John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Transport; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I made the point inherent in the new clause on Second Reading, and although it is a probing amendment at this stage, it is slightly more than a bolt-on to the Bill. It is a very opportune amendment because of the genuine concerns that have been expressed about the expansion of airports and their security. I suspect that there will not be another civil aviation Bill for the next couple of years, so this might be our only opportunity to air those concerns properly.

The new clause would simply require all aerodrome authorities to produce at least an outline of a security plan, and to secure some form of Home Office ratification or support for it. I tabled it partly because of what I have learnt about airports in the past year or so.

To take the example of a provincial airport—I prefer not to name it at this stage, but it could be almost any provincial, non-designated airport—I   looked at who was involved in the security process. The carriers have their part to play. The airport owners have their part to play in the construction of the building and the people whom they hire for security. There are invariably immigration and customs staff; not in the same numbers as at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted or Ringway, but none the less, there is always a cohort there. There are people responsible for the security of the airport, the departure lounges, and the public areas in and around the airport. There are often additional people also contracted to look after the car parks and security, and there are often further people who are responsible for removing those who are detained by customs and immigration, often also working under contract. Additionally, there may be around the place special branch travelling in and out with particular flights. So, security for most airports is a fairly multi-textured and complex thing, and is often difficult to co-ordinate successfully.

In the airport that I studied, there were genuine disputes about demarcation. A particular case occurred where people were asked to be removed by the firm responsible for removing them—they has been detained by immigration—but the people who were asked to do that were not contracted or cleared to go to the place where those people were found. As a result, there are all kinds of unnecessary complications.

In that airport, which I subjected to some examination, people were asked by the customs and immigration people to wait—in this case people who were suspected as being involved in people-trafficking—and they simply absconded. They absconded because the accommodation provided by the airport was simply not good enough. It did not provide adequate surveillance. The people had to be left, even though they had been detained for having inadequate documentation, because another flight was coming in that needed staffing and supervising and the customs and immigration staff were not capable of doing the two jobs. They could not monitor a night flight and properly detain and interrogate people who had been kept from a previous flight at the same time.

As a result, there was a history—not a major one, but a history nevertheless—of people absconding or being allowed to go and book into a hotel, and in some cases not reappearing at all, because of shortages of security staff at the right time and in the right place.

The airport that I am talking about is not an unsophisticated one. We know that beyond the existing regional airports, there will be others that wish to expand their international traffic. I am concerned that a lack of co-ordination may be a chink in the armour. It raises concerns about terrorism, drug smuggling and people smuggling.

I have had discussions with people in the Home Office responsible for airport security, and they clearly want to improve and enhance security at regional airports. I have had contacts and discussions with private security forces that supervise airport grounds. Again, they indicate that there is a clear need for enhancement, constant vigilance and looking at new   airports when they come on-stream to see that the security arrangements are adequate for the task. There is a general feeling that more power is required.

In the particular example that I looked at, a loophole that concerned me was that people who were responsible for car park security were themselves found to be without adequate reason to be in the country; not all of them, but a few individuals, who were prosecuted. Those real concerns about what is happening, to a minor extent, or what may happen in the future, led me to believe that we ought to get our house in order. We have an obligation to have a workable system. I tried to make the new clause as sharp as I could and not put too much detail into it.

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Order. It is now 10.25, at which time I should normally adjourn the Committee. However, in accordance with Standing Order No. 88 (2)(i), in my opinion the proceedings on this Bill can be brought to a conclusion within a quarter of an hour. I am therefore deferring the adjournment of the Committee accordingly.

John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Transport; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful Mr. O’Hara. I would hate to be responsible for bringing everybody back this afternoon unnecessarily.

There is an obligation for us to have a workable system at every airport where there is international traffic. There is an obligation for airport authorities to satisfy the Home Office that such a workable system exists. Therefore, I have left within the new clause the capacity of the Home Office both to inspect an airport security scheme when presented with one and to add any necessary requirements that it considers necessary. That leaves the Home Office a wide element of discretion but I am happy to do so because security is a priority and highly confidential. One does not want to disclose this or for people to access it who have no business doing so.

