PRIVATE SECTOR COUNTERMEASURES
140. Many of the facilities that might prove to be
attractive terrorist targets are in private hands. In a written
statement in July, the Home Office Minister, Beverley Hughes,
said that the Government's advice to private organisations was
to "leave the demanding and potentially dangerous job of
detecting CBR [chemical, biological or radiological] materials
to personnel in the emergency services and responsible agencies".[153]
For many businesses this is a practical solution to a problem
that few companies will have to face, but for many of the sectors
we have discussed above, it is not viable to delegate parts of
their security measures to the emergency services. Airport security
is a classic example where the role is not undertaken by the emergency
services. Some other industries - such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals
companies - have their own emergency services and have considerable
experience in handling contamination or escape incidents. They
should be encouraged to share their knowledge with the public
emergency services, where they do not already do this
141. It is not clear to us what obligation the Government
places on companies in these situations to install or implement
CBRN countermeasures or who takes the lead in developing the necessary
technologies. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 applies where
a criminal event is foreseeable. The Home Office tells us that
the level of threat, as determined by the security services, is
therefore the deciding factor. We do not find this situation reassuring.
There may be no specific threat to, say, Heathrow Airport but
we feel that the Government should be able to insist on measures
being taken by a company. Instead the Government simply "expect
something to be done". [154]
142. The Government believes that industry should
meet all its running costs, including those relating to security
but it is not clear how the appropriate level of expenditure is
determined. In the case of transport, the costs of security measures
required by the Government are met by industry. In most cases
the costs are eventually passed on to the passenger in the ticket
price.
143. Private companies may need strong guidance on
what measures need to be taken. In the cases we have considered
there seems to be a good relationship between the private sector
and the relevant Government Department. It is less obvious what
happens if the measures recommended impose a cost burden that
a company is unprepared to meet. Mr Bóo said that companies
were "extremely proactive themselves in wanting to address
this because they recognise it is in their own business interest
to have thought about and addressed these issues".[155]
We understand why the Government is taking the approach that it
is but this is a matter of national security. We believe that
the Government must have the statutory authority to insist that
measures are taken by private companies. Equally we are sympathetic
to companies that are obliged to invest large sums in preparing
for what must seem to be no more than a remote threat. The US
Department of Transportation has been making transport security
grants available. We were pleased that Beverley Hughes recognised
this as an issue that needed addressing.[156]
144. We recommend that the Government provide
detailed guidance to companies on CBRN countermeasures and their
development, and satisfy itself that it has the powers, if necessary,
to demand the introduction of the necessary security measures.
This should be complemented with a system of fiscal incentives
or grants to offset the cost.
Staffing issues
145. In Section 8 we discuss the moves made by the
Government to update the Voluntary Vetting Scheme for Research
Council and university researchers. The ability of journalists
to breach security at airports highlights the problems in the
private sector, and we suspect that national security is placed
at greater risk by allowing potential terrorists unfettered access
to key facilities than it is by giving someone a technical background
in microbiology; yet it is our impression that the Government
gives the latter higher priority. Vetting of personnel in transport
facilities, in particular airports, presents a formidable challenge,
given the high turnover and low pay of staff but that should not
be a disincentive to act.[157]
We recommend that the Government consider a standard vetting
scheme for workers at high risk facilities. This should not be
compulsory and the Government should work with the industry to
develop an efficient scheme with minimum bureaucracy.
131 
