New Government

On 6th May 2010 there was a general election which resulted in a new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government. All references to the Government on this page in relation to happenings before 6th May 2010 are references to the previous Labour Government first elected in 1997.

For more information see our Other UK Airport Issues page. As mentioned there the detail of the policy of the new Government towards aviation and airports remains to be seen but some idea of the direction of future policy can be gained from the note issued on 11th May 2010 of the agreements reached by the two parties in their coalition discussions and in the new Government's subsequent programme document The Coalition: our programme for government:.

As mentioned below in its programme document the new Government says is supports E-Borders and will reintroduce exit checks. It will also create a dedicated Border Police Force, as part of a refocused Serious Organised Crime Agency, to enhance national security, improve immigration controls and crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs.And they say they will work with police forces to strengthen arrangements to deal with serious crime and other cross-boundary policing challenges, and extend collaboration between forces to deliver better value for money.

Attached is the text of a speech made by Philip Hammond, Secertary of State for Transport, to the Airport Operators Association on 25 October 2010. On Page 6 he speaks about airport security. It will be noted that the Government believes this is and will remain a continuing challenge to the industry and the delivery of effective aviation security "must be at the heart of the aviation policy debate". Mr Hammond went on that having listened to the industry's concerns he intended to develop a new regulatory system - one where the Government concentrates on setting the security outcomes which need to be achieved thus freeing-up operators to devise the security processes needed to deliver them in line with EU requirements.  Further announcements, he said, would follow.  Meanwhile he confirmed that the Government's plans to extend the “user pays” principle will shift costs and responsibility for certain activities - sometimes to the independent regulator; sometimes to the industry itself.

Top of Page

Review Airport Security

On 14th July 2011 the Government launched a consultation on modernising the way the UK regulate aviation security. The new proposals are to be found in teh Government's publication Better regulation in aviation security. The planned new regime involves an outcome focused, risk-based approach to regulation "which builds on the successful and similar approach to aviation safety".

The consultation documents can be found on the Department's website :

• Better Regulation in aviation security - consultation document - http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-21
• Written Ministerial Statement - http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/hammond-20110714

The consultation closes on 7th November 2011. Details of how to respond can be found in the consultation document. The Department is encourageing stakeholders to respond to the consultation using the Department's online response form which can be found at https://consultation.dft.gov.uk/dft/dft-2011-21/

Top of Page

Working Together

In 2002 Sir John Wheeler published his Review of Airport Security. His findings and recommendations were accepted by the Government and work has been going on to implement them.

Among the recommendations was greater joint working between all security stakeholders including both the regulatory authorities and the industry. Working together he felt they could produce the most accurate assessments of the threats to airports from crime and terrorism; identify any gaps and overlaps in the existing security regimes; and plan for management of the risks involved.

Following trials at Heathrow, Birmingham, East Midlands, Newcastle and Glasgow the MATRA (Multi Agency Threat and Risk Assessment) concept was rolled out across the country in 2003. Very simply the aim is to arrive at a security plan which is jointly-owned and which can be routinely revisited to take into account future developments. These could be a change in the type, volume or profile of services operating at that airport, or responding to new or differing crime trends or threat intelligence.

However, in November 2005 the Government announced it had decided to amend the Civil Aviation Bill then before Parliament to clarify the responsibilities of airport managers and police in relation to the protection and policing of airports that have been designated by the Secretary of State under section 25 of the Aviation Security Act 1982. There are currently nine airports designated for policing purposes - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. The primary responsibility for policing activity at these airports lies with the Chief Constable and the airport manager must make such payments in respect of policing the airport as the manager and the relevant authority may agree. If they cannot agree, the Secretary of State may be required to determine the amount to be paid to the police by the airport manager (section 26(3)).

The Secretary of State said it had become clear that the relationship between the responsibilities of airport managers, aircraft operators and others carrying out security activities directed by the Secretary of State under Part 2 of the Act (sections 10 to 24) and of the Chief Constable whose officers police a designated airport under Part 3 (sections 25 to 31) is uncertain and also that the scope of the Secretary of State's power under section 26(3) of the Act is unclear. Given the importance of this issue to the UK's aviation security programme the Government had decided to use the Civil Aviation Bill to seek to amend the Act, to clarify the relationship between the activities of the airport manager and other directed parties at an airport, and policing activities in order to prevent disputes on this point and to provide a more independent method for settling any disputes that may arise in future. The aim of the amendment was to acknowledge that designated airports require both directed parties and police to perform activities, but that in making policing decisions the Chief Constable should be aware of the role of the directed parties and deploy his resources so that they complement those of the directed parties.