Over a period of time, were this clause to be accepted, it would be possible for the Home Office to specify standards of equipment to be used for security purposes. There is much technological development at present that provides good ways of picking up all kinds of substances when brought in through an airport. The general burden of the new clause is for there to be an adequate system at every airport and for the Home Office to know that there is an adequate system. That seems a fairly minimal expectation. Although the Minister will probably not accept the new clause, I hope that she will consider how these requirements can be included in the scope of existing legislation.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

In keeping with your remarks, Mr. O’Hara, I shall be extremely brief. I have no desire to keep the Committee here this afternoon. Obviously in tabling his new clause, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) does not seriously want people to publish a strategy report, which obviously would be a disaster. I am glad to see him nodding his head. The last thing we would want is to have the strategy in the public domain. He has made several good points and I will not go over the same ground again.

The Conservative party is concerned that although there are some visible, intrusive examples around Parliament, there is a lack of co-ordination on security across the board. We often see at Heathrow the kind of exercises that take place in America, but we never see them at the small regional airports, which are much more likely victims of terrorist attacks than the more obvious ones around London. The co-ordination between the police, the fire brigade, the ambulance service, the airport authorities, the local army and reserve forces and so on can only be got to work properly with proper exercises. There are problems with security and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising them.

May I say how much I have enjoyed serving on this Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara and that of Sir Nicholas Winterton? We have had a constructive series of exchanges and have been able to agree on a large number of things and disagree on a few others.

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southport for raising this important issue. He has raised it before on Adjournment debates and on Second Reading. There are never grounds for a moment’s complacency over any of these issues. I completely accept that point. I can assure him that the Government take security at all UK airports extremely seriously and keep it under constant review. A mature and robust national aviation security programme has been in place for many years.

The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are well addressed by several key mechanisms. Hon. Members will recall Sir John Wheeler’s report following his review of airport security in 2002. One of his key recommendations was for multi-agency threat and risk assessments at airports. The process aims to secure greater collaboration between all security stakeholders, the regulatory authorities and industry to produce a multi-agency threat and risk assessment for each airport. Most airports have now produced a risk register and are moving on to the action planning stage.

In addition, aerodromes have in place aviation security committees, comprising all security stakeholders at the aerodrome including representatives from industry, the police, Revenue and Customs, the immigration service and the transport security and contingencies directorate of my Department, which is the appropriate authority for aviation security in the UK.

A trafficking toolkit is available to operational immigration staff, which provides comprehensive information that staff use in their duties. The toolkit includes information such as why trafficking happens, victims’ perspectives, the challenges ahead and strategies for the future. The immigration service continues to gather intelligence and to monitor trends and, as part of that, will evaluate the systems in place for identifying and dealing with victims or potential victims of trafficking. I mention that, given that the issues of immigration and trafficking were part of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

I should also add that in the event of a perceived breach of security at an airport, the Secretary of State retains wide powers to give directions to airports and airlines under the Aviation Security Act 1982. He can also apply sanctions in the event of non-compliance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that a series of legal requirements and mechanisms is already in place for aerodromes to tackle terrorism. I therefore hope that he will withdraw the motion and new clause.

May I also say how much I have enjoyed serving under you, Mr. O’Hara, and Sir Nicholas? The proceedings have been good natured and well informed, particularly by concern for constituents. I have learned a great deal during the Committee proceedings, which is extremely helpful. As I said at our first sitting, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred to the Bill as a paella. I believe that the Committee has added a subtle seasoning to deepen the flavour, but we have managed to resist the temptation to add any inappropriate ingredients. Having stretched the culinary analogy beyond breaking point, I shall sit down.

John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Transport; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

This has been a real feast of a debate, has it not?

I thank the Minister for a full and detailed response to my concerns. Although she is advocating a slightly more consensual model than what is in my new clause, it is probably more appropriate to pursue it as a strategy already embarked on, as long as the Home Office is properly mindful that it may need to use the reserved powers.

I thank you for chairing the Committee so effectively, Mr. O’Hara. I thank Sir Nicholas as well, and all other Members for their constructive and helpful comments. It is an non-contentious Bill, as we share many of its objectives. However, some issues remain to be sorted out, and I do not think that we have seen the last of the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

I thank the Committee for those gracious remarks, which I will pass on to Sir Nicholas. He did most of the work; my job has been simply to bring the Committee safely into landing. If we are to pursue analogies, perhaps I was the air traffic controller, and as such I thank the pilots and crews for their exemplary and professional behaviour.