§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill)I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 21, leave out 'authorise' and insert 'require'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 27, leave out from 'be' to end of line 28 and insert
'specified by or determined in accordance with the order'.
§ Dr. SummerskillIn Committee it was strongly argued that Clause 6 should give aerodrome constables and supporting civilian staff who were adversely affected by the designation of an airport a complete assurance of compensation and some right of appeal in case of any dispute as to their qualification for compensation or as to its amount. I undertook to look again at these provisions.
I have already given the assurance that the supplementary order in respect of Heathrow will include compensation provisions. I think it would be in accordance with the views expressed in Committee that I should take this opportunity 189 to put on the record that this assurance extends to the supplementary order in respect of any BAA airport that may be designated. I hope that the House will therefore accept that the Government will take the necessary action.
The view was expressed in Committee that the Secretary of State should be required to include provision for compensation in the supplementary order. The purpose of Clause 6 is to enable the Secretary of State to make the necessary provisions for a whole variety of circumstances which could arise on designation, or on "de-designation". If the Secretary of State were required to include provision for compensation this would have to be done on every occasion, whether or not there were staff requiring compensation. At some airports—for instance Southend—there are no aerodrome police. At other airports there are no civilians who would be affected by designation in the sense envisaged by the clause. Furthermore, the provision would have to be included if it were decided to "de-designate" an airport. It does not seem sensible to the Government, therefore, to proceed by placing a requirement on the Secretary of State. Nor does that seem necessary in order to give staff the protection that we all agree is desirable.
Nevertheless, on reconsidering the matter the Government accept that Clause 6(2)(e) could be improved. If the power as it now stands in the Bill was exercised, a person affected would have no right to compensation; the airport authority would merely be authorised to pay compensation. It could choose whether or not to do so. In the unlikely event of its choosing not to do so, an individual affected would have no remedy, nor could the Secretary of State do anything about it. Thus, requiring the Secretary of State to authorise the compensation provision would not necessarily change matters. Even where the authority chose to implement a compensation scheme—a more likely situation—in case of a dispute relating to compensation the individual would have no legal remedy unless the scheme had been incorporated in his conditions of service.
11.45 p.m.
These amendments are intended to improve that state of affairs. If the first amendment is carried, the Secretary of State will be empowered to require, 190 instead of to authorise, the payment of compensation. The individual affected by a designation order will not be dependent for compensation on the good will of the airport authority. Further, since the authority will be required to make payments in accordance with a scheme for compensation the individual will be entitled to receive such payments. Any dispute as to his right to compensation could, therefore, be the subject of legal proceedings; in effect the individual is given a right of appeal to the courts. I commend the amendment to the House as a significant improvement in the clause. Given the undertakings I have just made about Government action, I hope that it meets the substance of the criticism levelled at subsection (2)(e) in Committee.
The second amendment is, in the main, consequential on the first. If the airport authority is to be required to give effect to a compensation scheme, it must be told what it is. It would not be appropriate to leave it to the authority to prepare a scheme and submit it to the Secretary of State for approval as would be the case under the present provision. The second amendment therefore provides that the scheme shall either be specified in the order or shall be in accordance with the provisions of the order.
This second amendment will give the Secretary of State the power to set out the scheme in full in the order. I doubt, however, that there would be likely to be a sufficient number of persons adversely affected at any particular airport to justify this. Hon. Members may be aware that a typical compensation code, such as that contained in the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations 1974, extends to something like 30 pages of print. Where only a handful of people were candidates for compensation, it is more probable that the detailed scheme would be settled in accordance with the terms of the supplementary order; the order could well provide that the compensation scheme should be such as was agreed between the airport authority and the Secretary of State or, in default of agreement, as was determined by the Secretary of State. This, however, is largely a matter of machinery and the provisions to be included in a particular supplementary order would be a matter for consultation with all concerned; this would include 191 consultation under Clause 6(6). Whatever arrangement was adopted would not affect the right of appeal to which I have referred.
§ Mr. Norman FowlerWe are very grateful to the hon. Lady. Bearing in mind what has been said about security previously, I was fascinated to learn that there are no policemen at Southend airport. However, perhaps I should not push that matter on this clause. As the hon. Lady said, the Opposition were concerned about the compensation entitlement of members of the BAA police who were affected by the decision to take the police into the Metropolitan Police. We were concerned first that there should be an entitlement to compensation. That, as I understand it, the hon. Lady has given them. We were concerned secondly that there should be some form of appeal, and that, I understand, is through an entitlement to take an action in the courts. Therefore, we are grateful that the hon. Lady has gone so far to meet the points that we put forward in Committee on this question.
One should again stress that the fact that the BAA police are being taken into the Metropolitan Police is no criticism of the BAA police. Therefore, compensation certainly must be their entitlement.