The Bill finally received Royal Assent on 8th November 2006 and the changes to the 1982 Act have taken effect. The Act also made provision for Police Services Agreements at designated airports. It is understood that new agreements have since been entered into for the policing of Heathrow London Gatwick and Stansted airports

Top of Page

Review of Airport Policing

In its November 2005 announcement the Government also said it had decided to commission an independent, wide-ranging review of policing at airports. The review aimed to identify a sustainable approach to the policing of airports which takes account of the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in protecting an airport and in particular addresses the need for funding arrangements that are objective and transparent. The review was asked to compare the present method of policing airports with that of other modes of transport to establish any differences or similarities in policing approaches, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities that may apply. The review also considered whether the principle of designation could be made to work. If not, the review was asked to propose alternative options.

The report of the Review Team was submitted to the Department for Transport in July 2006. For security reasons was not published but some aspects of what it says are contained in a statement by the Secretary of State. A follow-up statement was promised and this was received by Parliament on 14th June 2007. The statement concluded:

"Two key areas of work have been identified to be tackled nationally:

"Firstly, MATRA remains strongly recommended best practice for all airports. We maintain that such joint agency consideration of threat and risk should be the cornerstone for current and future security activity at airports. BAA and the Metropolitan Police Authority are working together at Heathrow Airport to enhance their MATRA and to develop a shared multi-agency airport security plan. More generally for all airports, work is already underway to deliver national threat assessments to airports so that all suitably security cleared MATRA members can evaluate the security situation from the same knowledge basis. It is acknowledged by all stakeholders that an enhanced MATRA process may identify improved options for tackling particular security issues. Some of these may need to be delivered by the police but it is recognised that a dedicated and permanent police presence may not be required at some airports.

"Secondly, existing legislation is being reviewed to clarify the current responsibilities of stakeholders for security at airports to assist in resolving areas of disagreement. We are taking that work forward as quickly as possible with the agencies concerned.

"Separately, complementary legislation has been introduced requiring aerodrome managers and police at designated airports to agree necessary dedicated policing resources and to clarify what the cost to the aerodrome manager should be. This is then set out in a Police Services Agreement (PSA). Some airports already have, or have had, service level agreements in place and it may be deemed by the parties to them that they remain fit for purpose and contain the requisite information to comply with the Civil Aviation Act 2006. 

"All this work is being drawn together to clarify the security responsibilities of all stakeholders at all airports and create the clear and transparent funding process recommended by the Review. No legislative changes can be made until that work is complete but we are working to identify a suitable parliamentary opportunity for this.

" Although the Review did not focus on airport security, it was an examination of a key element in the protection of our airports against a range of threats. It is naturally not a report for public disclosure, however I will make another statement providing further updates in due course."

Many of the issues identfied by the Review were resolved in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 w

Top of Page

Policing and Crime Act 2009

The Policing and Crime Act 2009 received the Royal Assent in November 2009 - see Home Office press release. Among other things this Act establishes new arrangements for airport security on the lines recommended by the Review  The two main objectives are to:

• ensure that the majority of airports in the UK agree a local airport security plan with their key stakeholders, based upon an agreed multi-agency threat and risk analysis; and
• ensure that, where it is agreed under the terms of an airport security plan that a dedicated policing presence is required at an airport, the airport operator will make payments in respect of the dedicated policing services provided.

Those parts of this Act dealing with Airport Security came into force in January 2010.  There is a very useful guide to the new Airport Security Framework on the DfT's website. Readers will see that the new arrangements provide for the setting up of a Security Executive Group (SEG) made up of representatives of the various agencies at the airport with an interest in airport security,  for the drawing up of an Airport Security Plan (ASP) by the SEG and, where the ASP identifies a policing requirement, for the drawing up of a Police Services Agreement (PSA) setting out the level of policing required and how much the airport operator will pay for policing services.  Throughout 2010/2011 all airports, not just those previously designated for the purpose, will have been working their way through these various steps.  The various agreements are subject to regular review. To access the consultation papers visit the Department's website.

