Tougher security checks for Tube and airport staff

Staff at airports and London Underground face more intensive security probes.

The Government announced a major review of checks carried out into the identity and background of transport personnel.

It will focus mainly on staff working in secure areas, including Tube workers who have access to the tracks and the thousands who work "airside" at Heathrow and Gatwick.

In a statement, Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly said the review would decide if the highest-level probes, which are currently only used for security personnel, should be used more widely.

It would cover "background and identity checks and related measures", which could mean checks into someone's private life by MI5.

At present, any airside worker has a criminal records check before they get a security pass, as do London Underground track workers.

National railways security staff have to show a five-year history of employment, which is meant to weed out potential criminals or terrorists. There is now concern that with transport infrastructure such a prime target for al Qaeda terrorists, extremists will plant sleepers into key posts.

Ministers have warned that terrorist organisers are actively recruiting socalled "clean skins" from universities and schools to evade security checks.

Ms Kelly said: "The Government needs to be sure at all times that the right measures are in place to counter the evolving threat from international terrorism.

"To achieve this, we need regularly to consider and evaluate specific security measures to ensure that we have the balance right in the light of changing circumstances."

Stephen Boys Smith, a former Home Office official, will carry out the review. He will make recommendations next year. The review was announced as the Government's proposed anti-terrorism laws were dealt a heavy blow by former lord chancellor Lord Falconer. He went public with his opposition to holding suspects for up to 42 days without-charge, despite having supported much longer detentions of up to 90 days when the issue was last voted on.

He urged: "If it's not necessary to fight terrorism effectively then you shouldn't do it."

The peer said he had changed his stance because prosecutors were now being allowed to bring charges before clear proof of guilt had been found.

He added: "I strongly believe that the debate over whether it should be 28,42 or 90 days has moved on. I think we should not be focusing any more on this days issue."

Lord Falconer dismissed the Government's argument that a vote in Parliament before any occasion when longer detentions are allowed would ease the civil liberties concerns.

"How can Parliament make a judgment about an individual investigation?" he asked. "You could not make public the terms of the investigation because it might prejudice the investigation.

"Does this protect the country from terrorism attack? I don't believe it does."