I have two questions to ask the hon. Lady. First, on the appeals procedure, she has said that the appeal entitlement will now be an entitlement to appeal to the courts. I am sure she will understand that this can be an expensive business for a litigant and that the possible cost of losing an appeal may outweigh the money to be gained. Is any arbitration machinery open before that step is taken?
Second, the hon. Lady has made it clear that power to pay compensation will be used not only at Heathrow but also at other BAA airports. Under the terms of the Bill, however, it is quite possible that the police will take over other airports besides those run by the BAA. In other words, they may take over airports that at the moment are under municipal control—Manchester and Birmingham, for example. May we assume that this assurance about compensation will extend to those other airports as well as to BAA airports?
§ Mr. TebbitI should have reminded the house earlier that I act tonight as the adviser and representative of the British Airports Authority Police Federation. I am delighted with the progress that we are making towards seeing that federation disappear, and that job of mine disappear with it.
I can tell the hon. Lady that her amendment will get at least two and a half cheers from the members of the BAA police, because she has gone a long way towards meeting what we asked. The argument in Standing Committee turned, as so often happens, on the question of "shall" and "may". I have now conceived the ambition to go to the wedding of a parliamentary draftsman. I want to see what happens when the preacher asks him "Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?" and he answers "I may". One day perhaps we shall all be invited to such a function.
There is one serious matter that I should like to raise with the hon. Lady It is the suggestion that when an agreement for transfer is negotiated with employees and an employee accepts that agreement and transfers, he thereby disqualifies himself from any compensation. I cannot believe that that is so.
A number of employees are affected. The rent allowances of some policemen may be affected. In some instances those allowances are higher for a BAA constable than they are for a Metropolitan constable. It would be totally wrong for an officer accepting transfer to suffer a sudden reduction in his take-home emoluments, of £2 or £3 a week in some instances, and to be told that he has accepted those conditions. The hon. Lady seems to suggest that it is the intention that compensation could be and will be awarded in such cases, presumably by the authority, but I should be grateful for confirmation.
There is a rather wider effect in that I understand that traffic wardens employed by the BAA have considerably higher pay than those employed by the Metropolitan Police and, unless some arrangement of this sort is made, when the transfer is effected there will suddenly be a great shortage of traffic wardens at Heathrow. Although that may be enjoyable for some of us for a short time, it 193 will no doubt cause considerable inconvenience in the longer run. Perhaps the hon. Lady will clear that up.
§ Dr. SummerskillI appreciate that there is a cost factor in going to court, but I have simply set out the principle of the scheme. Naturally, in the details the possibility of arbitration would have to be worked out. There is provision for compensation at other designated airports. As I have said, we have given an assurance that the supplementary order in respect of Heathrow will include compensation provisions, and I extend that assurance to the supplementary order in respect of any BAA airport that may be designated.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment made: No. 1 in page 6, line 27 leave out from 'be' to end of line 28 and insert:
'specified by or determined in accordance with the order.'.—[Dr. Surnmerskill.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
§ 11.55 p.m.
§ Mr. Norman FowlerThis is an important Bill. The Opposition have sought to offer constructive criticism while supporting its general principles. The Bill gives the police wide powers, like the stop and search powers over airport staff, the public, vehicles and even aircraft. We have supported the transfer of these powers not only because of the crime problem but because of the terrorist threat. It is regrettable that the activities of terrorists make it even more essential to have checks of that kind, and it is important that the Government should emphasise this in public discussion on the Bill and on the terrorist situation.
If the public are to be protected, it is possible that they may generally have to accept more checks than have been the custom in the past. We live in the age of the terrorist and an airport provides a tempting target for the urban guerrilla. It is right to deploy all possible strength in meeting the challenge. To put an airport like Heathrow under the control of the police is only to recognise the facts of life today. The security of Heathrow will soon he the responsibility of the 194 police under the Home Secretary and the Commissioner. That is the whole reason for the Bill.
Where does the Army fit into the general security pattern? It would help public understanding of the police rôle if we were to be told what is the procedure by which the Army is brought in. Who makes the request? Is it the police, and under what powers? I am not criticising the Army action. It is necessary, but it would help to have the position concerning the police powers made clear. What would happen in the kind of situation which occurred at Munich at the time of the Olympic Games? The Germans tried to intercept the terrorists and release the hostages. The attempt by the police to interfere was tragically unsuccessful. What would be the position in that kind of situation at Heathrow? We know that some of the police are armed, but would they be able to call on the help of the Army in such a situation? These are important questions, and I accept that they are delicate matters involving security, but it would be helpful if the Minister could give some guidance.
