§ Purposes to which Part II applies
§ .—(1) The purposes to which this Part of this Act applies are the protection against acts of violence—
- (a) of aircraft, and of persons or property on board aircraft, and
- (b) of aerodromes, and of such persons or property as (in the case of persons) are at any time present in any part of an aerodrome or (in the case of property) forms part of an aerodrome or is at any time (whether permanently or temporarily) in any part of an aerodrome.
§ (2) In this Part of this Act "act of violence" means any act (whether actual or potential, and whether done or to be done in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) which either
- (a) being an act done in Great Britain, constitutes, or
- (b) if done in Great Britain would constitute,
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12. Subsection (1) of this clause sets out the purposes to which Part II of the Bill applies; namely, the protection of aircraft, aerodromes and persons and property in aircraft and aerodromes, from acts of violence. There is a reference too, for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies, in the following Clauses, Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 26, to which we shall come. The word "aerodrome" is defined in the additions now made to Clause 8. Subsection (2) defines acts of violence where used in Part II of this Bill. The definition, in substance, is the same as that already contained in Clause 1(6) of the Bill, except that there is a reference to a potential act. Secondly, crimes against property have been included by referring 392 to Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, and to similar offences in respect of Scotland. I beg to move.
§ LORD BESWICKI wonder whether I might ask a question which applies to the whole of Part I, and indeed to the remaining Amendments that are before us. In this Amendment, and particularly in the consequent Amendments, the noble Lord is asking for some very wide powers indeed and therefore I ask him what consultations he has had with the airline operators, the British Airports Authority, the Aerodrome Owners' Association and indeed the British Airline Pilots' Association, all of which are most intimately concerned with what we are proposing to do. Will he tell us whether he has had such consultations and, if so, what was the outcome?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNThere have been consultations, and of course these are the very people who are co-operating from day to day in the voluntary arrangements. It was a decision for the Government whether these powers were required, and I am not aware that this particular question was put as to whether we should take these powers or not. This seems to be a decision for Parliament to take on the recommendation of the Government.
§ LORD BESWICKThe noble Lord really cannot get away with that. Of course it is the ultimate decision of Parliament on the recommendation of the Government, but I am asking whether consultations were held and were the powers agreed to by those people who will be intimately concerned with the execution of them if the need arises? It is relevant, and although I accept the responsibilities of the Government I do not believe the noble Lord has answered the question which I put to him. If I continue to speak for a moment or two longer that will enable the answer to come along, and I hope it will be fairly detailed. I hope I shall be assured that those concerned have indeed recognised that they were asked to make concessions or to agree to proposals which can have a very serious effect upon the operations of an aircraft or the running of an aerodrome. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me the assurances that I seek, and that they will be fairly detailed.
§ LORD STOW HILLMay I seek to assist my noble friend's purpose by asking one further question? Can the Minister give me an example of a potential act which, within the meaning of subsection (2) of this Amendment, could constitute an act of violence? What potential acts are referred to there?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI suppose it might have been expressed as "intended acts"; in other words, acts that may take place. As I understand it, that is the purpose of the use of the word "potential". No doubt it would have been more difficult to prove an intention, but it may be possible objectively to prove whether a thing was probable, likely or possible.
§ LORD STOW HILLI should be grateful if the Minister would look again at that drafting. I do not quite understand how an act which is potential and therefore in the assumed circumstances has not taken place can amount to an act of violence, any more than an intended act, which equally in the assumed circumstances will not have taken place, can amount to an act of violence.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI should have thought that this was a question of definition for the purposes of this Part. What we are seeking to do is to prevent acts of violence from taking place and to give powers in anticipation of acts of violence taking place, to see that such acts do not take place. I shall be most grateful for the assistance of the noble and learned Lord in this matter, if he can help us to get a better word.
I think I was on the right lines in what I said before. There has been voluntary co-operation and it has been done through the National Aviation Security Committee.
§ LORD BESWICKVoluntary cooperation?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNYes. That is done through the National Aviation Security Committee. That Committee was consulted. Support has been received from the British Airline Pilots' Association and the airlines have also been consulted.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKI should like to ask the noble Lord a couple of questions. I welcome the second Part 394 of the Bill; indeed, to some extent it may be said to be an extension of some of the argument that I had with the noble Lord earlier about what happened when the doors of the aircraft were opened. I must admit that the noble Lord rather took the bit between his teeth and went a good deal further than I had anticipated, but it fully meets the point which I had in mind. May we be told in some way how these directions are supposed to operate? As the noble Lord has said, they are unprecedented. They enable the Minister to override contracts, rules of law and Acts of Parliament. They are said to be only reserve powers in an emergency, but, with great respect, we have no knowledge of that. There is nothing in the new clause about limitation. The noble Lord could make this a permanent regulation and I think we should look most carefully at how he proposes to use these powers.
