§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, a new title for the first Part. Clauses 12 to 21, it is proposed, will constitute the second Part, and the remainder will go into the third Part.
§ LORD BESWICKObviously I do not quarrel with this Amendment, but I think it right at the outset that we might get one or two things fairly clear in our minds. During the original Committee stage certain noble Lords on the other side, and we on our side, tried to move certain Amendments, and the noble Lord stressed to us, not once but several times,
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.Later, he said: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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 7/12/72, c. 377.]This was the noble Lord's great argument for rejecting the Amendments which we put forward. What I am really trying to establish now is the philosophy behind some of these Amendments. It is proposed that we widen the Title of the Bill, although it was argued against me on the earlier stages that it would be unwise to widen the Title of the Bill. Can I ask the noble Lord: Are we now primarily legislating for the purpose of the Montreal Convention, or are we going wider than that? And if we are, what about 379 those arguments that it would be unsuitable, unreasonable or inefficient to have legislation which went wider than the Montreal Convention? Secondly, if we are going wider than that, to what extent does the noble Lord's argument arise that we ought to rely upon established legislation when dealing with matters outside the ambit of the Montreal Convention? I put this forward not because I want to appear unfriendly or unreasonable, or to try to make a point, but I should like to understand the basis on which we are now proceeding.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNThe noble Lord has put a perfectly reasonable question. I had thought that the best course would be if when we came to Part II I gave some explanation of the philosophy of that Part and the new Amendments to Part III but as the noble Lord has asked me this question, perhaps I can say at this stage that the philosophy of the Amendments that are now being made is to secure that there is protection against the commitment of acts of sabotage, and the like, and not merely deterrence and punishment afterwards. In other words, as I explained earlier on, originally our thought was to rely on the voluntary procedure to ensure that searches are carried out as appropriate. On further consideration, we have felt that the public would expect us to ensure that we do not rely only on voluntary co-operation, because it may well be from time to time that it may not suit all operators of aircraft to conform with the voluntary system, or they may have a different assessment from ours of the risk at any given moment. It is for that reason that we have thought it right to bring in these additional safeguards. I hope that gives an adequate explanation of the basic reasons. We could not of course wholly have achieved our purpose without amending the Long Title because at the present time, while we are seeking throughout to implement the Montreal Convention so far as the protection of aircraft is concerned, this does not actually extend to the protection of aerodromes from which the aircraft operate: yet the safety of the aircraft may depend on what is happening on the aerodromes. It is for that reason that we felt it right to extend the Long Title.
§ LORD BESWICKI am not arguing about the extension of the Long Title, 380 but asking questions about the philosophy. With respect, the noble Lord has not really answered the point. The argument he advanced against the Amendments we sought to make in Committee was that it would be inefficient and render us less effective if we went beyond the purposes of the Montreal Convention. As I understood the argument of the noble Lord, it was that unless all the signatories to the Montreal Convention have identical undertakings it would make it difficult for us when the occasion arose to require other countries to ratify and to give us reciprocal undertakings.
We seem here, in my view, to be going beyond the Montreal Convention. Does the noble Lord say—and I do not ask him to put on a sackcloth or any-think of that kind, but I want to find out the facts—that it does not really matter if we legislate for something that goes beyond the Convention? Will he be able to assure us that, despite what he has said, it does not in any way make the ratification of that Convention less effective if we have legislation of this kind?
§ 3.42 p.m.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNThere certainly is no conflict with the Montreal Convention. Of course in a sense here we go beyond that, because we do take powers. Perhaps it might make things a little easier when we come to Part II if I were now, in the light of the noble Lord's comments and if the Committee so wishes, explain the contents of Part II and the other Amendments so as to get this matter into perspective. If this would be for the convenience of the Committee, I would willingly do it.
When I introduced this Bill on Second Reading, I spoke about the Government's approach to aviation security and said that three main objectives were involved. At the present time we are going to deal with aviation security from the point of view of what happens on the ground, whereas the Montreal Convention is talking all the time about endangering safety in flight. We are here considering the steps to be taken on the ground to avoid the endangering of the aircraft in flight. One of the three main objectives I have referred to was to support and contribute 381 to international action in the United Nations, in IcAo and elsewhere, and the other two were to ensure that the necessary organisation is available and that the procedures are developed to combat possible acts of violence, to respond to any incident involving the United Kingdom, and to ensure that appropriate and effective security measures are taken at our airports and by our airlines. I then went on to say that the two main considerations which influenced our approach to security measures were, first, that the hijacker must be prevented from joining the aircraft or the saboteur from planting his bombs on the aircraft; and, secondly, that security measures should be related to threat and be concentrated on those operations most at risk. I indicated that security was being achieved through voluntary co-operation and liaison and with financial assistance from the Government. Indeed, I paid tribute to all concerned for their readiness to work together with the Government to achieve these objects.
