were made at the beginning of January when the House returned
from recess, together with the Prime Minister's statement last
week, show that very clearly we take the matter seriously. I agree
with you that the general public, in terms of the inconvenience
or the requirements to undertake further security checks, will
accept that generally. It is about getting the balance right,
but this is important and that is why we have increased the requirements
in terms of trace detection; it is why we have increased the levels
in terms of random checking that are required. You would not expect
me, obviously, in terms of operational reasons, to go through
the details of those, but we have done that and that is why we
have said about secondary scanning in terms of—
Q69 Chairman: To answer Mr Mercer's
question, what would be very helpful is if you could set out the
public --- if it has to be a letter in confidence to this Committee
we will accept it, but I think we do need to be reassured. Maybe
you could write to us with the measures that you have taken.
Paul Clark: I am more than happy
to do that.
Q70 David Davies: Minister, I wondered
what steps you were taking to secure the perimeters around airports.
Paul Clark: Perimeters are clearly
a highly visible part of security but they are one part of that.
There is a requirement and standard that is laid down in terms
of the perimeter that needs to be provided but, as I say, it is
one part of that and it is part of the inspection regime. I believe
this may be referring to a statement that was made by, I think,
the former head of security at Tel Aviv airport, who made a statement
about western airports. Obviously, I will not comment on any other
countries. I have to say that the concerns that he was indicating
I do not recognise within the UK's provision of airport perimeter
security.
Q71 David Davies: What worries me
is that half-baked students disguised as environmental protestors
seem to have no problem breaking in, but you are confident that
al-Qaeda would not be able to manage this?
Paul Clark: I say to you that
in terms of perimeter fencing it is one part of the security levels.
As I say, when you have very determined people you have to be
ever vigilant in terms of the requirements that are needed to
ensure that we have a multi-layered approach to the security of
the travelling public.
Q72 Chairman: In our meeting on Monday
and the visits we have done we heard some very good reports of
the Israeli security system at Tel Aviv airport. It is not just
having the equipment; it is also training people to use that equipment;
that is also very important, but the Committee, because our remit
is counter-terrorism, feel it is extremely important, since you
have the portfolio in the Department for Transport, to look at
these issues. These are urgent issues, Minister, and we think
we have a responsibility to Parliament to raise them with you.
Paul Clark: Chairman, I agree
entirely with you in that way, and indeed yesterday I visited
Heathrow Airport to see the equipment and so on that is there,
whether it is in terms of trace detection, whether it is in terms
of body scanners due to come into being and so on, so I recognise
exactly what you mean, and rest assured, as I say, that we want
to make sure that people are able to travel to and from the United
Kingdom safely.
Chairman: As Mr Salter said in his question,
if we can provide this equipment to countries like Yemen, Nigeria
and others which we have already looked at carefully, this would
help enormously in dealing with this problem. Once they are on
the plane and once they have landed it is too late. It is giving
them the equipment and the resources, which we have, which will
enable them to search their passengers. Minister, thank you so
much for coming and seeing us today.
| 
