HL Deb 07 December 1972 vol 337 cc374-401

3.25 p.m.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft]:

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, his view on how subsection (3) of Clause 1 is likely to operate? If I may read that subsection, which is quite a remarkable extension of the criminal law of this country, and indeed of Scotland, it states that any act committed in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, whatever the nationality of the person becomes an offence under the Act. That means that in any part of the world, so far as I can see, where any aircraft is deliberately rendered incapable of flight, or where any act of violence takes place in the aircraft, that is part of the criminal law and can be pursued in this country. I suppose the Government would have the alternative of either pursuing it in this country or of allowing extradition to take place. I do not know what is in the Government's mind and how they intend to carry this out.

The second question I should like to ask on this matter is: if it is necessary in regard to the particular subject in this Bill, dealing as it does with violence and damage to aircraft, should it not equally apply to hijacking? The Hijacking Act is considerably more restrictive. It deals only with cases of aircraft which are registered in this country and where action is taken by a national of this country, or alternatively, takes place in this country. Can the noble Lord say whether he thinks that there is a case for bringing the act of hijacking under the same very broad principles which appear necessary in this Bill? These two run together and I think they should be viewed as one.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this point. The subsection is perhaps not very clear but, nevertheless, it is there to give effect to the almost essential element of the Montreal Convention; the whole objective being that the offender should have no place of refuge; that wherever the offence is committed and whatever the nationality of the offender he should be capable of being brought to book. That is what those parties who ratify the Convention will be agreeing to mutually. This will apply between the countries which do ratify.

My noble friend is, of course, quite right in that usually when a Statute makes an act an offence, that act is an offence only when it is committed in the United Kingdom or on board a ship or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, or, in a few cases, where it is committed outside the United Kingdom, by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But it is in order to implement Article 5 of the Convention that it is necessary to go further than this and to ensure that United Kingdom courts also have jurisdiction over offences wherever committed; when the aircraft in question lands in the United Kingdom with the offender still on board; when the aircraft is leased to a lessee who has his principal place of business in the United Kingdom; or when the offender is present in the United Kingdom and is not extradited from it. The last case really subsumes the other two because courts in the United Kingdom do not try persons on indictment in their absence, and so to implement the Convention it is necessary to ensure that United Kingdom courts have jurisdiction over any offender who is present in the United Kingdom. That is the effect of subsection (3).

So far as the Hijacking Act is concerned, I should like to look into that point. The Hijacking Act deals entirely with persons on board an aircraft in flight who unlawfully do this, that or the next thing. Therefore, such a person can be brought to book if he is present in this country, or alternatively, he can be extradited. It is not quite on all fours with the kind of offences that are provided for under this Bill.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I personally should have thought that it was on all fours. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look at it. I should have thought that it would not be unreasonable to have exactly the same rules as under this Bill. This type of action is very closely connected with hijacking.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I shall gladly do so, but my noble friend will have observed that it is an offence under subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Hijacking Act, to hijack, whatever the nationality of the hijacker and whatever the State in which the aircraft is registered, and whether the aircraft is in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. The fact remains that so far as the jurisdiction is concerned you have to catch your hijacker.

Clause I agreed to.

Clause 2 [Other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft]:

3.30 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 38, after ("interfere") insert ("or threaten to interfere").

The noble Earl said: This is a small point. It concerns interference with the operation of property, including, of course, any radio or wireless equipment. What I am suggesting is that there should be an offence of threatening to interfere. This might conceivably take place in the case of the landing of an aircraft or something of that sort. So far as I can see, there is no offence in threatening to interfere. Although in fact such action may not damage the property, it may have serious consequences to the aircraft at certain stages of its operation. I beg to move.

LORD BESWICK

I should like to support the noble Earl in this Amendment, and I only regret that I did not think of putting it down myself. A good deal of the trouble we have had has been due not to interference, in the sense of putting anything on the aircraft, but to telephone calls threatening to do so. Whether this is actual interference or a threat to interfere, I would have thought, is a matter for some discussion. To make the position quite clear, I cannot see why the noble Lord should not accept this Amendment, and I hope he will indicate that he is ready to do so.

LORD TREFGARNE

I would like to support my noble friend Lord Selkirk. Like him, I, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, can quite easily envisage a situation quite unlike any of those that we are, regrettably, so familiar with, where an air traffic controller or somebody associated with the operation of the aircraft but not directly concerned with it is threatened, thus seriously jeopardising the aeroplane. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give a sympathetic response to this Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

In reply to my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I should first of all say—and in the course of the proceedings I may have to say it more than once—that the primary purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. Article 5 of that Convention is reflected in Clause 2(4) of this Bill, and requires contracting States to establish jurisdiction over offences referred to in Article 1 of the Convention in circumstances where, under the ordinary rules of international law, a State could not properly assume jurisdiction. Article 1 of the Convention does not include the offence of threatening to interfere with the operation of air navigation facilities, and the United Kingdom would, therefore, be open to criticism from other States if the United Kingdom assumed jurisdiction over such an offence in all the circumstances set out under Clause 2(4) of the Bill.

