Consultation Responses:
DfT consultation on a Code of Practice for the acceptable use of advance imaging technology (body scanners) in an aviation security environment

DPTAC response - pdf (Adobe Acrobat - 35kb)
DPTAC response - rtf (Rich Text File - 166kb)

DfT consultation document

To: Mr Mike Alcock
Department for Transport
Aviation Security Division
105 Victoria Street
London, SW1E 6DT

1. DPTAC was established under the Transport Act 1985 to advise the Government on the transport needs of disabled people. DPTAC has identified four overarching principles on which to base its advice:

  • accessibility for disabled people is a condition of any investment;
  • accessibility for disabled people must be a mainstream activity;
  • users should be involved in determining accessibility; and
  • achieving accessibility for disabled people is the responsibility of the provider.

2. DPTAC welcome opportunity to respond on this consultation and recognise that the aim of the introduction of body scanners is part of a package of security measures designed to give the highest priority to the security of the travelling public and those who work in the transport sector.

3. We welcome that the Code is designed to reflect a commitment to ensure that all security measures are used in a way, which is legal, proportionate and non-discriminatory, but the introduction and use of security scanning technology should not be used in an unquestioning way.

4. DPTAC already has concerns about the preservation of the dignity of travellers with a disability when being security screened using existing methods. While we agree that for many, security scanners offer a less intrusive process than a hand search due to the absence of physical contact during the body scanning process, there are certain disabilities with associated conditions and/or equipment where a physical search is preferable and where a security scanner would be either inadvisable, inappropriate and in some cases impossible.

a) Privacy
Question 1: Do you agree with this approach? If not, what changes to the code of practice do you propose?

5. While we appreciate the recognition that some passengers, including those with a disability, might have concerns about undergoing a security scan, we do not accept the reasoning for the unquestioning use of such scans (para 40). The consultation is couched in terms that these 'concerns' will be based on reasons of privacy and that 'privacy controls' described in the consultation will be 'sufficient to give assurance to all passengers'.

6. While privacy may well be a concern for many passengers, irrespective of any disability, the concerns about security scans among a number of disabled passengers will be around the physical ability to, or the impact of, submitting to a 'body scanner'. There will from time to time be situations where an individual passenger with a specific disability may be physically or intellectually unable to use the scanner because of the nature of the disability, or the need for essential equipment, devices, medication or any implants they may have.

7. Yet the proposal in the consultation is not to offer an alternative screening method to those who decline or are unable to be scanned for valid reasons. This non-optional approach to the use of scanners will inevitably prevent some disabled passengers from travelling if security officers single them out for security scanning and they are unable or unwilling to submit to the scan. It may be that the security officers have the necessary skills to be able to deal with challenging privacy situations sensitively, but we do not believe that the physical or intellectual challenges are so easy to handle.

8. What would work far better would be the ability to offer an alternative which is likely to involve a physical search of the passenger and their mobility, medical or other equipment, but this should be an option after first talking through with the disabled passenger the options and the impacts of both methods so the disabled passenger can make an informed choice. It is a choice they should not be denied.

9. This requires a high level of training and awareness of the needs of disabled people not only to identify disabled passengers, many of who may have disabilities that are not obvious or immediately visible. Yet the emphasis in the consultation once again is on vetting and training of security staff in consideration of concerns over lack of privacy, and training in aviation security and customer service is insufficient to engender the required level of awareness of disability issues. We recommend specific disability equality and awareness training not just for those viewing the scanned images, but also for all security staff including those who will select passengers for screening and those who will be undertaking manual screening. DPTAC has published a training guide titled Disability Equality and Awareness Training for Transport Staff: dptac.independent.gov.uk/education/stafftraining/index.htm.

Question 2: Do you agree that the safeguards outlined in the interim code of practice address all potential privacy concerns? If not, what else should be included?

