HL Deb 06 March 1973 vol 339 cc1059-85

Report stage resumed.

LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 21: Page 15, line 16, after ("person") insert ("acting in that behalf with his authority").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I can move this Amendment very shortly. It would not achieve much of a change in the Bill, but would make it much more tidy and more in conformity with our ideas as to the criminal law. Clause 15 provides that if somebody gets into an aircraft and it is found that in his luggage there is one of the prohibited instruments—say, a toy pistol, or a make-believe firearm—the onus is on the part of the owner of the luggage to show that he did not put it in his luggage, even although somebody else did. What I am saying is not wholly academic, because some time ago there was a case rather like that when two men planted something of the sort in the baggage of two perfectly innocent women. If somebody's luggage is found to contain a firearm, it should surely be upon the prosecuting authority which accuses a traveller of having imported that firearm into his baggage to prove it. I dare say it would be quite easy to establish a prima facie case by saying that it could not be in the baggage unless you put it there yourself, but that might not be true, as in the case of these two perfectly innocent women. So the onus should be upon the prosecution to show that the pistol, or whatever it was, was put there with the authority of, or by, the passenger.

When that is shown the passenger, under the opening words of the first three lines of Clause 15, is provided with a defence. He commits no offence against the criminal law if he can show—the onus of proof being upon him—that he had some lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Clearly, if somebody else could put a pistol in his baggage he would be able to show that without any difficulty. But in conformity with our general principles of criminal law, and with the onus of proof, the prosecution should surely, in the first place, have to show affirmatively that the person against whom a charge is brought under Clause 15 put luggage on the plane, and put in that luggage, or authorised somebody else to put in that luggage, the pistol or whatever it may be which is the subject of the charge. When that has been shown by the prosecution, it should then be for the accused passenger to say, "Well, that may be so, and it may be a fact that there was a pistol in my luggage, but I did not put it there and that is my reasonable excuse within the meaning of Clause 15." In my submission to the House, that is how the onus of proof should be divided. My Lords, I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, the noble Lord is of course quite right, that this provision alters the burden of proof. The courts have held that a person does not have an article with him if he does not know it is there, whereas the purpose of this subsection is to treat a person as having with him anything covered by Clause 15 which is in his baggage, or which he causes to be brought into an aircraft or on to an aerodrome, whether or not he knows it is there. As the noble Lord says, it is open to him to say that he had reasonable excuse for its being there in that he did not know that it was there. But in circumstances of this kind, where it is a question of protecting the lives of people going in aircraft, I put it to the House: if there is a weapon of some kind in the baggage of a person or in property that is being carried at his instance on the aircraft, is it unreasonable for him to have to show that there was a reasonable excuse for him to have it there? I should have thought that, in circumstances of that kind—and they are very special circumstances—it is reasonable enough that the onus of proof should be on him to show that he did not know the thing was there. Otherwise, in every case, of course he will say that he did not know it was there, and it is a very difficult thing indeed to discharge the duty of proving that he did. In these special circumstances, I commend the provision in the Bill to the House. I think it is the right course to adopt.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 22A: Leave out Clause 15.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move this Amendment only because I could not otherwise speak on Report stage. I sought at first to try to find if there was a lawful authority which could be adequately explained, and I came to the conclusion that there was not. I take it, for instance, that a gun licence is not adequate as a lawful authority by itself; and I came to the conclusion that probably the only lawful authority would be if the police or members of the Armed Forces were carrying weapons. At least, that is my interpretation. But I wonder whether it would not be reasonable to have some suggestion that, if anyone wished to carry a toy pistol, or possibly a form of weapon, for some reason, he should show it at once and leave it in the hands of either the stewardess or some other person, or possibly have a lock-fast place within the aircraft itself where it could be kept. Because people do want to carry weapons sometimes, and it seems to be that, for the smooth working of this provision, it would be better to have some easy way in which a perfectly innocent person could carry a weapon.

The other point I should like to make is this. It says in subsection (1)(b): in any other aircraft at a time when it is in, or in flight over, the United Kingdom, …". Why do we confine this to the United Kingdom? Have we not still responsibility in this sphere for a number of other places, such as Gibraltar, the Seychelles, Hong Kong, Brunei and, so far as I know, the Associated Territories of the Caribbean? Is any provision made for these at all, or do they not come into the general purview of a Bill of this character? I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I should like to have an opportunity to look into the suggestion that my noble friend has made, that there should be some method of surrendering one's weapons, or what look like weapons. In point of fact, I think this is often done. I believe that hostesses collect toy pistols and things like that and deliver them back at the end of the journey. But I should like to look into the possibility of some provision being made for that here. I should also like to consider my noble friend's second point. I am not myself quite clear what the situation is. I rather suspect that this provision may be included in some other Act of Parliament under the definition of "air space", but if that is not so I shall certainly wish to look into it very seriously.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