To take an example, there are some things which must be done immediately and I would not hamper the Government in any way from doing them, but there are other things which may be on a semi-permanent basis. Indeed, this is so. Reports must constantly be made to the Department as to what arrangements are in force with regard to the safety of aircraft and the searches which have been carried out. Must we treat all those directions in exactly the same way, or could we not have some Parliamentary procedure for certain types of questions while other types would not require Parliamentary procedure?
As I see the position at the present time there are only limitations, or sanctions, on what the Minister does: one is that he will have to pay compensation for the damage created, which may be from breaking a contract or it may be from breaking through an Act of Parliament; and the other sanction is that afterwards he may be questioned and he may be censured in Parliament. At the present time those are the only limitations which apply to the use of any of these directions and I am wondering whether we should not look a little more closely to see whether we can tie him to using these powers, as he himself said, sparingly and with respect for the rights of man.
395 There are two other questions which I should like to ask. I am very keen that the Minister should have power and also that we should know who has it. In this new Part there is a reference to "constable": there are at least two sorts of constable and there may be many more. There is reference to "authorised persons"; there is reference to "the personnel specified". Whom do these come under? Who is responsible? If something takes place at Heathrow, does the Minister of the Environment accept full responsibility? Who is capable of acting? In the Amendments it is said that they do not want to use firearms or violence but it is quite obvious that they do not want to discourage other people from using firearms or violence. This comes out quite clearly, but apparently they do not accept responsibility for it themselves. The time may come when someone will have to make up his mind as to who is going to use violence. Who will that person be? Will it be the Home Office? Will it be the Minister of the Environment? I feel it must be made quite clear who is really responsible.
Finally, a good deal is said about pilfering at these big aerodromes. I see that among other things Part II provides for the protection of property. I do not know whether it is the intention, directly or indirectly, that it will in any way be covered by these particular provisions. Probably something is to be done there and it may be that these powers will be used incidentally for this purpose, but I shall be interested to know whether the governing words of this Part of the Act would exclude the use of these powers for the protection of property, which may be baggage or freight or anything else, which is being pilfered. I welcome these proposals. We have not had very long to look at them; we have had no Second Reading, no Explanatory Memorandum or Financial Memorandum. We have had only about three days to look at the final drafts. I hope the noble Lord will not take exception if we ask a lot of questions as to what the different clauses mean.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEI should like to support what my noble friend Lord Selkirk says as regards the possible dangers of the powers which the 396 Executive are taking in this Bill. No member of the Committee wishes in any way to question the right steps for protection of aircraft, but the powers in this Bill could in fact, if exercised in certain ways, bring civil aviation to a halt. They could make the use of aerodromes and the use of airliners for transportation impossible if they were applied in certain ways. It may be necessary at some time to use the powers in an extreme way. The point I would ask the Minister is this: what machinery is there for the operator or the aerodrome owner who feels, while fully supporting the purposes of the Bill, that the powers are being used impractically, without sufficient knowledge of his particular problems? What machinery of appeal is there for the man affected or the enterprise affected by the sweeping use in possibly not the best, most practical manner of the powers? I think it is necessary that we should have some safeguards for the operators and aerodrome owners.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLBefore the noble Lord replies, I should like to share the concern expressed by noble Lords on both sides, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. Like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I have only in the last day or so had a chance to see these new proposals and I cannot pretend even yet that I am in a position to be very knowledgeable about them. I am concerned by what I have read so far. I hope it may be possible for a decision on these most important matters to be deferred in some way to enable us to have a chance to look at them more carefully and consider all the points the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, have raised.
§ 4.22 p.m.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI shall not be in the slightest in any way upset if a lot of questions are asked. I should expect them to be asked. I shall be astonished if I can answer them all, but if I am not able to answer any particular question I will certainly get in touch with the noble Lord who asks it. There will, of course, be further opportunities on this Bill; this is not the last stage, even though it is now the fourth stage. While it is certainly true that all these Amendments have not been very long before the House, they have been in one form or another before the House for about a week, and I cannot 397 say that I have seen them for very much longer myself.