Since the purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Montreal Convention, to go beyond that is not so straightforward as it might appear at first sight. Many of the acts which would be covered by my noble friend's Amendment are already offences under our law. I hope, therefore, that with this assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

Could my noble friend say in what circumstances such a clause was left out when the Convention was being drafted, because it appears that it might have been a rather peculiar omission?

LORD DERWENT

Before my noble friend replies, may I say that I am not quite clear about this. I quite understand that this Bill is to carry out the terms of the Convention, but I cannot understand why he says that we cannot extend the Bill because it would give offence elsewhere. So long as the Bill covers the Convention I cannot see why it should not go wider.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Perhaps I may first reply to my noble friend Lord Hawke. I can assure him that this was not something overlooked during the discussions on the Convention. The fact is that agreement to include threats was not reached. If I may turn for a moment to the second question I have been asked, here we are really back at the whole notion of what one is trying to do in a Convention of this character, and that is to enter into reciprocal obligations. If we had a unilateral obligation, on the one hand, other countries which have ratified the Convention might object if we were to apply to one of their nationals more stringent penalties, or more stringent provisions of the law, than are included in the Convention. On the other hand, of course, we are also involved in the requirements of extradition for offences of this kind. We could not, on the one hand, get the other signatories to extradite our citizens for offences which were not included in the Convention, and, on the other hand, they would not be entitled to ask for extradition of someone who had committed an offence under our law which was not an offence under theirs. I hope I have explained satisfactorily to my noble friend Lord Derwent the sort of reciprocal obligations we are trying to assume in this Bill.

LORD BESWICK

I may be more dim than noble Lords on the other side, but I confess that so far as I am concerned the explanation has not quite cleared up the doubts I originally had. At first it seemed to me that the noble Lord was saying that what we seek to secure here could be secured under other legislation. He then said it would be wrong to have legislation of this kind because it is not reciprocal. He cannot have it both ways. We are not here legislating for other countries, but for action taken in this country, the United Kingdom. Although I can see that eventually to get reciprocity so far as the Convention is concerned it would be much tidier to have exactly the same Act here as is operative in other countries, I cannot really see why we should not take proper precautions to protect our own property in this country. Even though others may not go quite so far, surely we could extend this provision to that extent without upsetting anyone?

LORD DRUMALBYN

Surely the point here is that in so far as we already have legislation to cover this kind of point, then we have already taken the appropriate steps to protect our own nationals. Perhaps I could put it this way. We are at the Present time not putting into the Bill everything that is in the Convention. This is the other side of the coin. We are not putting everything in the Convention because a lot of these points are already covered by our law. The reverse side of that, of course, is that there are things already covered by our law which we might want to be covered by the law of other countries, but we cannot unilaterally put them into the Convention. But a threat to interfere with the operation of air navigation facilities unless a sum of money were paid would already constitute blackmail as defined in Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, so that this goes some way to meet the point of the Amendment. Therefore I hope that noble Lords will not feel it necessary to press this Amendment.

LORD BARNBY

Referring to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk in moving this Amendment and the widespread concern that has been felt and reported in the House with regard to the tardiness of other nations on progress on legislation in this connection, and the fact that my noble friend Lord Selkirk referred to the relationship between this and hijacking, can the Minister make any comment with regard to this and the penalties in this Bill? Are they as severe as those in the Bill which has already passed the Senate of the United States of America, which seems to be more comprehensive and much more fierce in regard to penalties?

LORD TREFGARNE

Before the noble Lord rises to reply, can he say whether we are restricted, as a result of signing the Montreal Convention, to legislating exactly in the terms of that Convention? Were we required under the terms of that Convention not to enact legislation more restricting than that laid down in the Convention? Did that Convention put any restriction on the rights of Parliament to enact what it likes in regard to what all of us consider to be a great menace?

VISCOUNT MONCK

In order to save my noble friend having a double barrel for this reply may I intervene now? The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that he might be a bit dimmer than some of us over here, but if he is dim my light has gone out altogether, because as it seems to me—I may have misunderstood my noble friend, and if so I apologise un-reservedly—he said that the burden of the Bill is to bring us into line with the Montreal Convention. He subsequently said that we cannot add anything to the Bill which is not in the Convention, and then he said that there are certain things in the Convention which we have not got in the Bill. Where do we go from there?

LORD DRUMALBYN

There are certain things that we do not need to put into the Bill because they are already covered by our law. For example, there is Article 6 of the Convention which relates to the arrest of offenders, and Article 7, which relates to the submission of offenders to competent authorities for subsequent prosecution. We do not need to put those into our law because they are already there.

With regard to the question put by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, of course in this country we do not in practice ratify a Convention until we have brought our law into line with that Convention. The words "brought our law into line" are important for the reason that I have been explaining; that to some extent they are already in line and therefore we do not need to legislate on that. We can fill the gaps by our legislation, and when we have done that we can then ratify. My noble friend Lord Barnby asked about a Bill passed by the Senate. I think I am right in saying that that particular Bill fell, but the United States penalty for hijacking is a maximum penalty of death and a minimum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment.