Top of Page

Airport Security - Funding

The new Act when it is brought into force will allow the cost of the policing element of the airport security plan to be charged to the airport operator. In the UK this will resolve the question of who should pay for the policing of airports which has been a matter of discussion for some time.

The inequities in the funding of airport policing in the UK was among the issues addressed by the 2002 Wheeler Review. As mentioned above at airports designated for policing purposes under the 1982 Act the airport operator is required to make payments to the police authority in respect of their policing, as agreed between the two parties. At other airports the cost of policing is normally met by the police authority. Sir John felt that a new process of designation should be developed, founded on national criteria and agreed local multi-agency risk assessments. At the time the Government said it accepted this recommendation in principle. But the 2006 Review of Airport Policing recommended that the system of "designation" should be "discontinued and that policing costs should generally be met by the industry on the basis that policing forms part of an agreed airport "community" response, that costs are clear and transparent, and that policing at airports is brought within the mainstream policing agenda". In its January 2009 response to the consultation on the proposed Policing and Crime Bill (see above) the Government said "meeting security costs, whether for the requirements set out in the NASP or for policing, is a part of running an airport business and has to be built into business planning. There will be specific counter terrorist police activities that industry will not pay for and we will be explicit about this in our guidance".

Within the EU there has for some time been concern that Regulation (EC) 2320/2002 lacks any clear policy as to the financing of the additional security. This prompted the Commission to employ the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) to carry out a study to gain a clear picture of the various security systems across and within EU Member States, and to investigate the funding of civil aviation security. The IAA's Report, expected in 2003, did not emerge until the end of 2004 and it was not until August 2006 that the Commission finally responded via a Report to the EC Council (COM 2006/431) This said that security costs in transport can be significant and that currently they are largely borne by users. The report gives some insight into the different financing mechanisms which exist in the Member States and warns that the heterogeneity of approach may distort competition. It concludes that more transparency of security taxes and charges would benefit the users of transport services and that, in general, public funding of anti-terrorist measures in transport does not constitute state aid “as it is connected with the exercise of powers that are typically those of a public authority”.

The Directive on Airport Charges 2009/12 provides that the security charges made by airports should be used exclusively to meet their security costs, including the cost of financing necessary security facilities and installations, and expenditure on security staff and operations. There is more information about the the Airport Charges Directive on our Euro Roundup Page.

There is also a proposal issued by the Commission in May 2009 for a Directive on aviation security charges in Europe. The aims are to ensure transparency, non-discrimination and consultation of airlines when fixing the level of charges, as well as the cost-relatedness of security charges. It also proposes to establish an independent supervisory authority in each Member State - for full details see the EC report which accompanied the proposal and the EC Press Release. On 21 July 2009, the Department for Transport launched a consultation on the Commission’s proposed directive. The primary purpose of the consultation was to help inform the UK’s negotiating position during working groups of the Council of the European Union held in the Autumn of 2009. The deadline for responses was 25 September 2009 and the Government's response was published in January 2010.

Meanwhile there is also growing concern among airports about the increased cost of security which are said to have risen by more than 150% since new security measures were brought in after the 11 September attacks in 2001. Security costs are now said to account now for a quarter of the income of major airports.

Top of Page

Full Body Scanners

On 1st February 2010 the Government announced the initial deployment of security scanners at Heathrow and Manchester airports. This was part of a package of measures announced as a direct response to the attempted attack on Northwest flight 253 to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.

The Government said that the device used on that flight had clearly been constructed with the aim of making detection by existing screening methods extremely difficult. In making that announcement the Government published an interim code of practice but a commitment was given to consult on the interim Code of Practice with a view to producing a final Code to underpin a further rollout of security scanners across the UK. This would provide an opportunity to air concerns which had been expressed about privacy, health and safety, equality and data protection.

The code of practice is part of a Direction issued to aerodrome managers under the Aviation Security Act 1982 which requires security scanners to be deployed at specified airports. Where security scanners are required to be deployed, airport operators must ensure that the measures specified in the Code are adopted. The Direction also requires security scanners to be operated in accordance with detailed protocols which include security sensitive information on the operation of security scanners such as selection criteria for those to be scanned.