I think the important thing to understand here is that what we are seeking to do is to give statutory force to what is at present being done by voluntary means. I explained in my initial remarks why it is thought to be necessary to do that. It is not a bad thing to have a statutory background to voluntary powers. It is not intended that we shall give directions right away, because the voluntary system seems to be working well. On the other hand, at any given moment, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk suggested, an emergency might arise, and then it would be highly desirable to seek the quickest possible and most comprehensive method of dealing with that emergency. The directions are to be given, of course, by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 13 speaks of notice in writing. Amendment No. 14 does not say notice in writing. I imagine the reason for that—I did not inquire, but it seemed to me obvious—is that the circumstances might be so urgent that it might not be reasonable to expect notice in writing to be given.
The kind of things that are being done are the searches, where appropriate. The Security Committee work out in what circumstances the searches should be carried out, and the risk is evaluated from time to time. In accordance with that, the appropriate action is taken, as I say, at the present time through voluntary means. If necessary, directions would be given. But in many cases time will be of the essence. There will be consultation within government before directions are given, but it may well be that there could not be consultation outside before directions are given. There is a clear chain of command for dealing with any incident, and detailed arrangements have been made. I am sure your Lordships would not expect me to give details of the arrangements that have been made.
My noble friend spoke of various kinds of directions. There is the first one as to information. That is in a sense a "one-off" one, because it requires information about the present state of affairs together with information about any further developments of aerodromes, the measures being taken on aerodromes, or any measures that are being discontinued. That is a general direction. As to directions 398 requiring Parliamentary procedure, I do not really understand what my noble friend has in mind. The kind of directions for the alteration of an aerodrome, or something like that, which might relate to particular circumstances, might be given on the spot, to deal with a particular situation. On the other hand, it might be that long-term work was required and there would be plenty of time, and whether a direction need be given at all would be open to doubt.
The noble Lord asked who has the powers. I explained as well as I could in the early stages that there are two separate sets of cases here: first of all, the operators of aircraft dealing with searches. In this case the contracts that they make with those whom they carry provide, as a condition of the contract, that the individual to be carried will submit himself to search on request. I understand that is common form in all contracts now, so there are no special powers required for that. What we want to be certain of is that searches are carried out, and that nobody is allowed to go on to aircraft unless he has been searched, in the particular circumstances that are envisaged. At the present time this is done by voluntary co-operation. It could be a matter for a direction in special cases.
As to the powers, the British Airports Authority managers have certain powers. They have their own constabulary, and somebody equivalent to a Chief Constable. As I explained before, it is not possible for all managers of aerodromes to give instructions to those who are to carry out searches on aerodromes, for the simple reason that they may very well be carried out by constables over whom they do not have jurisdiction. Therefore, all they can do is to use their best endeavours to have these done. As to pilfering, Part II starts in this way:
The purposes to which this Part of this Act applies…The prevention of pilfering is not, so far as I am aware, a part of the purposes to which the Part of this Act applies.I suggest that the whole question of search is the main weapon of the Bill here, and it is something that is being done in aerodromes all over the world at the present time. In some cases no doubt it is used with special powers, and in some cases, as has occurred so far in this country, voluntarily. It is always 399 our way to act voluntarily in so far as we can, but I would suggest that this is a case that is so serious and vital that where voluntary action is apparently not going to be adequate there should be the powers to give the directions. I suggest also that it is not practicable to invent a Parliamentary procedure which would have to be gone through before those directions are given. I have no doubt that in an emergency of this kind there would be a report to Parliament, but it would probably be a post hoc report.
I hope that your Lordships will be prepared to give these powers to the Secretary of State. After all, what we are trying to do is to ensure that in emergencies the necessary action is taken without delay.
§ 4.32 p.m.
§ LORD BESWICKI do not know whether the noble Lord has clarified any minds, but certainly he has succeeded in confusing mine. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that I certainly am not trying to deny him the necessary powers, and I feel that no one else is either. What we are trying to do is to obtain an understandable Act of Parliament. At the moment some of the words here are not understandably clear.
