3 Problems that may hinder tighter
security
Privacy Concerns
28. The initial trial of body scanners at Manchester
Airport led to privacy and child protection concerns in relation
to the images produced. It was reported by the media that the
body scans would "show up breast enlargements, body piercings
and a clear black-and-white outline of a passenger's genitals".[44]
Following the Government's announcement on the deployment of scanners,
the Equality and Human Rights Commission wrote to the Government
expressing concern "that these proposals are likely to have
a negative impact on individuals' rights to privacy", requesting
information on how the wider use of body scanners would be compliant
with the Human Rights Act[45]
and suggesting that the use of body scanners, "as currently
implemented would not be "in accordance with law" as
required under Article 8(2)" of the European Convention on
Human Rights.[46]
29. Mr Baum told us that the privacy concerns are
"over-emphasised, possibly by the media, rather then being
a genuine concern". He told us that "generally the person
who sees the screen cannot see the passenger as well, so you are
not getting a visual view of the passenger and, on the screen,
a visual view of the passenger with no clothes on",[47]
while the picture itself is not stored and is destroyed once the
individual has passed through security.[48]
Mr Baum also suggested that rather than producing a "naked"
image of the individual passing through the scanner, "the
technology today can show an outline image of somebody without
facial features. One of the systems uses a stick figure and can
simply superimpose threat items onto that stick figure".[49]
30. Having witnessed these full-body scanners
working at first-hand, we are confident that the privacy concerns
that have been expressed in relation to these devices are overstated
and that full body scanners are no more an invasion of privacy
than manual "pat-downs" or searches of bags. Air passengers
already tolerate a large invasion of their privacy and we do not
feel that full body scanners add greatly to this situation. Privacy
concerns should not prevent the deployment of scanners.
STAFFING
31. Technology alone cannot strengthen airport security—it
is the human beings who will be operating the new system who remain
ultimately responsible.[50]
Both experts we took evidence from warned of placing too great
a reliance on technology and ignoring the importance of staff.
Mr Baum told us that his concern:
is that we keep looking for another piece of
technology to add on to the system and to rely on technology.
Ultimately we need to rely on human beings. It is human beings
that are going to operate these systems … it is not simply
giving them the equipment; it is training the staff to operate
the equipment,[51]
while Richard Kemp stressed to us that while "technology
is very important … I believe that the human aspect is even
more important".[52]
32. Both witnesses, Mr Baum and Richard Kemp expressed
concern at the current nature of airport security staffing. Richard
Kemp emphasised that airport security is as much a question of
the attitude of the employees as of the skills and equipment they
possess, "you have got to have the right mentality, you have
got to have a constant state of vigilance and you have got to
have a constant focus on the problem".[53]
Mr Baum was unsure that this "constant state of vigilance"
was achievable under the current security arrangements, and contrasted
airport security with other work undertaken at airports, "We
do not outsource customs or immigration. Those are government
agencies, government employees, that carry out those duties. Many
airports around the world are relying on contract screening personnel
who are relatively low paid ... I think we need to be serious
about whom we deploy".[54]
33. We noted Mr Baum's comments and were concerned
that neither the Home Secretary on 5 January nor the Prime Minister
on 20 January mentioned in any great detail improvements in the
training requirements of airport security staff and that the Government
was pursuing mainly "technology-based" solutions. We
were also concerned that insufficient numbers of female airport
security staff were being deployed, which would cause problems
with the scanning of female passengers. In a letter of 11 February
we raised these concerns with the Home Secretary and Transport
Secretary, and also asking for detail on what training requirements
were to be mandated for airport security personnel.
34. On 19 February we received a reply from Lord
Adonis[55] which confirmed
that EC Regulations set a baseline of training standards for aviation
security staff training, and these can be supplemented by the
UK Government working in consultation with the industry "where
we consider this is justified". While the Department is "not
aware of any overarching difficulties in obtaining sufficient
female security staff", they were unable to provide us with
statistic information on either staff numbers, or the gender mix
of airport security staff. Lord Adonis also confirmed that the
Government would not be taking direct action to either increase
the proportion of female security staff deployed at security checkpoints
or significantly tighten the training requirements of security
staff because the Government, does not "seek to interfere
in the manner in which airport operators resource the deployment
of airport staff, these being operational decisions".
35. Colonel Richard Kemp, an acknowledged expert
in security matters, was correct to place great importance on
the human aspect of security measures and, while we would not
advocate the Government unilaterally mandating tougher measures
and regulations without the cooperation of the industry, we are
concerned that Lord Adonis' letter of 19 February suggests a somewhat
laissez-faire attitude on the part of the Government towards
the matter of airport security staff.
36. The fact that the deployment of staff is an
"operational decision" should not prevent the Government
from imposing improved security measures where it deems them necessary.
In particular, the Government should work more closely with airport
operators and security contractors to ensure adequate deployment
of female security staff at security checkpoints and to develop
and institute an universal improved training regime for all security
staff deployed at all UK airports.
SECURITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
37. We asked Lord West whether it was wise to announce
the measures that the British Government was taking to improve
security at airports as we were concerned that this would just
give terrorists the information needed to work around the tightened
regime. Lord West told us that the need to reassure the public
that measures were in place was tempered by the desire to keep
some measures secret, and therefore the Government did not announce
every measure it was taking.[56]
38. Richard Kemp argued that while it was important
to reassure the public that measures were in place and provide
information that would act as a deterrent to terrorists, "it
is important that we do not know the technical details of what
is happening to us".[57]
Mr Baum agreed that the technical specifications of the equipment
should not be publicised, and he called it "fascinating"
that "when we go through an airport security checkpoint we
see technology with the manufacturer's name emblazoned on the
side and you can simply go to the internet and find out the spec
of that system".[58]
The Government is correct not to publicise every measure
that it is taking, but should do more to camouflage and hide the
technical specifications of security equipment. An initial step
that the Government should take would be to insist that, as far
as possible, the outside of security equipment is standardised
and its technical specifications hidden from passengers.
44 See: "Naked Scanner in Airport Trial",
BBC News, 13 October 2009 Back
45
Ev 22 Back
46
Ev 20 Back
47
Q 80 Back
48
See: Body Scanners: X-ray or X-rated?" BBC News, 4
January 2010 Back
49
Q 80 Back
50
Q 83 Back
51
Q 83 Back
52
Q 91 Back
53
Q 88 Back
54
Q 85 Back
55
Ev 19 Back
56
Q 28 Back
57
Q 94 Back
58
Q 94 Back
| 