All these cases come up subject to, I think, aviation law, so there may be other provisions in this Bill which should be considered.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to answer the question which I put to him at Committee stage and which he did not answer? Suppose somebody was coming to shoot at Bisley and brought a rifle with him, quite properly. How does he secure lawful authority if in a proper case he wants to be allowed to take some sort of weapon on to an aircraft with him?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord as to what authority he can show, but presumably he has some authority of some kind for being in possession of the weapon. This was certainly so at school, I know. I ought to write to the noble Lord on this point. In further answer to my noble friend, I now have a message from the Box to say that the Bill can be extended to the Colonies under Clause 24(2).

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him whether he will consider the case, allied to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, of when, for example, a Member of your Lordships' House wants to go shooting in Scotland and takes his shotgun on the flight up to Edinburgh? My noble friend may not be able to answer that question now, but perhaps he will think about it and let us know later.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, I raised this particular point at Committee stage, and I am disappointed—bitterly disappointed—that the Minister has not come here with the information at his fingertips. I pointed out to him then that if someone has a shotgun and he is asked What is your authority?", he has the authority of his shotgun licence, which enables him legally to have it. If you have your shotgun in a case, are you or are you not allowed to take it? Who does, or who does not, give you authority to put it in the luggage compartment of the aircraft? Please could we have a reply to that question?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I cannot see any reason why the licence itself should not be lawful authority to take it. Of course, if there were an alert, or something of that sort, one can be quite certain that special attention would be paid to these things. But I do not think that the difficulty that my noble friend envisages can arise here. If a man has authority to be in possession of a gun, obviously he will want to take it with him in certain circumstances, and I cannot see for the life of me why he should not be allowed to do so.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, may I ask one further question? At Committee stage I asked whether a B.E.A. traffic officer would be able to give lawful authority. Can my noble friend tell me whether he would or would not? If he would not, who would?

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am sorry, my Lords; I did not quite hear what my noble friend said.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

If I arrive at London airport with my gun, I have legal authority to have the gun, and it can be carried on the aircraft only with appropriate authority. Under this Bill, has the traffic officer got the necessary powers to give that authority or not?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I would certainly think so. I should have thought that guns were carried under special arangements at the present time. You do not take your gun and put it underneath your seat. There are arrangements for carrying gulls, surely.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, if there are arrangements for carrying guns, would the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, be good enough to tell us what they are? Because that will probably be the answer to the question that I put. We are not here talking about having a lawful authority to have a gun. Any crook who was going to do damage on an aircraft would presumably be sufficiently far-sighted to provide himself with some forged authority for carrying a gun. This is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is having authority to take a gun on to an aircraft. If there is some sort of procedure by which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, can be assured that before he sets out for Scotland, he will have something in his hands which will be accepted as a proper authority for him carrying his gun with him, then we ought to know what that procedure is.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, I have taken rifles and guns on aircraft, and my experience has always been that they take the rifle or gun from you and place it in the hold of the aircraft. There has never been any difficulty, so far as I know.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, with the agreement of the House, may I say that I cannot see any difficulty here. There are two separate things. One is lawful authority and the other is reasonable excuse. If you have a licence, that is lawful authority; if you are going shooting, that is reasonable excuse.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 [Inspection of aircraft and aerodromes]:

LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 23: Page 16, line 28, after ("any") insert ("aircraft").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a point raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye in Committee on Recommittal. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to what was an inadvertent omission. The word "aircraft" should be inserted after the word "any" so that it will read: The powers conferred by subsection (3) of this section shall not include power for an authorised person to use force for the purpose of entering any aircraft building or works or entering upon any land.

My Lords, I beg to move.

6.42 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 24: After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:

Parliamentary safeguards

".—(1) On or as soon as may be after the 1st of January, the 1st of April, the 1st of July and the 1st of October in each year the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of any action he has taken under section 8, 9, 10 or 11 of this Act, indicating in particular whether any, and if so which, of the directions he has so given is still in force.

(2) If any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 9, 10 or 11 of this Act is in force as aforesaid, and he wishes it to continue in force beyond the last day of the current month of January, April, July or October, he shall lay before each House of Parliament, together with the report mentioned in the preceding subsection, an Order extending the operation of such direction for a further period of not more than three months after the end of the said month of January, April, July or October as the case may be: and any such Order shall be made by Statutory Instrument which shall be annullable by a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) Any direction made under section 9, 10 or 11 of this Act which is not extended by such an Order as aforesaid shall expire at the end of the said month of January, April, July or October as the case may be."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have now been discussing this very remarkable Bill for about two hours. The outstanding feature of the Bill, which is asking for unprecedented powers, is that it has no association with Parliament whatsoever. There is no provision of any kind that any Minister acting under the Bill should at any point whatever report to Parliament, let alone ask authority from Parliament for what he is doing. My Amendment really does two things. First, it says that the Minister will regularly report to Parliament on what action he has taken—particularly under Clauses 9, 10 and 11, by the provisions of which he can break any Act of Parliament he likes for the purpose of the Bill. Noble Lords may smile, but the purpose of the Bill includes any action taken at any aerodrome—or any potential action—so that anyone who merely looks like a ruffian comes within the general purview of the Bill.

The noble Lord was good enough to tell me this. He said that the Minister by a telephone message could bring any aerodrome to a standstill in an emergency. My Lords, what of this emergency? It is possibly a figment of his imagination; though it may be a reality—but it is purely in the Minister's mind. Not one word about it appears in any part of this Bill. The Minister can in fact create what I might call martial law at any time and not have to tell Parliament a word about it or have any obligation to get authority for it. And he can continue this martial law, according to the Bill, indefinitely, over any length of time he likes.

I ask this question. Do we really want to give any Minister permanent power to do this on a statutory basis? If I may say so I think it is an excessive power and I think it is quite unnecessary. My Amendment makes no alteration to the emergency powers: the Minister can still do anything he likes; but he must report from time to time what he has done under the operative Act. If he wants a direction to continue he must put forward a Statutory Instrument which would incorporate what is required so that it will become in a sense a permanent way of handling these things.

We do not know what a direction is. What we know is that it need not be written. That is quite clear from the actual terms of the Bill. I have used the words "telephone message". The Minister has not contradicted me. He says that any direction, a direction which can cut through an Act of Parliament, can break a contract, can avoid any rule of law, can be done just like that. I think that we are going a very long way. It is true that he cannot authorise an act of force but he can (the Bill says so) encourage a constable to arrest anybody or to use firearms—admittedly on his own responsibility—and he can be sued for doing so. But the Minister can give encouragement and something that comes very close to instruction.

When the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, opened the debate on Part II of the Bill he said that it was unprecedented. I think we would all agree that it is unprecedented. Nobody has any doubts about that. He went on to say that it will be used in an emergency and it will be used sparingly. There are no words to that effect included in any part of the Bill. We have tried to insert such provisos; the Minister will have no part of our efforts. I now ask that he should go one step further. Will he undertake to make some arrangement to report these actions to Parliament so that Parliament shall have some idea of what use has been made of this extraneous power? My Lords, if any lesson recurs in political history, it is that democracy surrenders powers when it is frightened. We are frightened. We surrender powers, powers that will be used for all sorts of purposes not envisaged in our debate to-day. This is history happening all over again. I ask that some provision be made for a proper report to Parliament. In that sense I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I must confess that my noble friend astonishes me. He says that he fears that history shows that these powers will be used for all sorts of purposes. If they were used for all sorts of purposes they would be going against the provisions that we are now trying to put through Parliament; because the purposes are closely limited to protection against actions of violence. There is no question of using these powers for all sorts of purposes. My noble friend has been a very distinguished First Lord of the Admiralty. I wonder what he would have thought had he been told to report on the security arrangements of the Admiralty to the Houses of Parliament every three months.

I do not understand my noble friend's anxiety on this score. It may be that there should be the usual method of reporting to Parliament. No doubt that is what will happen if public attention is directed towards any use of these powers. No doubt reports will be given to Parliament. There will be questions about the security measures taken. If there is anything like a threat of violence one would hope that those questions would be put and that Parliament would keep us up to the mark on it. But the idea that we should have to disclose our security arrangements every three months is a fantastic one.

I put it to my noble friend that he is going too far. How could you give any indication of the sort of direction which is given without revealing your security arrangements? How could you do that? There are lots of security arrangements now operating; they are good, they are voluntary. Why, because we have to take powers, should we then have to reveal the whole of these security arrangements? Let us take another aspect of the matter. Let us suppose you wanted to find out what the security arrangements were. All that you would have to do would be to organise a hoax and get knowledge of the direction. You then know what the security arrangements are and can go ahead with whatever you wanted to do. I think that my noble friend is being (shall I say?) too squeamish in this matter.

There are real, serious threats in the world now and we ought to take measures to deal with them. I am not out of sympathy with the idea that Parliament should be informed, broadly, of what is going on, but the idea that every direction should be reported and that we should say whether it is necessary to keep it on for another month, and bring it to an end at the end of four months, as I think it works out, would be rather absurd. I hope that my noble friend will not proceed with this Amendment because I think it would be unworkable. We are not here dealing with counter-inflation or something of that kind, but with a threat which may arise from time to time and totally unpredictable, against which we must have constantly secret provisions in order to deal with it.

LORD BESWICK

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He really has made a good case—and I mean that this time. On the other hand, I think he swept aside the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, a little too readily. The noble Lord's honourable friend the Minister is arming himself with considerable and wide powers. Although it may well be that some of those powers will have to be exercised secretly, it is also the fact that the powers can affect millions of people. The number of people passing through aerodromes to-day is very great and to speak of millions is not an exaggeration. Moreover, there are hundreds of thousands of people who work within the confines of aerodromes over which the noble Lord's honourable friend is proposing to give himself power. In the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to expect that some report should be made to Parliament. If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says that every three months is too regular, what about every year? Would he agree to that? Ought he not to have been a little more forthcoming in his reply? If it is not feasible to give every detail of everything which is done, could not something be reported?

Could we not have some report in more general terms and the sort of details that the noble Lord was talking about? In other words, I hoped that in reply to the case put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, it would have been possible to say that maybe in this Amendment too much was being asked, but that it was recognised that Parliament was concerned with this matter and something would be done to give some sort of satisfaction in respect of the very proper fears which the noble Earl has expressed.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, if I may speak again, I said that I understood my noble friend's anxiety, but I also said that I did not see any chance of our accepting the Amendment in anything like its present form. It would be extremely churlish of me not to say that I would look at this matter again and take it up with the Minister for Aerospace who is responsible. I should like to do that, but I must say that I do it without commitment. I should not like to raise the hopes of my noble friend, or of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, too high. There is always doubt about the best way of expressing accountability to Parliament. It is worth looking at from that point of view, I agree. These are wide powers, but I should not like to commit my honourable friend to any specific provisions or to say that anything would necessarily be written into the Bill. With the recognition that I am not out of sympathy with the need to keep Parliament informed about this subject, I hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, it is clear that the Minister is completely out of sympathy with the idea of keeping Parliament informed. There is no provision for that in the Bill, and clearly there ought to be. The example that the noble Lord gave about the Admiralty could hardly have been worse. If there had been more questions about security at the Admiralty when I was First Lord a lot of things might have happened that did not happen. The Government are taking immense powers which they wish to hold in secret. I think it completely wrong and I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 18 [Penalties in connection with exercise of powers under Part II or under s. 17]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 25: Page 17, line 40, after ("or") insert ("without reasonable excuse")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, there is a curious distinction between Clauses 9, 10 and 11 which we have discussed. One enables the accused to make an explanation about why he has refused a reasonable excuse and the other does not permit that to be a reasonable excuse. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain the distinction between these clauses. There may be a good reason but I do not see it. There are slightly wider powers in Clause 11 than in Clauses 9 and 10, but basically they are the same.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I will endeavour to give my noble friend the explanation he seeks. It is true that a defence of reasonable excuse is provided in subsections (1) and (3) of this clause and in respect of refusal or failure to comply with the requirement under Clause 8 or Clause 16(2)(b) or with the direction under Clause 16. This is because it is conceivable that the person concerned may be unable to provide the information requested under Clauses 8 and 16(2)(b) or to fulfil a direction under Clause 11. In such circumstances we believe that he should be able to offer reasonable excuse as a defence. Because of the nature of the directions which could be given under Clauses 9 and 10 we consider the defence of reasonable excuse would not be appropriate.

Clause 9 can require an aircraft operator to take all such steps as are practicable and necessary not to cause or permit persons or property to come into his aircraft or to modify his aircraft. There cannot be a reasonable excuse for not taking all such steps as are practicable and necessary. If, in the case of searching, he does all that can be done to prevent entry, he will not have failed to comply with the direction. With regard to modifying aircraft, in addition again to taking such steps as are practicable and necessary Clause 9(3) requires the Secretary of State to inform the Civil Aviation Authority of any proposal for modification and to take account of the Authority's advice. It is implicit in this that consultation will take place which must inevitably involve the operator. In the case of Clause 10 the aerodrome manager is required only to "use his best endeavours" to ensure that searches are carried out. It seems to me that there can be no reasonable excuse for an aerodrome manager not to use his best endeavours. My Lords, I hope that I have made clear to my noble friend the distinction that the Government see between the two sets of cases and that he will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 [Compensation in respect of certain measures taken by aerodrome managers]:

7.0 p.m.

LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 18, line 34, at end insert— ("A direction under section 11 of this Act requires any measures to be taken consisting of the direction, execution, alteration or removal of a building or other works on land either within or outside an aerodrome, or where").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to give a right of appeal against certain directions. It is part of a pattern of Amendments, the others being Nos. 27 and 28. I will seek to deploy the argument in support of all three Amendments. It is now common ground that a direction under Clause 11 can require measures to be taken for the construction and execution, demolition or removal of the building.

Clause 20, read with the Schedule, gives a right to compensation to any person affected if the result of carrying out the direction causes a diminution of the value of land in which he has an interest. The Amendments I bring to the notice of the House seek to extend that slightly by conferring a right of appeal against the direction itself. I will not go into the technicalities of the changes of wording proposed by Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, but if your Lordships would be so kind as to look at Amendment No. 28, your Lordships will see that the persons affected, or likely to be affected, by a direction which relates to the construction, execution, alteration, demolition or removal of a building or other works is to have a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal. The Lands Tribunal, if satisfied that the direction is unnecessary or unreasonable, or otherwise unjustifiable or oppressive, can cancel the direction or amend it, or make it subject to conditions, and make such other order as seems just in the circumstances.

This Amendment seeks to invest the Lands Tribunal with the power to deal with appeals of this kind. Maybe other tribunals would be more suitable, but the Lands Tribunal is chosen because it is to the Lands Tribunal that, under the provisions of the schedule that goes together with Clause 20, the owner of land the value of which is affected by carrying out the direction has to go. It was thought convenient that if the Lands Tribunal deals with questions of compensation, it should be that same tribunal which is to be empowered to allow an appeal against the direction itself.

My Lords, I would venture respectfully to submit that the grounds which are set out in Amendment No. 28 are suitable grounds. The appellant would have to satisfy the Lands Tribunal that the direction in the circumstances was unnecessary or unreasonable or otherwise unjustifiable or oppressive. It would seem, so I would submit to the House, quite unreasonable that a person affected by such a direction who could satisfy the court that it is, in the terms in which I have described it, an unfair direction should have no remedy by way of appeal enabling him to get the direction cancelled or altered. It is to give him just that appeal that these Amendments are put on the Marshalled List. It is submitted that without the right of appeal the provision as to compensation may be a quite inadequate form of relief. I do not wish to repeat what I said earlier, but I would again make the distinction between an emergency measure and an emergency which is not of an emergency character. Clearly a measure which requires a building to be destroyed or constructed cannot be a measure which comes within the category of emergency measures. It takes time and it takes thought as to whether a direction requiring a change of this sort is really necessary or justifiable. It cannot be the case that it could be so urgent to demolish or construct a building that there cannot be reasonable time for an appeal with regard to direction to be heard. I respectfully submit to the House that this is a necessary addition to the Bill in order to make it fair in its operation as between the Executive and the subject. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I must confess that I do not quite understand the purport of Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. I tried to work these out, but failed to understand how they fitted in. However, I understand the general intention to be that they pave the way for Amendment No. 28 and provide for an appeals procedure. I am not in the slightest ashamed of having to repeat the assurances that we wish to maintain a voluntary system of security, and that we are determined to use the powers sparingly and with care and responsibility. There is only one reason for this part of the Bill, and that is the protection of our citizens, whether they be airline passengers or air crew, and foreign visitors against violence. We hope that we shall never have to use the powers, but we must be prepared.

I take the noble and learned Lord's point that he wants to distinguish between the emergency and the preparation for the emergency, but I am not at all clear how this would be done by the Amendment. If I am right about that, it would mean that the Amendment strikes at the heart of this Part of the Bill. Even although in the Schedule it is referred to on the question of compensation, it seems a curious procedure to place before a body which is primarily concerned with valuation the responsibility for adjudicating on the Secretary of State's decisions and, to all intents and purposes, to supervise his policy in regard to security. This is what it would mean. It would be the Lands Tribunal that would have to decide whether it was necessary and reasonable, or unnecessary or unreasonable, to carry out a particular direction. Whatever form of appeal might be necessary, I should have thought that the Lands Tribunal was hardly the body to do that. I should have thought that it would have taken the view that where the matter is one of security, and possibly of tactical security, if I may put it that way, the Lands Tribunal would say, "We have nothing to say about that", and they would almost be bound to take the view of the Secretary of State as to the necessity for doing it. The mere fact of going to appeal in this way would simply involve delay, and might have even worse effects.

I am not saying that it may not be possible to arrange some way of questioning a decision of the Secretary of State. But I must point out again that the way in which that will be done is through consultation. No doubt in the form of preparing for an emergency, the plan to be adopted will be, as is now the case, a matter for the security committee on the airport itself, subject to the general directions that come down from the National Aviation Security Committee, of which there is a Department of Trade and Industry chairman. It is only in the last resort, where voluntary agreement cannot be reached, that a direction would be given at all. The position would surely be that there was an agreement in the Security Committee that something needed to be done in the way of construction and the person immediately affected objected because of his own personal interest.

I think we must accept that where the public interest is at variance with private interest in matters of considerable importance every attempt would be made first of all to reach agreement. It is only in cases where everybody was absolutely convinced that this was necessary that the direction would be given. Where it was given, I should have thought that in such a case the public interest should override the private interest. I do not know of any further appeal which would be useful in such circumstances, but I am quite certain that the Lands Tribunal would not be an appropriate body.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, it seems to me we have a good deal in common with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He cannot understand the words we put down, and we cannot understand words that he puts down, so we get along quite well. There is a principle here. It may well be that the drafting is not perfect—I can quite understand that this may be so—but the principle is one of some substance and I should have thought that the House as a whole, having listened to the arguments which my noble friend put, would agree with him. It is said by the noble Lord that the powers will be used sparingly and responsibly. We are not concerned in this House with whether powers are used sparingly or not; we are concerned with the powers themselves. In the future they may be used in one way or the other, and it does not matter at all how many assurances are given that the powers are to be used sparingly if in future under a different Government the powers are abused. We in these Houses of Parliament are supposed so to arrange the wording that we can ensure it is not possible to abuse the powers.

Again, my noble friend made absolutely clear that we are not here concerned with a Part I emergency—in other words, something which requires immediate action. We are concerned here with something which inevitably will take some time. The erection or the demolition of a building will not be carried out overnight or even necessarily in a week, so we are not asking for anything that is going to delay the implementation of security measures unreasonably. In those circumstances I should have thought that the possibility of appeal would do much to ensure that powers would be used sparingly and responsibly. If the noble Lord is able to assure us that the principle of appeal can be put into the Bill in some other form, all right; we will listen to him; but if he is not going to give that kind of assurance I think we should again divide the House.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, with the leave of the House, it would be foolish of me to say that we would not be prepared to look at this. I do not think the noble Lord would really expect me to say at this stage that I accept the principle and will introduce an Amendment. I hope he will be content with my assurance that we will look at this matter very seriously indeed to see whether there is some way in which we can meet the point he has made.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 [Reimbursement of expenses incurred for purposes to which Part II applies]:

7.15 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 29: Page 19, line 17, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is an attempt to further my own Parliamentary education and to seek a little educidation. To my simple mind, the clause as written imposes no obligation on the Secretary of State to reimburse the moneys described in the clause. It seemed to me better that we should write it in, as my Amendment suggests, and say: The Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury shall, out of monies provided by Parliament, reimburse to any person …". I will not go on. This is a simple matter. There may be a good explanation as to why my Amendment should not stand, in which case I shall be glad to hear it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, the first point is that "may" is the usual word that is put into a provision for a Government to make payments. I think in any case that where we are providing for the Government to reimburse the cost of aviation security it is more appropriate to give some latitude in this matter. But I hope my noble friend will take comfort from the fact that the Government are already making a large contribution to this by meeting the cost of British and overseas airlines in searching passengers and baggage at airports. Having made this notable contribution to the problem, I think perhaps it would not really be quite proper at this time, and particularly in this place, to seek to tie the Government in the way the Amendment proposes on a matter which is essentially one for another place. I may say that the Amendment as drawn would not commit the Government very much because it would still have to be enabled to pay only part of the expenses—and that might be a very small commitment indeed. That answer of course is a rather technical one, but the intention is in fact to provide for these payments to be made at the present time, and that is what is happening at the moment.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I fear that my Parliamentary education has got not one step further. However, I do not want to establish a precedent and, as my noble friend says, it is really a matter for the other place. Having ventilated this question, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 19, line 33, at end insert— ("(3) The Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury may also, out of monies provided by Parliament, reimburse to any person any loss or expense incurred by that person and arising directly out of any direction given by the Secretary of State under sections 8, 9, 10 or 11 of this Act.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. Its purpose is to give the Government the opportunity in certain circumstances of recompensing people, who are neither operators of aircraft nor managers of aerodromes, who may suffer loss through directions given by the Secretary of State. This argument came up earlier in the discussion and I will not pursue it further now, except to say this. Supposing a direction demands that some building be searched, some boxes be opened or some damage done, and supposing the manager of the aerodrome refuses to rectify the damage he has caused as a result of the direction he has received from the Secretary of State. Clause 14(2) reads: … accordingly no proceedings (whether civil or criminal) shall lie against any person in any United Kingdom court by reason of anything done or not done by him or on his behalf in compliance with such a direction. That means the man whose warehouse or property has been damaged as a result of the direction given by the Secretary of State has no remedy whatever. It may not happen often, but I am suggesting that Parliament should take powers to offer remedies in specific cases.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend in his Amendment. There are undoubtedly a number of situations that spring to my mind which could cause a substantial loss to third parties, and which ought to be the subject of some compensation. Only recently I was asked to carry liquid nitrogen in specially constructed containers in an aircraft. Had the Secretary of State directed that those containers should be opened for inspection, all the liquid nitrogen, worth thousands of pounds, would have been lost, and the whole purpose of the exercise nullified. I suppose that the carrier in that case would have been liable for the loss of the nitrogen. He also would have had no redress under the terms of this Bill as it is presently drafted. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some assurance in cases like that.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give an assurance, but what I can do is to look at the case made by my noble friends. The case that is being made is a consequential loss rather than a direct loss owing to compliance with a direction. I should like to look at that point to see what can be done. It has gone rather farther than I personally had contemplated.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, is not in the habit of giving very firm assurances. I hope that he will do his utmost to go so far as he possibly dare towards an assurance in this particular case. This example of liquid nitrogen had not occurred to me, but I can think of all kinds of possibilities of damage to quite innocent third parties. It ought to be possible to see that they are provided with some compensation, if they can prove their case. I hope that the noble Lord will be able—if not to assure his noble friends—to give a feeling that he really is serious on this occasion and something will be done at a later stage.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, as the noble Lord will understand, I am not in a position to give an absolute assurance on this matter, but I will undertake to look at it seriously.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 23 [Interpretation]:

7.22 p.m.

TILE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 31: Page 20 line 22, leave out from ("aircraft") to end of line 26 and insert ("which lands or takes off from an aerodrome in the United Kingdom for hire or reward.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Bill deals with two types of aircraft: those registered in this country, and those operating in this country. In Clause 23 one finds a definition which includes words that I do not understand. One is the word "allocated", and the other is the phrase "in exceptional circumstances I suggest that it would be better to have in this Bill words which are comprehensible. I have modestly suggested words which I believe are generally understood, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would consider it wise to have in the interpretation clause an interpretation which is generally understandable.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, a definition not only has to be capable of being understood but also has to be effective in what it seeks to achieve. This is not easy. The reference to … being allocated for use on flights … is required to ensure that an overseas airline operator who is operating air ser- vices to and from the United Kingdom can be served with a notice under Clause 8 seeking information about security procedures, despite the fact that he has no aircraft actually in the United Kingdom at the time. Under the Amendment a notice requiring information could not be given unless there was an aircraft within the United Kingdom. The reference to … otherwise than in exceptional circumstances … is intended to exclude aircraft which land and subsequently take off in the United Kingdom, but which apart from exceptional circumstances would not have Come to the United Kingdom. For example, over-flying aircraft which might land because of mechanical trouble, or aircraft diverted here from the Continent because of bad weather. We did not think that any directions need or should apply to aircraft in such circumstances. It is for these reasons that the definition is phrased in the way that appears in the Bill.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, the noble Lord has to operate this Bill, not me. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 [Short title and commencement]:

7.27 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 22, line 41, at end insert— ("(3) This Act shall continue in force for the period of three years beginning with the date of the commencement of this Act and shall then expire unless Parliament from time to time determines, by affirmative resolution of each House, that it shall continue in force for a period of one year beyond the date on which it would otherwise expire.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of my Amendment is simple and direct: the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has fought tenaciously for the retention of the powers contained in this Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent the Executive having as a permanent part of our law the extreme powers proposed, which we fully admit are necessary for an emergency. There is no need for me to recapitulate the unprecedented powers. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has admitted that this is a strong measure with powers to override contracts, rules of law, Acts of Parliament, planning, to demolish or remove buildings, erect buildings, or for the various purposes set forth in the Bill.

No one questions this need in an emergency, but there is a difference between the exercise of powers for an emergency and having these powers as a permanent feature on our Statute Book. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that these are only background powers, and that the voluntary processes for security will be carried out and continued as hitherto. But this Bill gives statutory authority to these exceptional powers for emergencies. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said the other day, Ministers can act oddly. In column 423 on February 26 he gave an example of what might happen. As a good Parliamentarian—I hope that I may make that claim, and I hope that the same description may be applied to Members on all sides of this House—I resist the Executive having these powers, and wish to ensure that Parliament can have a chance of reviewing these powers, and not allow for the Bill to be permanently on the Statute Book.