May I ask the noble Lord this straightforward question: Is there any difference in constitutional right, or power, or authority between the Secretary of State making a notice in writing or giving a direction? If there is no difference in effect as between giving a notice in writing or giving a direction, why do we not use the same terminology? When the noble Lord gives his explanation he says, referring presumably to Amendment No. 14 which we also seem to be discussing, that there it is necessary to have regard to Parliamentary proceedings. But in the circumstances envisaged in Amendment No. 14, they are precisely the circumstances in which Parliamentary proceedings cannot come into the matter because there we are faced with an emergency.
As I understand the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, he is asking how this direction is to be given. Is it enough for some member of the Department to pick up a telephone and say "Do this" or "Do that"? Is that to be considered a direction? If so, we understand it, and let us have it 400 straight. But why, in those circumstances, do we use different terminology from Amendment No. 13, where we simply talk about giving a notice in writing? Why cannot we have the word "direction" in both cases? I think that there is a case here for looking at the wording to see whether we can get it a little more straightforward.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEI am sorry to be persistent, but the Minister either failed to appreciate my point, or I was unable to make myself clear. I am not talking about an emergency, I am talking about the routine which will, in future, have a statutory backing and which is at present being carried out voluntarily. The daily routine at present, as the Minister says, is voluntary; now the Executive are going to take legislative powers from Parliament to do by law what is being done voluntarily and in a satisfactory manner.
What machinery is there for the oppressed operator, or the oppressed aerodrome owner, who finds the execution of what is at present done voluntarily being done under Statute, and in fact somewhat differently applied? Let us assume that the hours at present are arranged voluntarily for the police to conduct their searches. The police now find that it would be more convenient to carry out these searches at different times which are possibly not convenient for the timetable of operators. Where is there any redress in the way of appeal for the disgruntled or discontented operator or aerodrome owner? It is not unreasonable to ask, when you have statutory powers, that there should be some measure of appeal for the citizens affected.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKI do not think that the noble Lord has quite grasped the situation that we are in. He talks about emergencies, and I am quite sure that the Committee will willingly give him any emergency powers that are required. I think that we would be wholeheartedly behind him in doing that. But this series of Amendments is saying that the Minister may permanently override any Act of Parliament. I am asking whether that is really necessary. There is nothing about emergencies in these Amendments at all.
401 Then the noble Lord goes on to talk about searches. Well, perhaps regulations about searches should be permanent; there should be a more or less permanent format in which searches should be carried out. I quite agree that that may be so, but that is quite different from the emergency action. The noble Lord says that these powers are unprecedented probably since the time of Henry VIII, and I cannot think of any Parliament that asked for a power to override an Act of Parliament—and to do it by a telephone call. I am saying that this is too much. We must really restrict it in some way, and put it into some shape which makes sense.
I also asked who was going to be in command. The noble Lord said that the chain of command was quite clear, and then he made it perfectly clear that it was not; people had to get the constables and others to act with good will. I really do think that the chain of command should be there. Action may have to be taken in the very firm way that we have known has been necessary in other places, at Heathrow and elsewhere. I think that my noble friend Lord Balfour has made a point here. Ought there to be some machinery to bring this forward? Has the person aggrieved a right to his Member of Parliament? Has he a right to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, or the Department of the Environment, or ought there to be some arrangement whereby he can get this matter put right? I know there are provisions for compensation, but should not there be something a little fuller as to the manner in which compensation should be used?
§ LORD TREFGARNEI hope that I am in order in speaking again, and I wish to reinforce a point that I made before. I wish to support what my noble friend Lord Balfour has said about the rights of airline operators and aerodrome operators to secure some redress for any complaint that they may have. To say that there are financial provisions in the Bill by which the Minister may make payments to cover inconvenience or damages is really not good enough, because sometimes situations arise where money is not the point, or at least no feasible sum of money can really recompense people for gross inconvenience or loss of goodwill. I 402 hope the noble Lord will take seriously what my noble friend has said, and will either give some guidance or perhaps accept some Amendment at a later stage.
§ 4.40 p.m.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI shall always be willing to accept an Amendment but, to some extent, we seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. I thought I had made it clear that it was intended that the voluntary machinery would continue to operate. It has to be remembered that these powers are being taken primarily to deal with an extreme emergency, and for that the chain of command is well-established. I felt it right to point to the difficulties of, for example, the relationship between managers of aerodromes and those who have to carry out a search on aerodromes. But in fact we do not anticipate that these difficulties will in any way prove to be obstacles, since they have not so far done so. This procedure works perfectly well and can be expected to work well in the future.
I was asked whether we ought to have the same kind of nomenclature for, on the one hand, directions and, on the other hand, notices in writing. So far as information is concerned, notice in writing is given and the reason for that is that if the Minister is to be able to give intelligent directions, he must know what is being done at that time, so that he can add to the directions and say, "Please also do the following". It is necessary that the state of security should be known and maintained in each aerodrome. As I mentioned at a previous stage of the Bill, one by one the state of security at each of the 25 principal aerodromes is being examined and I do not think there is anything to fear there.
I agree that the powers in the Bill appear to be very sweeping; for example, the overriding of an Act of Parliament. Naturally, I myself inquired about these powers when I was going through the Bill, but in practice the scope here is very narrow indeed. Let us take the case where, for some reason or another—perhaps because it obscures the view—it is decided that a tree should be removed from neighbouring property. It might well be that that could not be done because of a tree preservation order, and that order and the Act of Parliament would have to be overridden. But my 403 noble friend ought not to exaggerate what is happening. He must remember those governing words at the beginning of Part II, "The purposes to which this Part of this Act". Anything that was done would have to be strictly for the purposes of this Part of the Act.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, that the arrangements are well in hand at the present time and are working very well on a voluntary basis. I should have thought the likelihood of their not continuing to work well was extremely remote, because it is very much in the interests of the operators of the aircraft themselves to work them, to make certain that searches are properly carried out and that nobody who has not been searched goes on to an aircraft, where there is any risk of hijacking or sabotage in flight. So I should not have thought there was any difficulty; and, to a large extent, operators make their own arrangements.
My noble friend said that there is nothing in the Bill about financial provisions to alleviate what may happen, and I agree with him that financial provision afterwards cannot compensate. But I would make it quite clear that what we are talking about are matters which are not only in the common interest, but are also in the interests of individual operators of aircraft. I should have thought we could continue to look for the same co-operation as we are now getting to deal with this menace. Goodness knows, the British Airline Pilots' Association are as strong against it as anybody else in the world, and I should think the aircraft operators are equally strong. We should be able to expect the utmost co-operation here, and it will surely be fully appreciated that directions are to be given in an emergency in order to save time, and in those circumstances they will have to be given in whatever way is appropriate.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEI am sorry to be persistent, but I am getting exasperated. I have twice asked the Minister whether he will kindly explain to me the position when these powers are used by daily routine, which they will be. I am talking not about the emergency where everybody will accept that anything 404 can be done, but about the daily routine. What redress, what machinery, what provision is there for the harrassed, oppressed operator who finds the conditions under statutory rights very different from voluntary working? The Executive is asking for a blank cheque, without any undertaking that in the distant future it will not be used in an oppressive and even obstructive way. The question I ask again is: what will the Minister provide in the way of assurance that there is some machinery for redress or appeal, whatever you call it. I suggest that if the Committee is being asked by the Government to give a measure of power to the Executive without any safeguard to the citizen, it will be very much better if the Minister takes this Bill back and thinks again. Alternatively, will he give us some undertaking now that he will consider this point before the Bill goes on to the Statute Book?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI really must appeal to my noble friend. He must surely have some confidence in his own Government in this matter. I have said, time and time again, that the voluntary procedures will continue. There is no question of a day-to-day routine being established to take the place of those voluntary procedures. They are there, they are working and they will continue.
The National Aviation Security Committee is the committee on which all those concerned are represented and by common agreement, in accordance with the guidance they get about a situation at the time, they voluntarily take appropriate measures. I say again that it is only in the case of emergency that we shall have recourse to directions, except that in cases such as the modification of aircraft it may be thought desirable, in anticipation of an emergency, to make the necessary minor modifications, but only after consulting the licensing authority on safety—that is, the Civil Aviation Authority—and that applies only to United Kingdom operators. We have thought it right to have background powers, so that we may not be caught out in an emergency. We already have a security organisation at airports and on aircraft, and that voluntary organisation will continue. I hope that I have made the position clear to my noble friend.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
405§ 4.50 p.m.
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—
§ Power for Secretary of State to require information
§ ".—(1) The Secretary of State may, by notice in writing served on any person who is—
- (a) the operator of one or more aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, or
- (b) the manager of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom,
§ (2) A notice under subsection (1) of this section shall specify a date (not being earlier than four weeks from the date on which the notice is served) before which the information required by the notice in accordance with subsection (1) of this section is to be furnished to the Secretary of State.