LORD BARNBY

Do they then legislate in advance of the Convention?

LORD DRUMALBYN

No; the Bill to which my noble friend was referring was, I think, on a rather different subject, more akin to the next round. There is nothing to prevent a country legislating in order to stop something that is wrong at any time; they do not need a Convention for that. What we are trying to do is to get countries to bring in parallel legislation so that the same obligations will be accepted over the whole range of the contracting States and that they will have reciprocal obligations, such as extradition and so forth. This is the object of the legislation but there is nothing to prevent us, or any other country, at any time legislating to prevent an evil of their own, so long as it is limited to their jurisdiction.

LORD BESWICK

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is sitting there very wisely and no doubt he is making up his mind what he proposes to do. For my part, I hope that he decides to press this Amendment because the explanations we have been given have not been very convincing. The noble Lord has now said that the particular point of threatening to interfere could be covered by the law of blackmail. I have no doubt that he is right; but if he is actually saying that there are other pieces of legislation upon the Statute Book that can be used to achieve these ends, I should have thought it would have been perfectly possible to point to something which would give us power to prosecute any person who intentionally destroys or damages any property. Why are we putting in those words if the test is going to be whether there is other legislation? We are apparently putting in those words because we feel very strongly about this problem and we are assembling all the contingencies and providing for them. One of those contingencies is undoubtedly the habit that has grown up of threatening to do damage to an aircraft if it takes off. This is probably one of the most serious of all the threats confronting us, and if the noble Lord is saying that we are not absolutely committed to the strict terms of the Montreal Convention why then cannot we go this much further forward?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I must say to the noble Lord that I do not think he has answered the point. If we fulfill the Montreal Convention, that is fine; but we can also strengthen our laws in this sphere. It does not interfere with the Montreal Convention. I think the noble Lord has frankly acknowledged that this strengthens the Bill and makes it more effective. I think there is no doubt about that. The noble Lord has said that we cannot legislate outside the Montreal Convention for other nationals, but Clause 2 does not apply to other nationals. If the noble Lord will look at subsection (4)(a) he will see that it is covered by the rules in Clause 1(5). Although this is complicated with nationality, by and large this means British citizens. Therefore there are no foreign citizens who would be covered by this at all. It applies to British aircraft, either registered or leased to those who operate in this country, or aircraft in this country. Therefore there is no question of our bringing any action against the nationals of other countries unless, of course, they happen to be in this country, in which case we should be fully entitled to do so.

I do not think that the answer with regard to blackmail will do, because it means that you have to prove two things: you have to prove blackmail and you have to prove threat. That makes it marginally more difficult. I am asking that the simple threat should of itself be an offence, and I think it is right that it should be. If the noble Lord will say that he will look at this point thoroughly, I should like to leave it there. Otherwise I really must ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment. I do not like doing so because we are really agreed on most points, but I think the noble Lord should look at this very carefully again to see whether some of the restrictions he put on are not, frankly, a trifle superficial. I do not think the question of extradition means anything at all. If this element is not in the extradition treaty of another country then obviously it does not apply. What it does is to apply it to this country, and I think everybody in this Committee wants it to. It is quite a small point, so perhaps the noble Lord will look at it again.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Yes, my Lords; I think I am right in saying that this is more complicated and has more ramifications than perhaps my noble friend realises. For that reason, I should be glad to take it away and have a look at it.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I thank my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

3.51 p.m.

LORD BESWICK

On that Question, I wonder whether I may call attention to an Amendment down in my name which proposes to insert a new clause. It has been brought to my attention that it is going rather wide if I put into a Bill entitled "Protection of Aircraft Bill" a clause which concerns the protection of ships. I have listened to these arguments very carefully and have been convinced by them, even though I have taken the precaution of putting down other Amendments to extend the Title of the Bill. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be good enough to deal with the point I would have raised had I gone on to move this new clause. Some time ago—rather more than a year ago now—when we were discussing the Hijacking Bill, I called attention to the fact that the same kind of threat that is directed at aircraft is also posed to shipping. As I have already pointed out, there has been one quite dramatic illustration that what I said was correct; there was the case of the Q.E.2. When I raised the matter on that Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that it was hoped that legislation would not be long delayed to deal with shipping. Then, when I raised it again on this Bill and suggested that this Bill really ought to cover shipping, he appeared to be retracting a little the assurance that he gave me on the previous occasion, because he said, on the Second Reading of this Bill, that it would seem that the difficulty that I had referred to was now resolved by the Tokyo Convention Act and the case in the Scottish court which saw a successful prosecution under that Act.

Although the noble Lord has said—and he was kind enough to write to me and fill in rather more detail than he gave me in his speech—that that undoubted difficulty is covered by the finding of the court in Scotland, nevertheless there are other people, including those who advise the Chamber of Shipping, who say that the law is not so precise as he would seem to have me believe. I am suggesting, therefore, that other legislation is necessary. If there is a doubt—and I have said that those qualified to judge these matters say that there is certainly a doubt—as to the relevance of the finding in the Scottish case, then it appears that we are back on the Statutes of 1698 and 1721, and it really is unsuitable in this day and age, when one can either interfere or threaten to interfere with shipping on the high seas by all sorts of remote control, to rely upon Statutes of 1698 and 1721. In any case, I am advised that in 1934 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council then declared, having had the benefit of studying those two Acts, that they were not themselves able to hazard a definition of "piracy". Therefore there is a requirement here to have things absolutely clear cut.

