House of Lords
Tuesday, 19th November 1996.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers--Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
Lord Whitty
John Lawrence Whitty, Esquire, having been created Baron Whitty, of Camberwell in the London Borough of Southwark, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Murray of Epping Forest and the Baroness Gould of Potternewton.
Baroness Byford
Dame Hazel Byford, DBE, having been created Baroness Byford, of Rothley in the County of Leicestershire, for life--Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Pike and the Baroness Miller of Hendon.
Viscount Hanworth --Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Airport Security Staff
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they are satisfied that there are adequate checks to discover whether security staff at airports have had connections with criminal or terrorist activities.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, following the passing of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act in 1990, a new and rigorous security programme was put in place in the UK. However, we are continually reviewing methods of improving security, and it was decided in August of this year that all security staff working at UK airports should be subject to formal counter-terrorist checks.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that very satisfactory reply. Have the Government had reason to suspect that convicted thieves, or friends of drug traffickers or of terrorists, have infiltrated these security services? Are not safety and reduction of crime more important than any supposed diminution of civil liberty arising from disclosure of police records or past convictions?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, of course my noble friend is quite right that safety of airports, aeroplanes and air transport is of prime importance. He also drew attention to the suspicions of infiltration of sensitive areas by known criminals. The new
arrangements are being brought in as a means of improving aviation security generally and they have not stemmed from any specific incident. The Government remain committed to a long-term process of refining and developing security procedures.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as I understand it, amendments are being tabled in connection with the Police Bill to address some of these issues? They will come before the Committee quite shortly. As it appears that the situation in this country has much improved as a result of the changes outlined by the Minister concerned recently, it is extremely important to ensure that, so far as possible, we have a harmonised approach internationally on such matters. If there is any disparity in procedures at major airports throughout the world, we shall be or are likely to be affected in this country. Are the Government taking any initiatives in the International Civil Aviation Organisation or elsewhere?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The Police Bill will bring forward the issue of the criminal records agency. However, that has nothing to do with the counter-terrorist checks that will be made by the Department of Transport. They will involve checks on criminal records and also a security service terrorist database.
The noble Lord also asked whether we were acting on an international basis. Of course, the security of airports is paramount. This country is quite justifiably regarded as taking a lead in the matter. Following the disaster at Lockerbie, Her Majesty's Government pressed the international community, through the ICAO, to adopt an eight-point plan to improve aviation security. That involves items such as baggage-passenger reconciliation, all hold baggage to be screened and also the legislation required for that purpose. We are not complacent and we look forward to reducing the security risks further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, further to that reply, will the Minister indicate what progress has been made following the post-Lockerbie initiative?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thought that I had answered that point. We have baggage-passenger reconciliation when boarding aeroplanes. There are plans for all hold baggage to be screened, and a great deal of money and research and development has gone into that. We also have the Transport Security Division, headed by a security professional with direct access to Ministers. In addition, staffing has quadrupled since Lockerbie.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Regional Airports. Can my noble friend say, in the context of his first reply to my
noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, whether security staff at the smaller regional airports will also be put through the same security checks?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, my understanding is that that is correct. However, if I am wrong I shall let my noble friend know.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the improvements which he indicated in his first reply will apply to existing security staff as well as to new applicants to the services?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, my noble friend raises an interesting point. Careful consideration has been given to whether we should make the new arrangements retrospective, but it was decided that they should apply only to new applicants.
Whitehall Buildings
3.5 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What steps they are taking to consult Parliament and the wider public about the future of the Crown estate in Whitehall.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon explained to the House on 15th October, it is for individual departments to be responsible for the future of their Whitehall buildings. It is therefore for them to inform and consult, as appropriate, about any proposals they may put forward. Those would be subject to the normal planning procedures applying to Crown buildings, including requirements for local publicity.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the future of the core Crown estate in Whitehall is rather different from the future of government buildings sold off in Newcastle, Southampton or Croydon and that they should not be treated in exactly the same way? Will the Minister give an undertaking that before further possible privatisation, either by freehold or leasehold, of Crown estate buildings in the Whitehall area proceeds further, this House and the other place should be consulted, preferably in written form?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that where listed buildings are involved there are sensitivities. As I am sure he is aware, all government buildings on Whitehall are listed either as Grade II, Grade II* or Grade I. There are, therefore, procedures to be adhered to which would not apply to unlisted buildings.
As to the second question, I believe that I can reassure the noble Lord that the public consultation that takes place on such proposals is exactly the same as it would
be if the Crown were subject to statutory procedures. The procedures that the Crown has elected to go through do not differ in any respect from the statutory procedures. That entails consulting all formal consultees, including English Heritage. In the end, any proposals for government buildings are subject to endorsement by Ministers and Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their actions.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what is to be the future of the Treasury building? Is it proposed to sell it off? Is he aware that the evasive answers given the last time the matter came up have given cause for great concern?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the Treasury announced on 13th September, it has appointed Exchequer Partnership plc to redevelop its headquarters building in Whitehall. Following completion of the necessary clarification process, the Treasury aims to sign heads of terms with Exchequer Partnership shortly. A further announcement will be made then. Any public consultation will, after that point, be a matter for the local planning authority, as I explained.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Earl say when the Government will stop touting around parts of our national heritage like some bucket shop estate agent, especially at a moment when our economy is booming with the unexpected extra tax revenue? Have the Government no shame at all in the matter?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, will accept that the Government have a duty to maintain their buildings and to occupy them in an efficient manner. Where it is necessary to spend substantial sums of money on a particular building, the Government have a duty to examine and assess those options which seem likely to provide good value for money for the taxpayer. That is all we are talking about here.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page