There are different types of body scanners but in general they emit radio waves over the body. A three dimensional image is created by measuring the heat reflected from the person. The body scanners can penetrate clothing and are designed to be an upgrade to the usual body “pat down”. The scans do blur out faces but the image does reveal the naked body.

There are no full body scanners in use yet at airports other than Heathrow and Manchester but it looks likely that the scanners will be rolled out across UK airports throughout 2010. Their use at Heathrow and Manchester airports, and in the USA, has already given rise to considerable controversy in terms of privacy and civil rights and in relation to the legality of using them to scan children.

At the end of March 2010 the Government launched the promised consultation in relation to a draft of the code of practice in its final form. The closing date for comments is 21st June 2010. In drawing up the code the Government tried to address many of the concerns about the use of body scanners. For many people in society security scanners offer a less intrusive process than a hand search as there is no physical contact needed during the scanning process. The consultation paper says that the vast majority of people screened in previous trials have been content with the process. Indeed a survey widely reported in the press in April 2010 found that as many as 90 per cent of the public in the UK are happy to use the new full-body scanners at airports. The survey found that acceptance is far higher in Britain than in any of the 11 other countries covered by the survey of 10,000 people by the IT company Unisys. As many as one in three people in Germany and Belgium said they would object to the scans.

The Human Rights Act states that any infringement to the right of privacy must be necessary and proportionate. The Government says that security scanners are being deployed in the interests of protecting national security, public safety and the prevention and detection of crime and that this justifies the use of scanners. However, some believe that the fact that passengers are not being offered alternative search methods might be seen as an infringement of privacy.

The Code says that passengers must not be selected on a basis that may constitute discrimination such as ethnic origin, gender, age or race. And the Government believes if the data and privacy controls in the Code are fully and properly implemented the use of security scanners will comply with the Data Protection Act 1998.

As regards risks to health, the Government points to the results of an independent assessment of the risks from the effects of body scanners. The assessment, which compared the risk from body scanners to other everyday risks, found that the use of body scanners is a negligible risk to health from exposure to ionising radiation. But the draft Code requires the airport operator to ensure that all appropriate local risk assessments have been conducted for the type of body scanners being deployed and that the equipment conforms to all relevant health and safety requirements. It also requires that before the deployment of body scanners which produce ionising radiation a measure of the ambient radiation dosage and the effective dose that a passenger receives when being scanned must be conducted by qualified people.

According to a BBC report at the beginning of April 2011 scientists in California calculate the scanners contribute under 1% of radiation people are exposed to during a flight. Even the most frequent flyers who clock up 60 hours a week in the air will face only a minute increase in cancer risk and the threat to children is also very low.  Manchester Airport, which has full body scanners at all three of its terminals,  believes the US findings should help reassure its passengers. The Airport says that acceptability levels among its passengers are extremely high. Since February 2010 when the scans became compulsory the Airport has had only nine refusals. And only one of those was health-related.

In their March 2010 report on counter terrorism measure at British airports the Commons Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons comment on the use of body scanners and a range of other matters 

Meanwhile doubts have already been expressed about the efficacy of the scanners in the fight against terrorism. For example, it is understood that these machines only help in detecting explosives concealed on the body but not explosives concealed in the body. The question arises whether the increased use of sniffer dogs would be more effective, as well as effective passenger profiling.

Top of Page

Sniffer Dogs

Among the measures announced by the Government following the attack at Detroit was the use of more sniffer dogs. Specially trained dogs can be used to detect explosives using their noses which are very sensitive to scents. While very effective, their usefulness becomes degraded as a dog becomes tired or bored and it is said to be a very expensive option.

Top of Page

Explosive Trace Detection Equipment

Another measure announced by the Government was the introduction at all UK airports by the end of the year of explosive trace detection equipment. 

Explosive detection, already in use many airports in the US, is a non-destructive inspection process to determine whether something in a passenger’s luggage contains explosive material. Most explosives are not water soluble, and it is very hard to get rid of traces on the hands even after washing with water and soap. Explosive traces can be found on undisturbed objects even months after the actual explosive has been removed. Several types of machines have been developed to detect trace signatures for various explosive materials. The most common technology, as seen in US airports, is ion mobility spectrometry (IMS).