I do not believe that the noble Lord is saying that there is not a danger or a real problem, and certainly those concerned with shipping—and they are responsible people—believe that there is a problem. I am sure that we should all wish to deal with the problem. I therefore ask the noble Lord to give me an assurance that his Department will again consider this difficulty with the representatives of the Chamber of Shipping, and that he will undertake seriously to consider legislation and, if necessary, to bring something forward.

3.55 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the restraint with which he has spoken on this question. I need hardly say that the Government share the noble Lord's concern for the safety of ships, but, as at present advised, we hold the view that no legislation is necessary and that the law, as it stands, is adequate to deal with a situation of the kind that he has spoken of. The noble Lord may have observed in my letter to him that the last paragraph made it clear that the question whether legislation should be introduced to bring the law up to date and to enact the law relating to piracy in statutory form is still under consideration. I think that that is exactly what he was asking; that we should bring it up to date, remove doubts if there were any, and have it in modern statutory form. I explained to him that the Law Commission are considering this issue as part of their review of the territorial extent of the criminal law with an eye to its codification.

It may help to relieve any anxiety that there may be on this matter if I explain that the situations which this Bill has to deal with are already offences, under one provision or another of the criminal law, so far as ships are concerned. In the first place, acts of violence, such as murder, assault, or malicious damage on board a British ship on the high seas, may be tried in the United Kingdom pursuant to Section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, to which I think the noble Lord referred. Non-violent threats to interfere with the operation of a ship with a view to gain, or intent to cause loss, would already constitute the offence of blackmail set out in Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968. Nor is this all. There remains the wider scope of the crime of piracy under the common law which, in some details, is supplemented by Statute. The crime of piracy covers offences committed by persons on one ship against another ship and also "hijacking", as we now use the term, by persons on board the ship concerned.

I believe that what has given concern to the noble Lord is the Act which I think he himself moved in this House, the Tokyo Convention Act 1967 and, in particular, Section 4 of that Act and the Schedule to it, and it is this which raised doubts in some quarters. I am advised that before the passing of the Tokyo Convention Act there was no question but that a person who hijacked a ship could be prosecuted at common law for the offence of piracy. I explained in my letter that after the passing of the Tokyo Convention Act 1967 some thought that the effect of that provision was to replace the existing common law by a new definition of piracy which limited the offence to illegal acts directed by passengers or crew of one ship against another ship or its passengers or crew, thereby excluding, by implication, such acts committed by passengers or crew against their own ship.

As I pointed out to the noble Lord on the Second Reading of the present Bill, the decision of the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh gave a ruling on this point. The case before the court, Cameron and Others v. H.M. Advocate, supported the view that the 1967 Act had not supplanted the common law. In that case the members of the crew of a British ship had unlawfully deprived the skipper of his command. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, said that he disagreed with a submission made by counsel for the applicants, to the effect that the Tokyo Convention Act 1967, and in particular Section 4 and Article 15 in the Schedule, superseded the existing law of Scotland and redefined it in a restricted way. At the most, he said, these provisions were merely supplementary to the existing municipal law and did not supersede it. It is the view of the Government that acts of the kind described by the noble Lord are already punishable under the existing law. So I hope he will not feel that an opportunity is being lost by our not having made provision in this Bill for something which is really extraneous to it and which the Government, on their present advice, did not consider really necessary. But, as I have said, this matter is still being studied.

LORD BESWICK

The noble Lord said that something is being considered, which is not quite what I am asking for. He has called attention to the fact that the Law Commissioners are considering the codification of the present law and its geographical extension. The difficulty here is that the present law does not make the sort of reference that I am suggesting is needed in this special particular. Almost all the legislation to which the noble Lord referred—and there is a good deal of it—refers, in its definition of "piracy", to the element of robbery or gain for private ends. One has to prove that there is this element of robbery or gain for private ends, whereas to-day we are seeing something quite different. It is a new problem that we are dealing with here, of people who interfere, or threaten to interfere, with aircraft or with shipping, possibly for political purposes and not for robbery or gain for private ends. I need not refer to some of the recent tragedies which have been caused by those motivated not by private gain but by political purposes. I do not put myself forward as a legal authority in these matters, but I would ask the noble Lord whether he will promise me that the legal people in his Department will undertake to consider seriously, with the legal authorities and advisers of the Chamber of Shipping, to see whether they can come to some agreement as to exactly what is needed.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I ask my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn one question? He has said that the law is adequate, but can he assure us that it is adequate in respect of interfering with the land establishments or navigational procedures required for shipping, which could in certain circumstances be very serious? There may be provision for it, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give me that assurance.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Without looking up the authorities on the subject and consulting my advisers, I do not think I should be wise to give my noble friend the assurance for which he has asked, but I assure him that I will consult with them and see what is the answer. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be content with the assurance that this whole matter is being looked at, and of course I will see that the additional points which he has made are taken into account. But may I just say, in passing, that the particular case which he has in mind, arising in the case of aircraft, does not as yet seem to have arisen as regards shipping. But I do not say that it is something which ought not to be considered, and I will certainly take account of what he has said.