§ (3) Any such notice shall also require the person on whom it is served, after he has furnished to the Secretary of State the information required by the notice in accordance with subsection (1) of this section, to inform the Secretary of State if at any time—
- (a) any further measures, in respect of aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom of which at that time he is the operator, or in respect of the aerodrome to which the information so furnished related, as the case may be, are taken for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies, either by way of alteration of, or addition to, the measures specified in any information previously furnished by him under this section or by way of applying any measures so specified to aircraft, or to a part of the aerodrome, not comprised in the previous information, or
- (b) any measures taken as mentioned in that subsection or in paragraph (a) of this subsection are discontinued.
§ (4) In so far as such a notice requires further information to be furnished to the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, it shall require that information to be furnished to him before the end of such period (not being less than seven days from the date on which the further measures in question are taken or the measures are discontinued, as the case may be) as is specified in the notice for the purposes of this subsection.
§ (5) A notice served on a person under subsection (1) of this section may at any time be revoked by a further notice served on him by the Secretary of State."
§ The noble Lord said: I think we have covered quite a lot of this ground already. 406 As I have said before, the object here is to require an operator of a United Kingdom registered aircraft, or an operator of an aircraft not so registered but which is for 'the time being used for flights to and from the United Kingdom, and the manager of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom, to inform the Secretary of State of the measures, of the descriptions specified in the notice, which the operator (in respect of his aircraft) or the aerodrome manager (in respect of his aerodrome) is taking for the purposes for which this Part of the Bill applies; that is to say, for protection from crimes of violence. I beg to move.
§ LORD BESWICKI wonder whether the noble Lord would agree to look at the point which I put to him. This clause requires that the Secretary of State give notice in writing, and it also provides that,
A notice under subsection (1)…shall specify a date (not being earlier than four weeks from the date on which the notice is served)by which, presumably, he gets a reply. The element of urgency appears to be lacking here, because we are talking about "not…earlier than four weeks". I can visualise an occasion on which the Secretary of State may want information much more quickly than that. I really do not quite see why we go to the trouble of saying a "notice in writing" in Amendment No. 13 and use the term "direction" in Amendment No. 14. If we want information, there may well be occasions when we want it in a hurry.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis is the first time that we have had the words
operator of…aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom".I am not very sure of any sanction behind Amendment No. 13, but the words "operating in the United Kingdom" are put in, and elsewhere we have the words "an aircraft allocated for use on flight". I am afraid I have no idea what that means. Does it mean that this applies to the airlines coming here? Does it mean any aircraft which lands in this country? Is an aircraft "allocated to flight" here, or what does it mean? Does it mean that, whatever the number of aircraft firms operating in this country, they must answer this request in writing, or does it mean something else? It does 407 not sound to me is if it means all aircraft operating in this country, but perhaps it does.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNIn reply to the last question, I think it is intended to cover the flights of any planes that are allocated for flights to this country, whether on charter or on regular services, or whatever it may be; and, of course, it will apply to any aircraft which are allocated from time to time for that purpose, so that if the operator changes the aircraft allocated one day to another aircraft, that will still be covered. It is intended to cover all aircraft that are operating in and out of aerodromes in this country but not registered as in the United Kingdom.