However, as I said, we have now come to the conclusion that the public would expect the Government to take steps to ensure that an appropriate and effective degree of security was being provided, consistent with the threat to our civil aviation, and to have available the necessary powers to see that prompt and positive action is taken where necessary. Circumstances might arise in which, for recoanisable reasons, commercial or otherwise, airlines or airport authorities might not wish to act unless they were formally required to do so by the Government. If the general intention to reinforce the present voluntary system with reserve statutory powers commends itself to your Lordships—and I emphasise that they are intended to be reserve powers and used only in emergency or in the event of voluntary action proving inadequate—these new clauses and Amendments to Clause 8, which is the definition clause, would be needed. If they appear formidable—and they are, I admit, a rather large mouthful—it is largely because of our anxiety to restrict the powers to the essential minimum.
Although the purposes of the Amendments, namely, to deal with acts of violence affecting aircraft, persons and property carried by aircraft, are closely 382 connected with the underlying purpose of the Bill as set out in the Long Title, technically, as I said, an Amendment to the Long Title is needed to make the protection of the aircraft against acts of violence complete. Such protection cannot be afforded without also protecting aerodromes. The conception upon which the new clauses and amendments are based is that it is not enough, when acts of violence take place, to provide for deterrence and retribution as the Bill at present does, in line with the Montreal Convention: we need also to take the necessary powers to prevent the commission of acts of violence. I agree entirely that I was pressed to do just this at the earlier stages of the Bill, and I welcome the contributions to our thinking that were made in this matter.
The new Part II therefore deals with the protection of aircraft and of aerodromes, and of persons and property on board aircraft or on aerodromes; and the first new clause states the purpose of Part II and defines acts of violence. So that the Secretary of State may know what protection and prevention measures are at present being taken and what directions may be required in any given circumstances, the second new clause (that is Clause 13) empowers him to require information about existing measures, notification of further measures introduced in future and of measures which are discontinued.
The next two new clauses enable him to give directions about searching passengers, aircraft and aerodromes. At present most, if not all, contracts for the carriage of passengers entitle aircraft operators not to carry a passenger if, inter alia, he does not submit himself to search on request. The new Clause 14 permits the Secretary of State to give directions appropriate to the circumstances to any operator of aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, requiring him not to admit people to aircraft unless searches have been carried out. Amendment No. 28 defines what is meant by an aircraft operating in the United Kingdom, to cover aircraft not registered in the United Kingdom and which are for the time being allocated for flights to or from United Kingdom aerodromes.
Subsection (5) of the new clause contained in Amendment No. 18 makes it clear that directions requiring anything 383 to be done outside the United Kingdom apply only to an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom and cannot require anything to be done which is at variance with local law but may override the terms of any contract. So far as aerodromes are concerned, the directions may require not only searches to be carried out, but for aircraft on the aerodrome itself to be guarded and buildings to be constructed, altered, demolished or removed or other works to be executed whether within or outside the aerodrome. Provision is made in Amendment No. 25 for compensation to owners or occupiers of land outside the aerodrome where they are adversely affected by such directions. It is not thought that such works will often be needed and, if they are, they are likely to be of a minor character.
Directions may specify the number of persons to be used on a search and the qualifications of those who have to carry it out. There may be a high degree of urgency in searching an aerodrome; hence the power to specify numbers. As to qualifications, the term is to include training and experience. Searches are to be carried out by constables, unless the directions specify other persons and describe their qualifications. In the case of searching of passengers and baggage by operators of aircraft, this is normally done under the operators' own arrangements by persons other than constables. Constables are defined in an amendment to Clause 8 as including
any person having the powers and privileges of a constableand British Airports Authority constables have such powers within B.A.A. aerodromes. Neither the B.A.A. nor any other owners of aerodromes have power to give orders to the civil police. That is why, while operators of aircraft are required to take all steps as in any particular circumstances are practicable and necessary to prevent persons going on board aircraft unsearched, or the aircraft being permitted to fly unless the aircraft has been searched, aerodrome managers are required to use their best endeavours to ensure searches required are carried out. Where appropriate, constables will be duly authorised to carry and will carry firearms when carrying out searches or taking other measures required. Subsection (1) of Amendment 18 makes it 384 clear that no direction is to require or authorise any person to carry a firearm. It is for the chief officer of a police force to decide who is to be licensed to carry a firearm and in what circumstances he may carry it. The Bill does not change the existing manner of controlling the use of firearms. In regard to searches, directions may also specify any apparatus, equipment or other aids to be used for the purpose of searching or guarding.Directions may also be given under new clause, Amendment 14, that specified aircraft shall not be allowed to fly unless specified modifications or alterations of the aircraft, or of apparatus and equipment installed in it have been made. Before making such directions the Secretary of State must inform the Civil Aviation Authority and take account of any advice given him by the Authority. Under subsection (2) of new Clause 17, directions may specify the qualifications which those carrying out such modifications must have.
Lastly, the new Clause 20 makes it an offence for any person—
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI should say the new clause which forms Amendment No. 20. I am sorry, I was using shorthand. This new clause makes it an offence for any person, unless he can prove lawful authority or reasonable excuse, to have with him or in his baggage on any aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, wherever it may be, or in any other aircraft when it is in or over the United Kingdom, or on any aerodrome, any dangerous article including any firearm, airgun or pistol, any explosive, any article looking like such a firearm or explosive, or any other article made or adapted for use for causing injury to, or incapacitating a person, or for destroying or injuring property.
§ LORD BESWICKMay I interrupt the noble Lord? I am very grateful to the him; he is being extremely helpful and all he is saying is in response to questions that I asked. But I wonder whether it would not be easier for all concerned if we stopped at this point and dealt with the particular clauses. Possibly the explanation of the clause which the 385 noble Lord has now given would be more easily digested if we have the explanations when we come to the actual clauses.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNOf course I am very glad to fall in with the wishes of the Committee. It was suggested that it would be helpful if I gave a conspectus of the whole matter first of all, and then we could deal with the individual clauses. I thought it might help if I drew together the various proposals which are in different new clauses, on different parts of the Marshalled List. I have just said "lastly", and I should like to say a few more words to put the whole matter in perspective. Under new Clause 22 constables, or other persons specified in the direction, are given an additional power, where they have reasonable cause to suspect that such an article is in or may be brought into an aerodrome, to detain and search without a warrant any person on the aerodrome, or any part of the aerodrome; to enter and search any building on the aerodrome; to stop and detain any aircraft, vehicle, goods or property for so long as is necessary for the search. Since the maximum penalty in the new clause forming part of Amendment 23, for offences in relation to dangerous articles is imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine, or both, a constable will have under Section 2(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 power to arrest any person when he has reasonable cause to believe that he is about to commit the offence, and any person other than a constable may also arrest without a warrant a person who is in the act of committing an offence, or whom he has reasonable cause to suspect of committing it.
There is no doubt that in certain respects the powers that are being sought are unprecedented, but we face an unprecedented situation. We know the form this violence can take. We believe that the best protection is to discover guns and bombs before they can be used, and we also believe that the public would expect the Government to have armed themselves with the necessary powers to take such measures as might be required to deal with this menace. However, I assure your Lordships that the Government are very conscious of the breadth of the powers they are seeking. These will be used sparingly and with proper regard for the rights of the individual. When it 386 is necessary to take action we shall do so with all proper and responsible care, and after proper consultation. We now believe these measures to be necessary, and we believe that they will be an important addition to the continuing efforts to combat violence against civil aviation. I hope those introductory remarks will be of help.
§ LORD KINGS NORTONMay I make a semantic point? The description of Part I is inaccurate because Part I deals less with penalties for unlawful acts than the offences which may attract the penalties. I suggest this title might be thought about again.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI am grateful to the noble Lord. We will look at his suggestion.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1 [Destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft]:
§ 3.57 p.m.
§ LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
§
Page 2, line 22, at end insert—
() In this Part of this Act "unlawfully"—
§ The noble Lord said: This additional new subsection in Clause 1 is the definition of "unlawfully" as at present in the Bill in Clause 8(1). The expression only needs to be defined for the purposes of the original Bill. Accordingly, it is now inserted in Part I as a minor modification to indicate that it applies only to Part I. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKI suppose this means that acts committed outside the United Kingdom could be pursued in the courts either in England or Scotland, according to which was most convenient.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNThat is so.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
387
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 32.
§ The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting Amendment. It is thought that the words from "Kingdom" to the end of line 32, are not necessary and that their presence creates difficulty by contrast with the absence of any corresponding words in the new clause, which is Amendment No. 12.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKI should like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment. In a way it is minor but it makes sense out of what was nonsense. I am extremely grateful to him for having redrafted it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2 [Other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft]:
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 44 and insert ("building or ship so used, and including any apparatus or equipment so used whether it is on board an aircraft or elsewhere").