LORD BESWICK

I am sorry to press this matter, but I have asked the noble Lord twice whether he would give me the assurance that the legal people in his Department will be ready to meet with the advisers of the Chamber of Shipping to discuss this matter. The noble Lord has said that matters are being looked into. Is he evading my question, or is there some reason why I should not get an answer?

LORD DRUMALBYN

No, there is no reason why the noble Lord should not get an answer, but he knows that I am not the Minister in charge of the Department. May I simply say to him that I will convey what he has said to the Minister concerned?

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Penalties and proceedings]:

4.5 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 3: Page 4, line 1, leave out ("Subject to the next following subsection").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 hang together. I propose to make a few remarks on Amendment No. 3, but shall not speak to Amendment No. 4. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 4 lay down the penalties for contraventions of this Bill. Subsection (2), in particular, reduces the penalty from life imprisonment, which is laid down in subsection (1), to a maximum of ten years' imprisonment for the two offences of giving misleading information to an aircraft, which is dealt with in Clause 2(3), and aiding and abetting, which is dealt with in Clause 3. I submit that this easing of the penalties is inappropriate. I suggest that anybody who deliberately sets out to destroy, or who threatens to destroy, an aircraft can easily do so, if he is ingenious enough, by giving misleading information.

I do not want to go into too much detail, because I shall be putting ideas into people's heads, but I hope that your Lordships will accept—and I am sure that those of your Lordships who have experience in this field, like the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and others, will accept it—that it is really very simple to cause, or almost cause, an accident by arranging, by one means or another, for an aircraft to receive misleading information relating to its position or to weather conditions. Therefore I believe that there are no grounds for easing the penalties which would otherwise apply to the principal offences under this Bill. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

In the case which the noble Lord has in mind, of offences of intentionally communicating false information—for example, perpetrating a bomb hoax or other similar activities—we are dealing with a rather different category of offence from the offences in Clause 1. Unlike the other offences contained in the Bill, offences under subsection (3) of Clause 2 would not normally be deliberate attempts to damage an aircraft or to endanger life. While such offences might be committed with criminal intentions, such as the extortion of money from airlines, they could also be merely irresponsible rather than criminal. It is for that reason that it seems appropriate to set a penalty for them lower than that for the other offences in the Bill.

There is some analogy here with offences under Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which deals with threats to destroy or damage property. Those who perpetrate threats to destroy or damage property are also punishable by ten years' imprisonment; whereas those who perpetrate actual destruction and where there was an intention to endanger life are punishable by life imprisonment. So this is the parallel here with the Criminal Damage Act: the threat to destroy or damage property is punishable by a lesser penalty than where the actual destruction takes place and there was an intention to endanger life. The argument here is that in this kind of case there is not an intention in most cases to endanger life, and the penalty is adjusted to a lower level accordingly.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

May I briefly support the Amendment moved by my noble friend? Like him, I do not want to give examples of how this could be achieved but, unfortunately, we have not yet got to the end of the road on hijacking or the various means which are going to be applied in the months and years ahead. It is sad, but we have not yet reached that stage. I should have thought that my noble friend who has just replied ought to have the powers, even if they are not fully used. I would ask him to anticipate this in view of the various conferences which are coming up, both here and abroad—the International Pilots' Federation and ICAO—and to give himself the powers. I would ask, with great respect, that he has a look at this point again.

LORD BESWICK

I wondered if I misheard the noble Lord. I understood him to say that there would be cases where there was a deliberate intention, and there may be cases where there was a mistake. But, from my reading of subsection (3) of Clause 2, it refers to persons intentionally communicating information which they know to be false.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am trying to draw a distinction between the intention to communicate the information and the intention to endanger life. They are not necessarily connected.

LORD BESWICK

But surely the crime here is the action? If the position is that they intend to endanger the aircraft but are not certain that it is going to endanger life, surely we are trying to draw a distinction which is not real? It is so—I was going to use the word "absurd", but I must not do that: it is such a difficult thing to say that a person can in fact seek intentionally to give false information to endanger an aircraft and yet, the noble Lord says, not intend to endanger life.

LORD DRUMALBYN

No.

LORD BESWICK

This is the implication of what the noble Lord is saying. I should have thought that the action contemplated in subsection (3) of Clause 2 was so potentially serious that it ought to attract the highest penalty.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The potential danger could be the same, but in the view of the Government there is far less likelihood that the safety of the aircraft in flight would be seriously threatened by this kind of action than would be so in the case of putting explosives on a plane or taking violent action on a plane, as contemplated in subsection (1). It seems to us that it is a different kind of quality of offence, and for that reason we were proposing that it should have a different maximum penalty. This is the view that the Government take: that we always have to try so to harmonise these penalties that comparable penalties across the hoard are imposed for comparable offences. We think, as I have explained, that this offence is similar to that under the Criminal Damage Act which involves the intention rather than that which involves actual results being achieved in those cases where an adverse result is achieved. The obligation of the Government under the Convention is to impose adequate penalties. We think that the penalty in this case, as a deterrent and as a punishment, would be adequate.