Top of Page

Passenger Profiling

The possibility of using targeted passenger profiling is also being examined. This would see certain travellers designated for more rigorous security checks before a flight. People behaving suspiciously or with an unusual travel pattern could be selected but racial or religious factors may also form part of the criteria and it is said that this might give rise to resentment.  The idea is, therefore, controversial.

 The BAA has already started training airport security staff in 'behavioural analysis techniques'. This is aimed at helping them to spot passengers acting unusually and target them for additional search.

Top of Page

Criminal Record Checks

At its annual meeting at Stansted in 2007 the Liaison Group heard about the correspondence between the Manchester Airport Consultative Committee and the Department for Transport about the difficulty the Airport company was experiencing in obtaining correct and complete criminal history checks from abroad for foreign nationals. The matter was again considered at the Liaison Group's annual meetings at Heathrow in 2008 and Belfast in 2009.

The Group is concerned that there appears to be a disparity between UK and foreign applicants in that British citizens seem to undergo a more stringent vetting process. The Liaison Group considers that any person working airside should have to undergo the same stringent checks. Attached is a copy of letter sent to the Department expressing concern about the inconsistency of arrangements as well as a copy their reply.

On 11th February 2009 the Department for Transport launched a consultation seeking views on proposals to implement overseas criminal record checks for certain transport posts.The consultation documents can be seen on the Department’s website. The proposals for consultation are a response to a recent independent review of personnel security in the transport sector which recommended that checks of overseas criminal records should be introduced where where such checks of UK records are required. The closing date for comments was 29 May 2009

In July 2009 Ministers announced they had decided that there was clear support for the proposal to introduce overseas criminal record checks to new staff in posts subject to National Security Vetting (NSV) as set out in option 4 in the consultation. They would introduce this in stages and by mode of transport, starting with aviation where it would apply to staff appointed on or after 31 August 2009. As of that date all staff who enter a post which is subject to NSV, and who have had a period of continuous residency outside of the UK for 6 months or more within the immediately preceding 5 years, would be subject to a check of criminal record information in respect of each relevant country..

Top of Page

UK Identity Cards

It was announced in March 2008 that the Government’s planned scheme for ID Cards would begin in November 2008 with introduction of identity cards for non-EEA foreign nationals starting with those categories most at risk of abuse, including foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the UK as a student or on a marriage visa. Then, starting in the second half of 2009, the scheme would be extended to UK citizens with the first ID cards being issued to people working in specific sensitive roles or locations where verification of identity will enhance the protection of the public. The announcement said the first cards would be issued to those working airside in the country's airports. The first such cards would be issued at London City and Manchester Airports. This would be in the nature of a trial which, if successful, would lead on to the issue of ID cards to airside employees at other airports.

This focus on airports gave rise to a a good deal of consternation. The Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee expressed its disquiet while BALPA, which represents British pilots, wrote to Manchester and London City airports warning that pilots would not cooperate with the introduction of the ID cards. But in June 2009 the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, dropped the plan to make ID cards compulsory for pilots and airside workers at these two airports and the cards are now being issued on a voluntry basis.

In its coalition statement of 11th May 2010 - see section 10 on Civil Liberties - the new Government says it will scrap the ID card scheme along with the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.

Top of Page

E-Borders

According to United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) the aim of the e-Borders programme is “to transform our border control to ensure greater security, effectiveness, and efficiency”. To do this they will make full use of the latest electronic technology to provide a way of collecting and analysing information on everyone who travels to or from the United Kingdom. Other technologies, particularly biometrics, will ensure UKBA identify people securely and effectively.

The operational hub of e-Borders is the National Border Targeting Centre (NBTC) at Manchester which replaced the smaller joint border operations unit at Heathrow. At the new Centre, multi-agency teams from UKBA, the police and Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) work together to screen data on passengers and crew entering or leaving the country against watchlists to allow them to identify potential risks and issue alerts to frontline border officers and police and so help to create a more secure border.

UKBA is responsible for delivering the e-Borders programme with the support of the police and HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). They are also, they say, working closely with the travel industry whose support is crucial to the programme's success.

The e-Borders programme has already delivered three pilot projects.