10. While we can see how the proposed safeguard may address potential privacy concerns we do not agree that privacy concerns are the only and overriding concern many passengers with disabilities will have, and these other important concerns are in no way addressed in the interim code of practice.

c) Health and safety
Question 4: Do you agree that the safeguards outlined in the interim code of practice and HPA assessment satisfactorily address any potential health and safety concerns? If not, what further analysis would you wish the Government to undertake?

11. DPTAC have no comment on this question.

d) Equipment approval
Question 5: Do you agree that requiring airport operators to discuss with the DfT all prospective use of security scanners as outlined in the interim code of practice satisfactorily addresses the requirement for all equipment to undergo a suitable approval process? If no, what else should be included?

12. DPTAC agrees that these checks and balances for approval of the use of security scanners are essential to ensure a consistency of approach to the scanning of passengers and to ensure that only equipment that has been tested to meet the health and safety requirements of the HPA is installed and used.

e) Training
Question 6: Do you agree that requiring security officers operating security scanners to hold government security clearance and to have received training delivered in accordance with a DfT mandated security scanning training module before deployment satisfactorily addresses the issues of vetting and training? If not, what else should be included?

13. We agree that security clearance should be a prerequisite for any officers operating security scanners and mandatory training is key in that clearance process. However, we do not believe that the mandated training should be restricted to the issues set out in the interim code alone, namely privacy and date protection. Our main concern is to ensure that effective disability equality and awareness training is provided to all staff involved in any part of the screening process - see our comments in paragraphs 6 to 9 above.

f) Communication
Question 7: Do you agree that the requirements for keeping passengers informed outlined in the interim code of practice are sufficient? If not, what else should be included? And what additional means of communication do you suggest the Government or the travel industry should put into place?

14. We fundamentally disagree with the removal of any options for security staff to offer to passengers with disabilities when carrying out essential security searches. We have set out our concerns in paragraphs 6 to 8 above and we feel strongly that it is wrong to run any security process on the basis that if they are selected for scanning no passenger at all will be offered an alternative method of screening. This one-size-fits-all approach presents three issues. First, it runs the risk of causing enormous real concern for some disabled passengers. Secondly, it presents a real physical barrier to some disabled passengers. And thirdly the non-negotiable approach is in itself potentially discriminatory as it fails to provide for reasonable alternative means of carrying out the necessary security checks.

g) Selection criteria
Question 8: Do you agree that selection criteria defined in the interim code of practice provide an appropriate safeguard to ensure that passengers are selected for screening on a non-discriminatory basis? If not, how do you suggest passengers should be selected?

15. We are very concerned at the reference in the code that acknowledges the possibility that a passenger will be selected for security scanning because they have caused other security controls or equipment to be activated at some stage. If you couple this possibility with the non-negotiable use of the scanner once a passenger has been selected by security staff, then we cannot accept either proposition as a fair way of treating disabled passengers. In our experience the activation of other security controls can often happen because of the essential use by some disabled passenger of assistive devices, mobility equipment or medical devices that can and will trigger security equipment. This can happen because the passenger simply has no way of knowing in advance what is likely to activate certain security equipment, or where their disability does not enable them to understand any instructions they may have been given about possible causes of activation, or simply because of a lack of awareness and training among the security staff themselves.

16. As a result, while we welcome the statement that 'passenger profiling' is not part of the selection criteria our concern is that by dint of increased likelihood for some disabled people to activate existing security equipment, and the lack of any options for the performance of security checks, there will be an element of self-selection by disabled passengers and the combination of all these elements will in itself amount to discrimination against disabled passengers.

Question 10: Are there any other issues that you would like to see the final code of practice consider? If so, what and why?

17. We feel that our answers to some of the questions above clearly show where the interim code is lacking and where there needs to be more emphasis on adequate and focussed mandatory training in key areas not currently covered, and more flexibility in the options available for carrying out security checks on disabled passengers.

Yours sincerely

Dai Powell
Chair, Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee