---

Civil Aviation Bill

I welcome the clarification set out in this group of amendments. They possibly prejudge a wider debate on who pays for transport security across air, water, road and rail. In a recent Question for Written Answer, I asked my noble friend who was funding the extraordinary scheme to make all rail passengers at Paddington go through a security scan. I was told that it was the Government, but I suggest that we do not hold our breath because it is just a trial. I am absolutely sure that if the Government are stupid enough to go ahead with this procedure across the board, they will make the passengers pay—so we will all get in our cars again. That is a slight diversion, but the problem is that the police, customs, immigration, security and others ask for things knowing that they will not have to pay for them. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked a question and I can tell him that when I worked for Euro Tunnel years ago, when we were building the Channel Tunnel, all these people, including the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods, wanted enormous buildings and facilities to be built in Folkestone, London and other places to meet their needs. And the police required a building block for 80 policemen. I asked, ““What are they going to do?””, and I was told, ““Well, this is just law and order. There are separate people for security and other things””. I asked, ““If you as a police force were going to pay for this, how many policemen would you have?””. They said, ““We would have two part-time from Ashford””. You either need two part-time or you need 80. The decision should not be influenced by who is paying for the facilities or the people. Another experience relates to MAFF, which wanted phytosanitary protection, so it built an enormous building at the rail freight terminal at Willesden. It has not been used yet. It probably cost several million because MAFF decided that the phytosanitary rules were going to change, but it still had to be built before the terminal could be used. I have a horrible feeling that the views of these authorities—I am sure they all believe that they are doing the right thing—will influence what they require airports to build for their convenience. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, this could cost an enormous amount. You can never stop it. Eleven or 12 years after the Channel Tunnel opened, there is still the bureaucracy of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority and the Security Authority. They meet with 25 officials around the table. I do not know what they discuss, although I occasionally go to the meetings. Is it all necessary? Trying to dismember it is difficult. My noble friend has suggested this detailed amendment and appeals procedure. It is very good and it should be welcomed. I do not know whether there is a precedent for having such detailed appeals procedure in a Bill, but I am worried that you are appealing to a retired security expert about security. How independent will he be? He will look after his own. I do not know what the answer is, except that if these authorities were required to pay for their own facilities, they would think twice about flooding them with all kinds of people they can probably justify but they would not have if they could not afford them. That is what worries me. The airports could have an unlimited expense and, I suspect, introduce anti-competitive pressures between airports. Some will be required to do this and some that. I do not know what the answer is, but I am worried. I hope that my noble friend will be able to put my mind at rest that these people will not be over-greedy.