LORD HEWLETT

I support what my noble friend Lord Harvey and the mover of this Amendment have said. With respect to the Minister, a ten-year maximum, with the appropriate remission, does not make a very long sentence for what could be a most serious offence. I do not pretend to be a legal luminary or an expert in aircraft matters, but it would seem to me that there is sufficient feeling in your Lordships' Committee to warrant the Minister being kind enough to take the matter back to have one further look at it.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

This is dealing with maximum penalties, and the court always has a discretion to impose a much lower penalty. But is this not an offence which could conceivably result in loss of life; and, if so, should it not have a high maximum penalty?

LORD DRUMALBYN

It seems to me that the intention is really different here. The intention here is likely to be to hold to ransom: it might be a bomb hoax, or something of that kind, with the intention of extracting money. It is a different offence from the reality of placing a bomb on an aircraft and endangering an aircraft in flight in that way. But if it is the wish of the Committee, as it seems to be, that I should take this back and look at it again, of course I shall do so.

LORD TREFGARNE

One of the difficulties is that subsection (1) of Clause 4 simply lays down that, on conviction, the penalty is imprisonment for life; it does not give scope for any lesser penalty. If I were to press this Amendment at this stage, then I should be insisting that the only penalty for an offence under this Act was life imprisonment, and I cannot pretend that that is an appropriate solution. But I do suggest that the maximum penalty of imprisonment for life ought to be available to the courts. Because of the defect which I have myself seen in my Amendment I do not propose to press it, but I hope that the noble Lord and his advisers will be able to produce some other, better solution than mine, and perhaps we can consider this matter again at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Extradition]:

4.18 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 5: Page 5, line 23, at end insert— (" ( ) For the purposes of this section no offence or alleged offence under this Act shall be considered a political offence.")

The noble Lord said: Clause 5 of this Bill relates to extradition procedures and brings the offences under the Bill within the compass of the Extradition Act 1870. I believe that there is one enormous loophole in this Bill. As I understand it, anyone who claims that the offence that he has committed under this Bill was committed for political purposes—in other words, he was hoping to obtain political asylum, or some such thing—is exempt from the provisions of the Extradition Act 1870; and if the offender does so claim, we are precluded under that Act from extraditing him to the country of his origin. I should have thought that this loophole was so large and obvious as to have been plugged long before now, but it has not, and that is the purpose of my Amendment. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I quite understand my noble friend's feelings about this question. May I say first that it is not a matter of claiming to be a political offender which exempts a person from the risk of extradition; it is that in the view of those who have to judge, the Home Secretary or the courts, the offence is a political offence. Therefore he cannot, simply by saying that he is a political offender, escape from the rigours of the Bill. I should also say to my noble friend (and here I come back to the point at which I started) that this was a matter which was very hotly contested in the Convention itself. The Convention was drafted and agreed and people had started to append their signatures. It would not have been possible to reach agreement on the Convention as the noble Lord's Amendment would have altered it.

LORD TREFGARNE

May I interrupt for a moment? I am not seeking to amend the Convention; I am seeking to amend the legislation that we are enacting, which among other things gives force to the Convention.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My noble friend must realise that from their point of view, other countries would be in a much stronger position to demand the extradition of somebody if we were committed to the concept that the fact that an offence was a political offence would not be a reason for refusing extradition—which is what the noble Lord is seeking, as I understand it. Under the Fugitive Offenders Act it is not possible to extradite somebody who has committed a political offence. The only exception to that is the case of genocide. That is the only exception which is ever made in the matter of the extradition of political offenders, and that is because it is considered to be an offence so serious that the discretion of the Home Secretary should not apply merely because the genocide was a political offence.

I am afraid that I could not agree that we should introduce this Amendment, because any qualification of the present political safeguard in extradition would raise extremely difficult problems. All crimes other than genocide, however grave, remain subject to the political safeguard, notwithstanding that they may have caused widespread loss of life or injury to others and notwithstanding that they may have threatened serious danger to the life and limb of innocent persons. That is the position; and it would be wrong to alter it in this Bill. If we were to do so we should not be acting in accordance with the Convention.

LORD TREFGARNE

I am bound to say that I am not very happy about this position. Can the noble Lord give me more satisfaction as to what is going to happen to people who, for example, hijack an aircraft in flight and land in the United Kingdom and who say that they are doing it to get their friends liberated who happen to be in prison in some foreign country, in prison perhaps for what we would regard as something quite unobjectional, like belonging to some political Party unacceptable to a foreign Government? They have still committed the grave offence of hijacking; they have still threatened the safety of the aircraft and all the passengers and crew. If we leave this loophole, surely people who propose to perpetrate these crimes will not be deterred because they will be able to jump through this loophole. It may be they will be justified in claiming that they have political motives, but that does not make the offence of hijacking any less serious. We ought to extradite them just the same.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My noble friend is under some misapprehension about this matter. The fact that they are not extradited will not mean that they are not brought to justice. They will be brought to justice, but in this country. They will not go unpunished; they simply are not extraditable.