I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, but there is a difference in kind between a requirement to give information and a requirement to take drastic action in the way of searches, modifying aircraft, demolishing buildings or whatever. The difference in terminology between Amendment No. 13 and the later Amendments reflects this difference in the nature of the requirements. They could both have been called "directions" if it had not been thought desirable to bring out the distinctions between them. So far as the clause that we are dealing with now is concerned, I should like to make certain of this, but as I understand the position it is this. The Department are well aware of the measures that are being taken at the present time, but they want to be in a position to be certain that they know what is the state of security measures on any given aerodrome at any particular time, and that is why this particular notice provides that unless they are getting that information the D.T.I. will be able to get it by notice in writing. That is the effect, as I see it, of this particular provision; and not only the state of security at the moment, but also to require notification of further changes for the future, too. It was thought right to give a decent interval for compliance. This is not unusual. Again, this is not one of the emergency procedures: it is a background provision to put the D.T.I. in a position to fulfil their responsibilities.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, so that the noble Lord can read the note that 408 he has now had placed before him, perhaps I may put a further point to him. I accept that there is a distinction between getting information and giving a definite order, but I should have thought that there may well be occasions when it is necessary to have further information before one gives an order in an emergency; and, that being the case, if one wants to give an order immediately, as is provided for in Amendment No. 14, I should have thought one would probably need information earlier than the four weeks provided for in Amendment No. 13. I suggest that the noble Lord might look at this again.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am perfectly willing to look at it again. Of course, the fact that you give somebody four weeks to give you information does not necessarily mean that he will take four weeks to do so, and with the relationships that we have between us I should have thought that it would have been quite possible to get the information at very short notice if the information was required at very short notice. But for the purposes of the obligations and the duties that are laid down, and the sanctions which are attached, it is obviously better to give a decent period. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that the note I have received coincides with what I have already said to him.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause:
§ Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft
§ ".—(1) For the purposes to which this Part of this Act applies the Secretary of State may give a direction to the operator of any one or more aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, or to any person appearing to the Secretary of State to be about to become such an operator, requiring him—
- (a) not to cause or permit persons or property to go or be taken on board the aircraft, or to come or be brought into proximity to the aircraft unless such searches of those persons at that property as are specified in the direction have been carried out by constables or by other persons of a description specified in the direction, or
- (b) not to cause or permit the aircraft to fly unless such searches of the aircraft as are specified in the direction have been carried out by constables or by other persons of a description so specified.
§ (2) Subject to the next following subsection, the Secretary of State may give a direction to the operator of any one or more aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, or to any person appearing to the Secretary of State to be about to become such an operator, requiring him not to cause or permit the aircraft to fly unless such modifications or alterations of the aircraft, or of apparatus or equipment installed in the aircraft, as are specified in the direction have first been carried out, or such additional apparatus or equipment as is so specified is first installed in the aircraft.
§ (3) Before giving any direction under subsection (2) of this section the Secretary of State shall inform the Civil Aviation Authority of the modifications, alterations or additional apparatus or equipment proposed to be required, and shall take account of any advice given to him by that Authority with respect to those proposals.
§ (4) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, a direction given to an operator of aircraft under subsection (1) of this section may be given so as to relate—
- (a) either to all the aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom of which at the time when the direction is given or at any subsequent time he is the operator or only to one or more such aircraft, or to a class of such aircraft, specified in the direction;
- (b) either to all persons or only to one or more persons, or persons of one or more descriptions specified in the direction; and
- (c) either to property of every description or only to particular property, or property of one or more descriptions, specified in the direction;
§ (5) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, any direction given under this section to an operator of aircraft not to cause or permit anything to be done shall be construed as requiring him to take all such steps as in any particular circumstances are practicable and necessary to prevent that thing from being done.
§ (6) A direction given under this section to a person, as being a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be about to become such an operator as is mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, shall not take effect until he becomes such an operator; and, in relation to such a direction, subsections (4) and (5) of this section shall apply with the necessary modifications."
§
The noble Lord said: This new clause gives power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft. I think the main point I should draw attention to here is that the Secretary of State is given power
410
to give a direction to an operator requiring him,
not to cause or permit persons or property to go or be taken on board the aircraft, or to come or be brought into proximity to the aircraft, unless such searches of those persons or that property as are specified in the direction have been carried out by constables or by other persons of a description specified in the direction,"…
In other words, the power is not to direct a search but to direct that a person should not go on board the aircraft without having been searched. The second paragraph reads:
not to cause or permit the aircraft to fly unless such searches of the aircraft as are specified in the direction have been carried out…".
Normally, one would expect these to have been carried out, of course, before the passengers were admitted to the aircraft or the freight was loaded on to the aircraft.
§ This is a long clause, and I do not know that there is anything I need to comment on further except to say that it is of course open to a person to elect not to board the aircraft rather than to be searched. The main purpose is to ensure that the wrong people, people with the wrong articles in their possession or in their baggage, do not enter the aircraft. Subsection (2) deals with modifications or additions that have been made to aircraft, and again I would draw attention to the fact that the duty on the aircraft operator is to prevent his aircraft flying if the modifications are not made. The purpose of subsection (3) is to ensure that the Secretary of State's requirements are not inconsistent with the airworthiness or other safety requirements of that aircraft where he is giving a direction as to modification. The other subsections speak for themselves, but I shall be glad to explain anything which any noble Lord wishes to have explained.
