Featured

Groped at Luton Airport: Accountability and the Security State

May 26, 2013 1338

OK, it was my own fault for forgetting that I was still wearing my belt and triggering the detection gate. What followed, however, was easily the most intrusive search that I have experienced in several years at any UK or US airport. This posting, though, is less about my sense of affront than about the problems of redress created by the privatisation of UK public services.

So I get pulled over and told to remove my belt and shoes, which then disappear. Instead of the usual professional body search with a skilled one-touch passage of the screener’s hands over my clothing, the searcher has me raise each leg on a box while he rubs my thighs vigorously, going well up into the groin area. It is comparable to the kind of massage that I sometimes get from my chiropractor. Given that I am wearing a fairly tight pair of jeans, this, repeated, firm rubbing will detect nothing more than a conventional pat down. It is no justification for the incursion into private body areas. Long experience has taught me that there is no point in confronting low-level staff so I sought out the shift supervisor to complain. She was as smug as might be expected. If I care to put something in writing, this will be considered – but she will make the determination by viewing the CCTV and will be judge and jury in any question about the behaviour of her team. If their searches are more intrusive than elsewhere, this is because they operate to a higher standard than Manchester, Birmingham, Heathrow, East Midlands or Edinburgh, which I have passed through, and where I have observed searches, in the last six months. They perform to the standards set by the UK Department for Transport (DfT) and have recently been reviewed and approved. In other words, I can complain but there is no prospect of bringing about change as a result.

I get the message. There is, of course, some irony in that I am travelling to a conference of symbolic interactionists. One of the most widely cited papers in that tradition deals with the dramaturgy of intimate examinations and how these are conducted in a ‘professional’ manner! I am not suggesting that the screener was deriving any inappropriate gratification from his over-enthusiastic body search. His supervisor, no doubt, thinks she has contributed to meeting some quality target for an absence of complaints by underlining the pointlessness of investing time and effort in that activity. What I am reflecting on, though, is the lack of public accountability. The supervisor told me that her company was carrying out DfT instructions. The DfT has responded to several Freedom of Information requests by stating that detailed implementation of general requirements for a body search is solely a matter for the private contractors involved. They will not intervene. The privatisation of a public responsibility means that it is being discharged without effective public oversight. We can contrast this with the effective consumer backlash against over-intrusive searching by US screeners in the US, who remain public employees. Legislators notice when voters complain.

Such dilution of accountability is becoming increasingly common in the UK. Recent cases have included villagers who discovered that they could not prevent the company that had taken over their school from deciding to bus their children to another village. There are a growing number of examples in health and social care where contracting-out has diffused accountability for routine practice until this reaches the dimensions of a scandal. We have neither an effective market nor an effective regulator, with elected representatives excluded by ‘commercial sensitivity’.

In the field of safety and security, the gold-plating of regulation is also inherent in this privatised model. I have recently been working with health and safety professionals who are constantly frustrated by the same phenomenon. Whole industries have grown up around the impossible dreams of total prevention. How can anyone object to an extra increment of cost or intrusion if it promotes a marginal gain in safety or security? The point, of course, is that these marginal gains come with increasing marginal costs that ultimately discredit the whole enterprise. Rubbing my thighs three or four times does not produce any discernible increase in security while greatly increasing my level of annoyance.

The UK government has given some recognition to this in its attempt to introduce Better Regulation principles to airport security. These do not, though, seem likely to take us much further forward because of the lack of consumer input – this is strikingly absent from the responses to its consultation process. It is another contrast to the public service model in the US, where the Transportation Security Administration has to encourage public comments on proposed rule-making.

Privatised airport security is a classic case of market failure. From the consumer’s perspective, airports are an oligopoly where there are few opportunities to exert effective pressures by choice of departure point. If we cannot remedy this by effective political oversight, the textbook answer is an independent regulator to control the abuses that such situations inevitably generate. The regulator must be encouraged to push back against the constant pressure to ratchet up interventions ‘just in case’, through a critical examination of the interests promoting new layers of surveillance and intrusion, and to offer impartial review and redress of consumer complaints.

READ RELATED POSTS

The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins is completely wrong.

Breaking silences on broken promises

Modernizing Universities?

The BBC, North Korea and the Culture of Impunity

Robert Dingwall is an emeritus professor of sociology at Nottingham Trent University. He also serves as a consulting sociologist, providing research and advisory services particularly in relation to organizational strategy, public engagement and knowledge transfer. He is co-editor of the SAGE Handbook of Research Management.

View all posts by Robert Dingwall

Related Articles

Beyond Net-Zero Targets: When Do Companies Maximize Their Potential to Reduce Carbon Emissions?
Business and Management INK
June 4, 2024

Beyond Net-Zero Targets: When Do Companies Maximize Their Potential to Reduce Carbon Emissions?

Read Now
Rob Ford on Immigration
Public Policy
June 3, 2024

Rob Ford on Immigration

Read Now
Biden Administration Releases ‘Blueprint’ For Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy
News
May 17, 2024

Biden Administration Releases ‘Blueprint’ For Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy

Read Now
New Fellowship for Community-Led Development Research of Latin America and the Caribbean Now Open
Academic Funding
May 14, 2024

New Fellowship for Community-Led Development Research of Latin America and the Caribbean Now Open

Read Now
Tavneet Suri on Universal Basic Income

Tavneet Suri on Universal Basic Income

Economist Tavneet Suri discusses fieldwork she’s done in handing our cash directly to Kenyans in poor and rural parts of Kenya, and what the generally good news from that work may herald more broadly.

Read Now
Civilisation – and Some Discontents

Civilisation – and Some Discontents

The TV series Civilisation shows us many beautiful images and links them with a compelling narrative. But it is a narrative of its time and place.

Read Now
The Long Arm of Criminality

The Long Arm of Criminality

David Canter considers the daily reminders of details of our actions that have been caused by criminality.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mike

Hi, I am wondering why nobody has commented on this and probably many more incidents like this in this country, I am still disgusted, for the attitude toward my wife and myself at this airport in particular, ps hope everybody has a nice time this xmas travelling like cattle through this modern day ”hellhole ” of an excuse for an airport! ms11122018

michael scully

I wholeheartedly agree with this mans view at luton airport, my wife has been subjected to the same treatment as the man above,not once but umpteen times, i could go in to detail about this but cannot subject my 62 year old wife to be degraded this way, I hope somebody sees this and tries to act upon it as i have with absolutely no redress or apology for their disgraceful cavalier attitude, ms 19 sept 2017