LORD TREFGARNE

I accept the point made by the noble Lord, but I do not think it alters the fact that the great deterrent is to extradite these people to the country under whose jurisdiction they would otherwise come. There are obvious examples. I do not want to dwell on them for that is not appropriate. However, I shall be making little further progress by pressing this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Interpretation]:

4.27 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 6: Page 7, line 29, leave out from ("when") to ("until") in line 31 and insert ("the last passenger has left the aircraft or").

The noble Earl said: By this Amendment I raise the question whether the definition of "aircraft in flight" is not a little too rigid as the Bill is at present drafted. I know that the wording here is exactly the same as in the Hijacking Bill. I am sure that once the Government have certain wording in mind they will take a great deal of shifting to any other wording. Under the Bill there are two forms of offence. One offence can take place when the aircraft is in service. That starts from the time, I assume, when the engineers first approach it in the hangar until 24 hours after landing. If during that period the aircraft is damaged in any way, Clause 1(1)(a) applies. Within that period there comes a period known as "in flight". It is here defined as the period from "doors shut" to "doors open". Once the doors are opened, Clause 1(1)(b), that is to say, the "act of violence", no longer applies. I am asking the Government whether that is not too narrow a definition, and whether in fact any sort of action could still take place which would probably come within the ambit of the Bill although the aircraft is landed; and whether the situation should be completely changed by virtue of opening the doors of the aircraft.

To a certain extent the case is covered by the words "forced landing". One would certainly call it a forced landing in the recent case, when the aircraft landed in the desert. In that case the crime of violence would still apply until the competent authorities have taken responsibility. The term "forced landing" is a pretty vague one. Forced landings occur in a great many different ways, whether from technical reasons or from one of the passengers acting violently. I would suggest that this danger continues until the passengers are out of the aircraft. If anything takes place, let us say, at Heathrow; if the aircraft had landed, and the doors were open when the act of violence occurred, then that act would not in fact, as I see it, come under this Bill.

I am suggesting to the noble Lord that he should extend this definition. I base this argument on the assumption that the noble Lord will say that this is part of the Montreal Convention and therefore he does not want to alter it. But this is our own Act of Parliament. We are getting bothered by being driven about by Europe; but for goodness' sake! do not let us be driven about indefinitely by Montreal; otherwise we might just as well dissolve this Parliament and go somewhere else. It would be a waste of time. I think the danger con- tinues in any act where threats of violence take place, until the passengers are out of the aircraft. The safeguarding words "forced landing" are too indefinite. It is very difficult to say what is a forced landing and what is not. I should like the noble Lord to look at that point to see whether he can think of something better.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

May I briefly add to what my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said. He is absolutely right in referring to passengers being out of the aircraft. I should like to consider also whether it would be appropriate for the crew to be out of the aircraft as well as the passengers.

LORD TREFGARNE

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I think there is a danger of too wide a definition being given to the expression "forced landing". I agree that my noble friend's suggestion is a good one, but I fear that there may be one or two problems about the wording of his Amendment. For example, it makes no reference either to the crew (which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury) or to the cargo, which might be equally important. There might well be bombs in the cargo. I should also like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, what is the position about acts committed prior to what is here defined as "the commencement of flight". I have in mind contamination of the fuel supply before the fuel is put into the aircraft. Perhaps the noble Lord can say whether that would come under the heading of tampering with the aircraft in flight.

LORD DRUMALBYN

If I may deal first with the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I should have thought that tampering with the fuel supply would certainly be liable to endanger the aircraft in flight, and I should be very glad to consult my advisers to see that this point is covered. My noble friend Lord Selkirk is quite right in thinking that the subsection he seeks to amend is not only reproduced from the Hijacking Act but also from the Convention itself. The words "forced landing" were not defined in the Hijacking Act, but that is not to say that it is not worth considering whether they should be defined, and I shall ask my advisers to consider whether that should be done.

On the main point of the Amendment, here again we are up against exactly the same difficulty. To extend the definition as my noble friend suggests would have the effect of extending the scope of the offences created by the Bill. For example, as drafted, the Bill makes it an offence to damage an aircraft in service so as to be likely to endanger its safety between the time the doors are closed and the time when they are reopened. This Amendment would extend all the effects of offences that could be committed during that time. Perhaps I ought to make clear that if a person who has committed such an offence comes here, he can be tried even though he is a foreigner and committed the offence abroad, and even though the aircraft affected was a foreign aircraft. It is only because the Convention so provides that the United Kingdom can lawfully assume jurisdiction in such circumstances. If the danger occurred after the doors were open but before the passengers had all disembarked, the case would not be covered by the Convention and the State of which the offender was a national could well complain if we tried the offender here for a Convention offence committed abroad.

