Return to Archive -by date - by topic.
Drinks on trains or sniffer dogs with genetically modified noses, the Government has to do something however impractical
One of my favourite quotations comes from Schiller. ‘Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens'. With stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.
Recited aloud in German it is a powerful remedy against despair when politicians come up with some fresh nonsense to blight out industry. And at the end of October we had two nonsenses in one weekend.
First of all, back in August, the Prime Minister had chaired a meeting of his Respect Unit at Cheques during which 40 initiatives were discussed. One of these was to ban alcohol from all public transport, including domestic flights.
An increase in alcohol-related disorder on trains and buses late at night was said to have prompted the proposal. According to the ‘Chequers paper', a confidential list of 40 proposals discussed with the prime minister, the alcohol ban on trains and buses was ‘strongly supported' by the British Transport Police but has been resisted by some government advisers.
A recommendation that the proposal should receive further consideration noted that new legislation would be required to introduce such a ban. That the ban would prevent, for example, Members of Parliament returning to North East constituencies from having wine or a beer with their dinner in a GNER restaurant car, didn't seem to have registered with the Respect Unit. No doubt it was assumed that only yobs oiks and chavs used public transport, as opposed to nice people like us.
Predictably a storm of outrage erupted, handily taking media attention from David Blunkett's travails. More important, the BTP put the boot into the proposal by linking it to the Government's enthusiasm for allowing 24 hour drinking.
A spokesman described the proposed train ban as a ‘diversion' from the bigger problem of pubs opening longer. He added ‘people getting drunk on trains or buses is not a major problem. It's the people who are drunk before they got on. And we think that problem could get worse if you extend licensing hours'.
Exposed to ridicule, the Government appears to have backed down. But there is a serious point – that the ban was proposed with apparently no awareness that a train with a restaurant or buffet bar is very different from a late night train in an inner city area after closing time. Do you find gangs of drunken passengers rampaging off trains, or domestic flights, come to that? No. Do noisy groups wander round towns and get trains when the pubs close? Yes.
But the drinks ban was a harmless bit of deniable kite flying. What followed was really serious.
A Sunday journalist was briefed that the Government was planning to trial airport style – or Eurostar-style if you prefer – scanning of passengers and luggage at railway stations. And we should always study such inspired stories closely because the reporter tends to write down what he has been briefed; and he is told what Department officials want us to hear.
Thus the story went that ‘a irport-style security checks using body scanners and X-ray machines are to be introduced at British mainline railway stations'. The reference to ‘mainline stations continued with the claim that the four July 7 bombers used the mainline railway network to get into position for the attacks in London.
We were told that the measures, ‘ordered by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling', will be the most visible increase in the level of security on the transport network since the attacks. If successful, ‘the Government intends to implement the measures at railway stations across Britain as well as on Tube stations and at other transport interchanges'.
Readers may differ, but this seemed to me to be the DfT out of touch with reality on a deadly serious issue. There simply isn't time and space to scan all passengers and if you don't scan all passengers what's the point. Indeed, as the on the ball BTP pointed out, by generating crowds and queues at stations scanning would provide ideal targets for bombers!
When I pointed out to DfT, as gently as I could, that this proposal would make their Secretary of State look silly, they explained that the Government could not afford not to test new technology. There was also a list of the ‘new' technology to be tested including scanners, portable trace units, X-ray examination and sniffer dogs.
Formal announcement of the trial came when Mr Darling gave eveidence to a special sitting of the of Commons Transport Committee on 2 November. He told the Committee, ‘Around three million people travel on the London Underground and well over two million travel on the UK railway every day. We cannot operate a closed system like we do at airports, But it is important that we reduce the risk to those passengers while recognising that people need to get about on the Tube and railway'.
Mr Darling continued, ‘It is equally important that we take account of the benefits that new technology could provide us. It could offer security benefits and this should not be disregarded without due consideration. We have to be ready to look at whether this would help'.
But how do you reduce the risk without a ‘closed system'? Supposing intelligence suggests that a terrorist cell in Hertfordshire is planning an attack. Do you send mobile units to scan passengers at WAGN, Thameslink and Silverlink stations?
And when a terrorist arrives at Welwyn Garden City station and sees the queues for the scanning machines and sniffer dogs, does he risk detection or take a bus or cab? It really is very hard to relate the proposals in the real world.
Rail security in the UK was reviewed following the Madrid bombings in March 2004. The review examined security measures in place and potential improvements to current systems on the underground and national rail networks. It identified a ‘package of recommendations' to enhance rail counter terrorist security, some obvious to the public, ‘others not'.
London's attacks on 7 July have made the outcomes of the review ‘more urgent' and, according to Mr Darling, the equipment trial ‘is a further stage in this work'. He concedes that transport security measures have to be proportionate and responsive. But the risk to passengers must be reduced while recognising that accessibility is important to people and business.
And this, of course is the crux of the issue. Scanning every traveller getting on every train would be impractical. But despite this Mr Darling says, ‘it is important that we do not ignore the benefits that new technology could provide us. Potential security benefits should not be disregarded without due consideration. We have to be ready to look at whether further action is appropriate and practical'.
He emphaised that the trial is not designed to be part of the current security regime. Its aim is to test the usefulness of the specialist equipment and ‘help examine the practical issues that may affect its future use in a normal rail environment'.
This is one reason for starting the trial at Paddington. What will be the effect on equipment of the 25kV overhead line equipment? Will the ‘clag' from a Valenta HST engine firing up interfere with chemical detectors?
But you could find this out without a much trumpeted high profile public trial. Which suggests to me that something is being done in public for the sake of being seen to be doing something. In other words, political backside covering.
But the presence of scanning raises another question. Supposing scanning discovers something suspicious, what then?
Would there be a contingent of armed police at every scanning point. Would they challenge, restrain and hand search the suspect on the spot – with the risk of an explosion on a crowded concourse?
As with the drink ban the Sunday story was soon toned down. In his statement Mr Darling described the trials as helping to establish whether there would be benefits in the introduction of a system of ‘fractional screening' defined as the screening of a small proportion of passengers ‘on either a random or targeted basis using new technology or other systems available to us'.
Eurostar opened with fractional screening, with most passengers being waved through. Now we have 100% screening at Waterloo, so presumably fractional was not considered adequate.
Meanwhile, trials are scheduled to start with the Paddington platforms of Heathrow Express in January for four weeks. This will be followed by four further trials, each lasting a month, at a london main line terminus, an outer suburban main line station and two Tube stations, one in Zone 1.
A ‘road show' approach is planned, with a series of tests of different types of screening equipment. At each trial site, A small number of ‘randomly chosen passengers' will be asked to take part in the tests. This may involve going through a scanner, being searched either by hand, with the help of portable trace equipment or by Patch the GM spaniel. Bags may also be passed through x-ray machines.
Now we wait to see whether the Paddington trial gets the full PR treatment. Personally, I believe that alert railway staff and passngers passengers and effective counter terrorist operations are the key to safe travel on open networks like trains and buses.
Purposeful indecision It is not suggested that it will be possible to turn our rail or underground network into a closed system like an airport. Widespread screening, even on a fractional basis, as to be tested now, would be a huge step and not one to be taken lightly. No decision on its the future use has been taken. This equipment test is essential to ensure that when it is, the decision is based on reliable evidence and experience. Transport Secretary Alistair Darling 3 November 2005 |