• Semaphore has enabled UKBA to test the e-Borders programme, ensuring carriers provide information on selected routes, and providing border agencies with detailed information about passengers who are a potential risk.
• The multi-agency National Border Targeting Centre (NBTC).  As mentioned above the NBTC collects and analyses passenger information and provides border agencies with an alert on which they can act. It is claimed that this has already led to significant operational successes.
• The Iris Recognition Immigration System (IRIS) is a biometric entry system, which recognises the unique iris patterns of a person's eye to allow quick, automated entry for pre-registered passengers at selected ports in the United Kingdom. 

According to a Sky News report in March 2009 e-Borders has to date checked 156 million passengers leading to over 5,400 arrests for crimes including rape, murder and violent assault against the person.  The last Government believed that the e-Borders scheme would monitor 95% of passenger movements by end of 2010. 

The previous Government presented the system as necessary for countering terrorism and serious organised crime but many think it could very easily be extended to cover all crime or all suspected crime however minor.   In any event the shift from "targeting" suspected individuals to placing everyone's movements under surveillance raises all kinds of privacy and data protection issues.

The scheme continues to be controversial.  According to a press report in May 1010 the police last year investigated the travel habits, family, friends and backgrounds of 47,000 innocent people last year after they bought plane tickets to fly into and out of Britain. Checks included scrutiny of the police national computer, financial records and analysis of ‘known associates’ before people were cleared for travel. But it is understood the £1.2billion system has never led to the arrest of a terrorist  and that police now use it to target ‘sex offenders and football hooligans’.

The scheme has run into other troubles. One of these surfaced when the previous Government announced that the same rules would apply to all international passengers, arriving by all carriers. This soon stirred up opposition in Europe not least among rail and ferry operators, ex-pats living in other EU countries and recreational sailors not many of whom were willing or able to give 24 hours notice of international travel. And the scheme also ran into problems over the UK's land border with Ireland when in order to preserve the common travel area between the two countries, the government had to propose formal border checks on flights and ferries between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Because it is intended that the scheme should apply to travel within the EU it seems that the European Commission soon found itself involved in the controversy. They ruled latein 2009 that passengers within the EU could not be forced to give advance details and any such scheme within EU borders would have to operate on a voluntary basis. The UK Government did not believe its scheme breached EU law and was determined to press ahead.  It is understood that talks with the EC are in progress.

The other problem is securing the cooperation of travel operators.  The same Sky News item referred to above quoted the Chamber of Shipping (which represents the ferry companies who carry more than 20 million passengers in and out of UK ports each year) as saying the current system would cause enormous disruption for ferry passengers: "The e-Borders system as the Government has proposed it offers the nasty prospect of extra hassle and extra cost to passengers, for no benefit whatsoever."  Of the programme for implementation the Chamber said: "There's no prospect at all of that happening within the timescale that the Government has suggested. They have suggested that it will happen by the end of this year. It won't."

In its programme document The Coalition: our programme for government the new Government says is supports E-Borders and will reintroduce exit checks. It will also create a dedicated Border Police Force, as part of a refocused Serious Organised Crime Agency, to enhance national security, improve immigration controls and crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs.They say they will work with police forces to strengthen arrangements to deal with serious crime and other cross-boundary policing challenges, and extend collaboration between forces to deliver better value for money.

Top of Page

Iris Recognition Immigration System (IRIS)

This new system, introduced at Heathrow as a pilot project during 2005, now also operates at:

• all five Heathrow terminals;
• Manchester terminals 1 and 2;
• Birmingham terminal 1; and
• Gatwick North and South terminals.

IRIS is a means of border control which allows registered passengers to enter the UK quickly through automated barriers. It makes use of the fact that the pattern of the iris in each person's eye (the coloured part of the eye) is unique. This makes it possible for a person to be identified simply by looking into a special camera.

The IRIS system uses a photograph of the iris pattern, converts it into a digital code and then compares it with others stored in a secure database. If it matches the captured iris pattern with the corresponding one on the database and the registration is still valid, that person can enter the UK by passing through the IRIS barrier in the immigration arrival hall.The system is said to be a fast, secure and fraud-resistant way to check a person's identity

It usually takes between 5 and 10 minutes to register for IRIS. A registered traveller entering the UK can cross an IRIS barrier in about 20 seconds.

There have been complaints that the enrolment facilities are not open often enough, and/or for long enough, and that the equipment is not very reliable.

There is more information about the scheme on the Borders and Immigration Agency website.

