Airport Security

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.