My proposal does not limit the exercise of the powers in an emergency; it does not limit the extent of the powers. It seeks to impose a time limit on them so that Parliament can look at them again to see how they have worked, whether any improvements are necessary, and to look at the powers again in the light of conditions which may be existing three years from now. We all hope that the emergency which we are facing at the present time will have passed. If it has not, Parliament can continue the powers; if it has, these unprecedented powers should not continue in the hands of the Executive. My Amendment is a reasonable proposal which I hope will commend itself to the House on all sides, and I hope that it will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government as something which is in accord with the spirit of Parliament. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I would not for a moment contest that my noble friend's Amendment is a reasonable one on certain assumptions, but it is the assumptions that we have to look at. The assumption must be that it would be right for the duration of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to be fixed for three years, and thereafter for it to be extended from year to year by Affirmative Resolution of each House. That course would be justified by the threat of hijacking and other acts of violence against civil aviation. It is not possible to say that the threat is likely to end in three years' time or that there will be no need to retain these powers thereafter. Nor would it be appropriate, with a Bill like this, to continue it for ever by an annual Affirmative Resolution of the House. The tendency generally is in the opposite direction: that there are annual renewals and eventually they pass into permanent legislation.

But there is also a technical reason why this would not be an appropriate proposition. The main and original purpose of the Bill was to enable us to become signatories to the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation. In order to withdraw from that, we should have to give six months' notice. One might get into a peculiar situation if one had to give six months' notice of withdrawal and then we were going to continue by Affirmative Resolution from time to time. The two simply do not match. If you are going to have an Act giving authority to what is laid down in an international Convention, then clearly you must have an Act which will remain on the Statute Book until the time when you feel you can no longer adhere to that Convention (if that ever should arise), and then you can repeal the Act.

To continue in this curious, nebulous, half-way manner would clearly not be a practical proposition. I entirely understand the view expressed by my noble friend on this subject but I do not think it is the best way to proceed. It is conceivable, of course, that the present emergency will not last as long as three years; on the other hand one cannot say that it will last only for three years or that it will be appropriate in the circumstances, when the three years come to an end, to renew it year by year. It is much better to proceed in the ordinary way and simply pass the Bill as it is and, when the Act is no longer needed, to repeal it.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, comes to withdraw or to press his Amendment as he decides, I should like to give him some support. I feel that there are many problems in connection with this Bill which we ought not to pass into a permanent feature of our legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said on many occasions during this stage and the preceding stage that we are faced with an extraordinary security situation and we have to take extraordinary measures and that is the reason for Part II of this Bill. The misgivings which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and others have about the Bill and which no doubt have led him to table this Amendment relate to Part II of the Bill and not to Part I. Part I discharges our obligations under the Montreal Convention; Part II does not seem to have anything to do with the Montreal Convention. Indeed, it was only presented to us after we had considered the first Part of this Bill. I am reluctant to see the Bill become a permanent part of our legislation without some means of Parliamentary scrutiny at the expiry of what we now believe to be a state of emergency. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will press this Amendment, but he will have my support if he does.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I still have my doubts about allowing this Bill to go forward without any further control on the part of Parliament, apart of course from the possibility of repealing the Act. Very wide powers are being taken here and moreover their importance will lie in the way they are used. That is the aspect of the matter which troubles us. Not once but ten or a dozen times the noble Lord has assured us that they are going to be used sparingly and with responsibility. It may well be that this is how it will work out and everybody will be quite happy, in which case no doubt at the end of three years Parliament would approve the Affirmative Order and the power would be retained. When the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, speaks about the ratification of the Montreal Convention he has a point, and in so far as we need these powers to enable Great Britain to ratify the Convention I think it would he unreasonable to expect an Affirmative Order each year to maintain those powers. So a doubt still remains in my mind. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, is going to do, but I believe that in one way or the other we must have some assurances that so far the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has failed to put over.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, certainly has a point which had not occurred to me on the Montreal Convention issue; nevertheless I still dislike, and I think the majority of your Lordships dislike, the Executive's having these powers as a permanent part of our Statute law. If I withdraw my Amendment it will be with the knowledge, which I hope has been conveyed to the Minister from every side, that we very much dislike what the Government have been forced to do; that we very much dislike any Government's having the powers to override Parliament and to do what is contained in this Bill. If we are forced to digest this very unpleasant political meal, let the Minister know that we ache very much internally as a result of his forcing it down our throats. I hope that in the period between now and the time the Bill passes into law there may be some new thought as to whether Parliament could not have some limitation of time on the functioning of this Bill when it becomes an Act. The drafting was impeccable. It may not be appropriate, but it was impeccable, because it was taken from the 1965 Rhodesia Act. An annual review may not be appropriate, but it might nevertheless improve upon the 1965 Rhodesia Act and bring in something new before the House finally parts with this Bill. With those words I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TREFGARNE had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 33:

Page 22, line 41, at end insert— ("(3) This Act shall cease to be in force three years after the date of commencement.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, clearly most of what could be said on this point has already been said and I do not propose to take the matter further. I am most anxious that the Government should think about the matter further. Clearly this Amendment has the same defect as that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in that it does not allow for the problems created by the Montreal Convention. I shall wish to raise this matter again at Third Reading.