Top of Page

Lifting the Restrictions on Liquids

Where a passenger needs certain liquids during the flight, he or she can take them into the cabin in limited quantities as follows:

• containers must hold no more than 100ml
• containers must be carried in a single, transparent, re-sealable plastic bag, which holds no more than a litre and measures approximately 20cm x 20cm
• contents must fit comfortably inside the bag so it can be sealed
• the bag must not be knotted or tied at the top
• each passenger can carry only one of these bags
• the bag must be presented for examination at the airport security point

Containers larger than 100ml (excluding essential medicines) will not be allowed through the security point even if they are only part full. These restriction on liquids in hand baggage still gives rise to huge confusion among passengers and large quantities of these fluids are confiscated at airports every day.

Regulation (EC) 300/2008, which took full effect on 29th April 2010, sets a clear deadline for the lifting of the current restrictions on the carriage of liquids in cabin baggage – new screening equipment for liquids must in use at all airports across Europe by April 2013. According to the EC timetable on 29 April 2011 passengers on long-haul flights from outside the European Union would have been allowed to carry duty-free liquids on to connecting flights at EU airports. However according to press reports some  airlines and airport groups were apparently concerned that the proposal might lead to delays because some airport terminals might not have adequate screening equipment and that some countries such as France and Italy were considering ignoring the 29 April deadline. These reports noted also that in the UK the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond,  had told UK airport owners that the first phase in lifting restrictions would not go ahead in the UK as planned on 29 April. In a letter to airport owners the Secretary of State cites security concerns as the reason for the delay. A government source is reported to have said: "The EU regulation will still come into force but, because of current security conditions, we are imposing stricter measures that mean, effectively, there will be no change." The new UK security measures are expected to remain in place for at least six months.

Top of Page

Commons Home Affairs Committee - Report on Airport Security

In March 2009 the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons published its report Counter–Terrorism Measures in British Airports (.pdf - 1.16mb) which is critical of a number of aspects of Government policy and practice in airport security.

The key points are described in the report as:

• A full-body scanner of the type being deployed in UK airports costs around £100,000.
• While the introduction of body scanners is a welcome development in airport security, the Government should place greater emphasis on varying the security measures in place rather than relying on one make or model.
• There is a danger that by adopting “proportionate measures” the Government adopts a too reactive stance on the issue of airport security.
• The Government should mandate universal behavioural training for all airport security staff at UK airports.
• The Government should be more willing to refuse direct flights from countries not meeting tougher international security standards and should provide more equipment and training to airports across the globe.
• Privacy concerns should not prevent the deployment of scanners; reports of such concerns are overstated.
• “Transec” which is currently based in the Department for Transport should become the responsibility of the Home Office through the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism.
Top of Page

 

Aviation Security - the European Dimension

Common Rules across Europe

Following the attacks in the US on 11th September 2001 the EU passed Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of 16 December 2002 which established common rules for civil aviation security. This was followed by a series of implementing Regulations drawn up under the auspices of the Aviation Security Regulatory Committee (AVSEC) set up under the 2002 regulation to “ensure technical adoption of the Annex to Regulation 2320/2002 and development of the necessary implementation tools”. These Regulations covered such matters as quality control, inspections and defining the parts of Airports restricted for security purposes. While these are in some respects more stringent than those previously applied in a number of Member States, they are lower than those already applied in the UK.

In September 2005 the Commission issued a press release saying that it proposed to strengthen the common air security rules. The release says the proposal follows on from the Commission’s annual report on the implementation of the 2002 Regulation, which draws conclusions from the inspections carried out by the Commission since February 2004. Subsequently the Commission published draft Regulation (COM 2005/429) - which would replace Regulation (EC) 2320/2002. This was finally approved as Regulation (EC) 300/2008 of 11 March 2008 which took full effect on 29th April 2010 - see EC Press Release. The new rules put in place a series of measures to improve, streamline and simplify existing procedures. The EC press release cites by way of example:

• eliminating duplication of security controls. For example, reducing costly duplication of checks in strictly controlled areas of EU airports, where there has already been strict screening for access. This is of significant operational benefit for airlines and airports.
• simplifying procedures. For example, by establishing a single set of standards for the documents you need to get access at airports. The new rules clarify which kinds of identification and authorisations are necessary for access to different restricted areas. This clarifies the situation for authorities making it easier for them to operate the system.
• harmonising procedures. For example, introducing EU-wide procedures for the recognition of hauliers transporting air cargo consignments. These can be recognised and used by hauliers in all Member States – this reduces restrictions for hauliers and the need for costly re-screening of cargo.