If an aircraft is destroyed, or damaged, here at any time while on the ground that is already an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. That is the case my noble friend obviously had in mind. An aircraft has landed, the doors have been opened, and while perhaps the passengers are getting out of the aircraft an offence is committed which seriously damages the aircraft and may well cause injury, possibly even death, to the people involved. This, as I understand it, is already an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, to which I have been referring, so I think that any gap in the legislation is more apparent than real in this matter. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD BESWICK

I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, does not withdraw his Amendment as simply as that, because again the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has not answered the points which have been made. Of course there may be other legislation; whether or not it provides for identical penalties I can- not say, and the noble Lord, who has had more advice than I, has not told us. But we are supposed to be dealing with a certain contingency, a problem or a threat to our normal lives. Here, as the noble Earl has said, that threat does not necessarily end when the doors are closed or when the doors are opened. Indeed there are a number of cases that come to mind where some of the most terrible hours of agony have been suffered after the aircraft has landed—not necessarily a forced landing—and negotiations and threats have gone on and demands have been made that somebody should be released from custody in some other part of the world. This is a situation with which we ought to be able to deal and for the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to say that he can think of some Act under which we could get at these people is not good enough.

We ought to have some overall penalty in this Act which deals with this category of offence. I had discussed this with the noble Earl and I think that the formula he has devised is extremely good. But having listened to what has been said, I am wondering whether we could not improve even on his formula of leaving out all words up to: the competent authorities take over responsibility for the aircraft and for persons and property on board". Of course the "competent authorities" could be the airport authorities in this instance. Certainly they take over responsibility for the passengers after the aircraft has landed. The authorities in the case of a forced landing would be other authorities, but they would be competent authorities. The words here may have been thought all right by some draftsmen at an earlier stage, but they are not all right now. Here we are up against what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor called plagiarism on the part of the draftsmen. Parliamentary draftsmen tend to go to previous legislation and take out en bloc what they can find in another Act and use it again, and they think that if that did for one Act it will do for another. That is wrong. We ought to look at each piece of legislation separately and in this case learn from experience, knowing the sort of incidents that have occurred. I think that we could improve on the Bill and I suggest that either we accept the Amendment moved by the noble Earl or at a later stage get even more refined wording to deal with all cases which arise until the passengers are all free from the aircraft.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I readily accept what was said by my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury about including the crew with the passengers. In subsection (1)(b), an act of violence applies during the flight and an act of violence cannot easily be shown against the cargo. So I do not think that it would be proper to include the cargo. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to damage. The crime of damage applies while the aircraft is in service. Certainly it would apply after it has landed and the doors are open; more or less until it gets back into the hangar, or for 24 hours, so the question of damage does not arise. Here we are dealing solely with the question of violence against passengers. I think the noble Lord must look at this point again. It is not good enough to say that other countries would complain. What do your Lordships think the legislation will be in other countries with regard to this? Will they copy us? They will have all sorts of variations in their legislation. Are we going to be confined to what we think is in the Montreal Convention? In any case, the Hijacking Act was written before the Montreal Convention. The noble Lord has admitted that this Amendment strengthens the scope of the Bill. We all want to strengthen the scope of the Bill as far as we can in justice, and I think we ought to insist on this being done. I would rather give my noble friend a chance to look at this again to see whether he can improve the words, and I hope that he will do so. It seems to me to be rather loosely worded at present.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Perhaps I may intervene at this stage to say that I do not think it is right to describe the use of these words as plagiarism. I drew attention to the fact that they are the same words as were used in the Hijacking Act, and that that was because they are in the Hague Convention; and the words in the Hague Convention are also in the Montreal Convention. They are presumably put there because those who conferred together thought that this was the best definition they could get of an aircraft in flight. What my noble friend is asking is something quite different. I think we are all agreed that we could not accept this Amendment as it is now, anyway, because it would not go far enough to meet what the noble Lord has in mind. What we are concerned with is to what penalties anybody who commits an offence of violence will be subjected if the period of the aircraft being in flight is over and then the offence is committed. That is the point that the noble Lord wants to get at.

I have already given information on an earlier Amendment about the Criminal Damage Act, and in the extreme case under that Act, where life is endangered there is the same penalty of life imprisonment. If someone were guilty of an offence after the plane was on the ground and the doors had been opened when the flight was over, then whatever his nationality (I think I am right in saying this, but with so many noble and learned Lords here I speak with a good deal of diffidence), he would be committing a crime on a British aircraft and would be subject to British law. I do not see that there is any great difference here. If he committed an offence, he would be amenable to the law; and a very severe law, too.

However, this is the Committee stage of the Bill, and I shall examine carefully what has been said and go into it to see how far we can meet the purpose my noble friend wants to achieve; that is, that a person who not only causes damage, but commits an act of violence after the doors are opened, will be severely punished.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am glad to accept my noble friend's assurance. But if what my noble friend says is correct, why does the second part about a forced landing come in at all? If this is an offence under some other Act, then the moment an aircraft lands the second part of a forced landing is not necessary. It is because that appears to be necessary that I think the wording, as it is at present, is not satisfactory. However, with my noble friend's assurance that he will look at it again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.