§ The noble Lord said: It had been intended to take this Amendment on Third Reading, but it was put down for to-day in response to what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said. Subsection (1) of Clause 2 provides that it shall be an offence to destroy, damage or interfere with the operation of property used for the provision of air navigation facilities. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 defines what is included in such property. This Amendment alters that definition by making it clear that property used for the provision of air navigation facilities includes any ships which may be used for that purpose. It also amends the definition by bringing within it apparatus and equipment on board aircraft which is used for provision of air navigation facilities. I beg to move.
§ LORD BESWICKAs I have criticised, may I add a word of thanks also, as I thought that this was an essential Amendment.
§ LORD WILBERFORCEMay I turn this into a chorus of approval?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI am much obliged—may I make the quartet?
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
§ LORD BESWICKOn this clause, in addition to suggesting that the protection should be extended to ships which carried air navigation facilities, I pointed out that there had been threats of interference against shipping itself. Although the noble Lord insisted that the Title of the Bill was such that it precluded any Amendment which brought shipping into the purview of this Bill, nevertheless when we discussed Clause 2 on Committee stage he undertook to consider the possibility of further discussions on this point. He said that although he was not the Minister in charge of the Department he would put to his honourable friend that it would be useful to discuss with the advisers of the Chamber of Shipping the points that I had made. I now ask the noble Lord whether he has put this matter to his Department, whether those discussions have taken place, and what is the outcome.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNNo, the discussions have not taken place. I am bound to say that I did not envisage that those discussions would take place with relevance to anything that transpired in this House, because at the time when I said that we were thinking in terms of getting the Bill before Christmas. We are advised that this matter would be right outside the Long Title of the Bill because it is right outside the purpose of the Bill, which is the protection of aircraft. This is a different kind of animal from the kind of Amendment we are moving here which still relates to the protection of aircraft, even though it does need an alteration to the Long Title of the Bill. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of this matter and I shall make certain that it is pursued before the Bill goes to another place.
§ LORD BESWICKBut surely the noble Lord does not rely upon the possibility of re-commitment in order to be reminded that he has given certain undertakings? Those undertakings were very clearly emphasised in the Committee stage of 389 the Bill. It was some time ago. It is a most unusual circumstance that we have a re-commitment and there has been all this additional time. I am disappointed that the noble Lord has not put into train the undertakings which lie gave and the consequent discussions with the advisers of the Chamber of Shipping. I should now like to have some copper-bottomed guarantees that he is going to consider with the Chamber of Shipping how they can extend to ships the protection which it is now intended to extend to aircraft.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNThe only thing that is really relevant at the present time is whether some amendment of this particular Bill would be appropriate. I have already expressed opinions upon that and I have said that the whole matter is being examined at the present time, of course, I believe by the Law Commissioners. So far as further talks are concerned, I must apologise to the noble Lord. For my part, I confess that I had overlooked it. He will appreciate, of course, that there has been a great deal of work involved in the preparation of these new clauses and our attention has been directed to those clauses rather than to this particular point which, quite honestly, I felt we had disposed of in this House. I am quite prepared to see that it is looked at further.
§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3 agreed to.
§ Clause 4 [Penalties and proceedings]:
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI do not know whether it would be appropriate to take Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together. They are all to add the words "this Part of" to the Bill and are purely consequential on the addition of the new clauses and dividing the Bill into separate parts. I beg to move.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 3, after ("under") insert ("this Part of").
Page 4, line 6, after ("under") insert ("this Part of").
Page 4, line 17, at end insert ("this Part of").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendment No. 8 corrects a mistake made on reprinting 390 the Bill after the Report stage. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Extradition]:
§ LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 are to add the same words and are purely consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 35, after ("under") insert ("this Part of");
Page 4, line 43, after ("under") insert ("this Part of");
Page 5, line 3, after ("under") insert ("this Part of").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 6 [Powers to prevent persons front travelling in aircraft]:
§ 4.5 p.m.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNThis clause has been embodied as subsections (1) and (3) of Amendment No. 22, with the minor Amendments referred to in the notes when we come to them. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI moved to leave out Clause 6.
§ On Question, Clause 6 disagreed to.
§ LORD BESWICKThere is a mistake here which the noble Lord himself had better clear up. We are leaving out Clause 6. It is the Amendment to which I think the noble Lord wishes us to agree, not the clause.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNThe fact I wish to achieve is to leave out Clause 6, and I do not really care how the Chairman puts it so long as we leave out Clause 6.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESThe Committee has decided "Not content" on the Question, That Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 7 agreed to.
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—