• introducing common minimum standards as regards security training for all staff that implement security controls.

The new EU framework allows for the recognition of equivalence of security measures of third countries, which can open the door to the establishment of one-stop security arrangements between the EU and non-EU countries. One benefit of such a one-stop security system is that passengers arriving at EU airports and transferring to other destinations would no longer need to be re-screened, thus allowing for faster connection times, lower costs and greater convenience for travellers.

On 20 August 2008, the European Commission followed up with a new aviation security regulation which lays down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards in aviation security (Regulation 820/2008).

Top of Page

Security Costs

Regulation (EC) 2320/2002 was seen by parts of the aviation industry as lacking any clear policy as to the financing of the additional security. Because the Rgulation was a technical regulation the Commission had no vires to determine how Member States finance their compliance with it. However, at the request of the European Parliament, the Commission commissioned the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) to carry out an urgent study to gain a clear picture of the various security systems across and within EU Member States, and to investigate the funding of civil aviation security which is known to be an uneven playing field. The IAA report, originally expected in September 2003, was finally made available at the end of 2004 and the Commission issued a Report to the EC Council (COM 2006/431) on the matter in August 2006. This said that security costs in transport can be significant and are currently largely borne by users. The report gives some insight into the different financing mechanisms which exist in the Member States and warns that the heterogeneity of approach may distort competition. It concludes that more transparency of security taxes and charges would benefit the users of transport services and that, in general, public funding of anti-terrorist measures in transport does not constitute state aid.

An earlier study by ACI Europe indicates how the responsibility for security measures differs from country to country, and within any given country, from airport to airport. The study also shows that security measures are mostly financed directly by the airport operator and that there is a clear disparity in the funding of additional post-11 September security measures among airport operators, governments and airlines. The study, says ACI, highlights “the need for governments to address, as a matter of urgency, their responsibility for harmonising and financing European civil aviation security”. For more information see ACI Europe‘s press releases of 6/11/02ACI Europe Press Release, 27/11/03ACI Europe Press Release, 26/02/04ACI Europe Press Release and 9/12/04ACI Europe Press Release . See also their reaction to the EC's August 2006 Report.

On 11 May 2009 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive (COM 2009/30) on aviation security charges in Europe. The aims are to ensure transparency, non-discrimination and consultation of airlines when fixing the level of charges, as well as the cost-relatedness of security charges. It also proposes to establish an independent supervisory authority in each Member State - for full details see the EC report which acompanied the proposal and the EC Press Release.

On 21 July 2009, the Department for Transport launched a consultation on the Commission’s proposed directive. The primary purpose of the consultation was to help inform the UK’s negotiating position during working groups of the Council of the European Union held in the Autumn of 2009. The deadline for responses was 25 September 2009 and the Government's response was published in January 2010.

Top of Page

Passenger Name Record (PNR)

This proposal for a Council framework decision, adopted on 6th November 2007, suggests that air carriers should make available Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for flights entering or departing from the EU to a Passenger Information Unit which will be designated in each Member State. The proposal is made in the context of the fight against terrorism and transnational organised crime.

The data will be processed for the purpose of carrying out a risk assessment of the threat level of unknown passengers. Thus, the competent authorities of the Member States will receive the data in electronic form and well in advance of a flight's arrival.

Arrangements for the transmission of PNR data have been concluded with the United States and Canada. The EC believes it can be anticipated that more third countries are likely to request the provision of PNR data from air carriers operating flights from the EU.

Top of Page

More information

Please see the report on Airport Security prepared for the ACCs Annual Liaison Meeting at Stansted on 13/14 June 2007. See also the DfT's July 2007 Note on the Review of Airport Policing. This was a response to an enquiry submitted by London City Airport Consultative Committee. Also attached is a copy of the paper on Airport Security considered by the Annual Meeting at Heathrow in 2008 as well as a copy of the report prepared for the Annual meeting at Belfast on 27/28 May 2009.

Top of Page

** This item is in .pdf format and to view it you will need an Acrobat Reader. This can be obtained free of charge by clicking the "Get Acrobat Reader" icon opposITE