Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Nigel Mills and Lord Walney

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend has a lot of experience in this matter. One issue that the Government have not yet set out—and if they do not accept the new clause, they might not be required to do so before the House—is how the changes they seek to implement will not lead to increased fragmentation and a potentially less effective system as well as a more burdensome one for passengers.

[Nigel Mills]

But would the hon. Gentleman not accept that having every airport doing exactly the same thing all the time might be quite risky and that we might be better off having airports doing things a little differently, using different processes and techniques, which would make it harder for people trying to break the system to know exactly what they will be subjected to?

[John Woodcock]

As I have said, we have not set our face against the idea of a risk-based approach, but the Government have not yet done enough to set out how it would work in practice or how it would fit in with a potentially conflicting or contradictory approach from Europe. Ministers are not saying that they want to move to this approach now; they say they want the freedom to do so at some point in the future. At this stage, we do not know what the regime emanating from Europe will be. If the Government seek to press ahead with such a move, it is right to debate and scrutinise it at the time it comes into force when we should know what the European regime is likely to be. That is better than its going forward without scrutiny, which has been the position up to now. I hope that the Minister will seek to change what has been her preferred option.

Those who seek to disrupt, maim and kill users of air transport and innocent people on the ground are constantly testing the defences that the country has put up. That is why we need Ministers to explain to this House the basis for their confidence in individual airports’ ability to assess and counteract risks adequately. In moving away from the current one-size-fits-all approach to security, we cannot permit there to develop a soft underbelly of smaller airports, where defences are lowered because they self-assess their risk to be low. Those intent on doing us harm will always look for opportunities. We currently see that on our television screens daily in the testimony from Oslo. We know from bitter experience that Britain is a nation with a heightened risk of terrorist attack. There can be no grounds for complacency, and I know the Minister agrees.

We also need real consideration of the ability of a risk-based system to implement the necessary response to specific and sudden threats, such as the example of the liquid bomb plot in the summer of 2006. The discovery of this credible threat led Ministers to take the decision to ban liquids, and for a while most hand luggage, from flights to and from the UK. There is no suggestion that Ministers would lose the ability to take such steps in an emergency if they considered that to be necessary, but questions do arise about whether the ability of airports to carry out such emergency procedures might be hindered by their abandonment of uniform security provision. If each of more than 60 airports in the UK operates its own security regime, how straightforward will it be to ensure that emergency measures are adopted with uniformity, rigour and speed should circumstances render that appropriate?

Major changes in aviation security policy cannot be undertaken lightly. I know that the Minister will cite the broad support of airlines and airports for the proposed shift, but it would be wrong if this were Parliament’s only opportunity to debate such a major change in the context of an Opposition amendment, and to seek ministerial assurances.

The Minister will, I am sure, agree that cost and the principle of lessening regulation are not in themselves sufficient justifications for a root-and-branch reform of aviation security. The public rightly expect their elected representatives to maintain their security and safety in the skies. Ministers are proposing not a mere technical change, but a major overhaul. New clause 3 would require them to explain their proposals to both Houses, and to secure approval for a change when they wish to make it. I urge Members to support this extra safeguard.

I want to say a little about amendment 11. The subject of ensuring the dignity of passengers with specific religious clothing requirements was touched on in Committee, and I am pleased that we have an opportunity to debate improvements now. I am well aware that the subject has been of particular concern to the Sikh community, and that Members on both sides of the House have pushed for guarantees of better treatment for their constituents. I am particularly grateful for the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) have pursued the issue in recent months.

Aviation security is always paramount, and we make that clear in the amendment, but we believe that it is possible for a rigorous security regime to exist alongside dignity for passengers with specific religious clothing requirements. The way in which security staff treat the Sikh turban is a particularly good example. In 2010, the European Commission introduced requirements for religious headwear to be subject to manual searches. It has been suggested that, given that the UK is the only EU member state with a substantial Sikh community, Europe failed to understand the specific sensitivities of the turban: that it should not be touched by another person, and that its removal should not be required.

The UK reached an agreement with the Commission enabling airports to opt into a trial allowing the swabbing of turbans for explosive residues, a compromise that was broadly welcomed by the Sikh community. However, a number of UK airports have chosen not to opt into the trial, which has caused significant distress and anger among Sikhs. We want to see a more consistent approach which would ensure that people with specific religious requirements, whatever their faith, are treated with dignity.