There is one further point which I should like to raise. Clause 3 deals with prevention of theft and this remains an important object of the new arrangements. At Heathrow in particular this matter has become somewhat sensitive. It should be made clear that because we say that there is a serious crime problem at Heathrow this should not be taken as a generalised and indiscriminate attack on everybody working there. That is not the intention. Most of the staff are honest and much crime originates from outside the area. However, it should not prevent us pointing out that the problem of crime exists at Heathrow as at every other international airport. I revert to my original suggestion. There is a greater chance of the fight against crime being effective if it is accompanied by a major crime prevention campaign aimed at the passengers themselves.
Successful policing depends above all on good relations between the police and the public. It is no secret that relations between the police and some of the working staff at Heathrow have in the past been strained. Clearly, an airport presents special problems because of the 195 many functions it performs. It is essentially a workplace rather than a community. The police have a responsibility to recognise the special problems created by the special situation at airports. Furthermore, the work force also has a responsibility to recognise the many and special difficulties faced by the police. The Opposition hope that the passing of the Bill will usher in not only a new but also a much happier year at Heathrow.
§ 12.3 a.m.
§ Dr. SummerskillIn the course of the various proceedings on the Bill there has been agreement about its broad purposes. Such comment as there has been on the precise content of the Bill has been directed primarily towards future action by the Government. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
I feel that I should seek to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). The Bill addresses itself to the question of ensuring that there are no avoidable obstacles to efficient policing and security arrangements at an airport. The Bill is necessary because the circumstances envisaged when the present policing arrangements at Heathrow were introduced have substantially changed. The measures necessary to deal with those circumstances must change as well. Experience has shown the importance of a unified command in an emergency. What the Bill seeks to do is to bring airport policing arrangements into line with the demands which, regrettably but unavoidably, can now be placed upon them.
One point in particular has attracted a great deal of attention during the passage of the Bill. I refer to the Government's policy about the exercise of the powers in the Bill at the other airports belonging to the BAA. It has been pointed out that the very fact of increasing the efficiency of the security arrangements at Heathrow is bound to render more attractive to the potential terrorists possible targets at other airports. It has been said that after the designation at Heathrow, and the expected transfer of the great majority of the officers there to the Metropolitan Police, the BAAC will no longer be a viable force. In the same context it has been pointed out that the remaining 100 or so members of the force will be deprived of the promotion 196 and career opportunities that they envisaged when they joined.
The Government have taken full note of all these points and I hope that hon. Members have accepted the assurance I gave in Committee that the Government would now embark on a process of consultation with the authorities concerned about the designation of the remaining BAA airports. This is now in hand. As I think has become clear during the course of the various discussions, the criteria for the designation of an airport that are set down in Clause 1 of the Bill are such as to allow the Secretary of State to act in the sort of circumstances that hon. Members have negatived, and there need therefore be no concern that for purely technical reasons the Government will be unable to do what is necessary.
At this stage I can only repeat the assurance I have already given that the Government see the force in the points that have been made and will bear them very much in mind in the consultations that are now taking place. As I think is generally accepted, however, there must be consultations on both the broad questions and on matters of detail, not least those affecting people who might transfer, and it must be one of the main aims of such consultations to reach agreement between all the parties involved. It would clearly not be helpful in practice to proceed without there being such agreement. During the consultations that will now take place, therefore, the Government will be very much influenced by the need to reach agreement.
There has been concern on both sides of the House that the Government and the other agencies concerned should always remain vigorous in their measures against possible terrorist attack at an airport. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and I have said enough to assure hon. Members that the Government are very much aware of their responsibilities in this respect. I hope it has become clear that there is no lack of vigilance or energy on the Government's part. The special measures which were taken at Heathrow between Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill and which have been taken today are, I hope, sufficient evidence of this fact.
The answer to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is that the presence of 197 the Army at Heathrow is at the request of the police but with the approval of Ministers, primarily the Home Secretary. There is a common law obligation on every person to assist the civil power when asked to do so. The request of the Metropolitan Police for military assistance derives from this, but the Army is at all times under the direction of the police.
The Bill is but one aspect of the broad range of matters which concern the Government in this field and which have to be judged in their totality.
§ Mr. FowlerI asked the hon. Lady a second question, about armed interception.
§ Dr. SummerskillThe answer to that question is "Yes".
My hon. Friend has said that the Government are always prepared to learn from experience both here and abroad and to pay attention to views which may be expressed. There will be no lessening either of this vigilence or of the readiness to learn as circumstances change.
I will bear in mind what the hon. Member said about prevention of crime and the dangers of theft. I would remind him that the Bill is concerned not only with the preservation of the peace but with the prevention of crime. I hope that the House will be pleased to give it a Third Reading.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
-
c197
- RAILWAYS BILL 41 words