§ LORD BESWICKI have only one question. It relates to subsection (2), which refers to modifications which may be required to be carried out. One of the modifications which I understand the Department may have in mind is that which would create a division between the flight deck and the passengers. As the noble Lord knows, there is a feeling among the pilots, certainly, that such a division would be a mistake. I have heard the argument advanced in this House that 411 one effective deterrent or prevention to the hijacker would be to have this physical barrier between the passengers' compartment where the potential hijacker is and the flight deck; but it is not quite as simple as that. It would be possible for the potential hijacker to get hold of a steward or stewardess in the passenger compartment and to threaten to take the life of that person unless the pilot listened to what he wanted to tell him. In any case, the captain of the aircraft sometimes requires to go back to see what is happening in the passenger compartment.
There could be an argument here whether it was wise or not to require a modification to an aircraft along these lines. I raise here a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour. What is the procedure by which a decision or a consultation can take place or an appeal be made against a direction of the Secretary of State if the aircraft operators thought the direction was not sensible or was unwise for one reason or another?
THE EARL OF SELKIRKI find it difficult to see how subsection (2) of Amendment 14 does not say almost exactly the opposite to subsection (5)(b) of Amendment 16. One says that you can insist that no aircraft flight can take place until a modification is carried out. The other one says that you cannot. I must admit that the wording is close but it seems to me to read that there shall be no requirement to prohibit an aircraft or forbid it to fly unless a modification is made. It seems to be in direct contradiction to the other.
The other point is this. The noble Lord says that these directions can be made applicable to any aircraft landing in this country with passengers. This may be governed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority in the U.S.A. or the equivalent body in any foreign country. They may not consider that our Civil Aviation Authority is sufficient authority for making this modification. Is there any provision for their refusing to obey the orders of the Secretary of State and thereby committing an offence because they have not the authority of their own Board to make the modification required? I say this to meet a possible difficulty in certain circumstances.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNSo far as modifications are concerned, no decision of any kind has been reached as to what sort of modifications might be required. All that I can say to my noble friend is that I will take note of what he said. This was discussed, if not in connection with this Bill, in connection with the Hijacking Bill last year. I do not remember which. But we have no definite plans to require modification at the present time. One of the more likely ones could be systems to prevent doors from being opened in flight, particularly what I understand are called ventral or tail doors, which enable the hijacker to parachute out, or something else to be dropped out.
On the question of appeals there is no provision for appeals at the present time. We can give consideration to the idea of appeal. I should have thought that these things would be done after consultation with the airlines concerned and that they could not require alteration or modifications to be made except for aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, as the noble Lord will see.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNIt only concerns aircraft registered in the United Kingdom.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNNo. If the noble Earl looks at subsection (2) he will see that it says:
Subject to the next following subsection, the Secretary of State may give a direction to the operator of any one or more aircraft registered in the United Kingdom—".On the point as to possible conflict with Amendment 16, the noble Earl will see that Amendment 16 says:A direction under this section…shall not require any…".It is important to know under which section a direction is being given. A direction of that character will be given under the specific provisions of Amendment 14 and not under the general provisions of Amendment 16.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEFor the first time the Minister has been kind enough to meet my point in a reply to the noble Lord. Lord Beswick, by saying that he would consider the question 413 of appeal machinery; although he said he did not think it was particularly appropriate. All I would ask him to do is to give consideration to the question of appeal or, failing that, of laying down procedure whereby representations of discontent by someone on the application of these regulations could be made.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNYes, I will certainly do that. But may I add that with these airport security committees there is a considerable degree of intimacy in the co-operation and I think the Department will know very well where there are difficulties and complaints and their main purpose must be to keen the machinery working smoothly.
§ LORD BESWICKWith respect to the noble Lord, he has made the matter worse. Airport security committees have nothing at all to do with modifications to aircraft.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI understood (and if I was wrong about this, please forgive me) that my noble friend Lord Balfour had gone back to the previous point that he was making about appeals and was not confining his remarks only to modifications.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy general point covered the whole field including modifications because the Executive are taking large powers, are asking for a blank cheque.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 5.8 p.m.
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—
§ Power to require aerodrome managers to promote searches at aerodromes
§ ".—(1) For purposes to which this Part of this Act applies the Secretary of State may give a direction to the manager of any aerodrome in the United Kingdom requiring him to use his best endeavours to secure that such searches to which this section applies as are specified in the direction are carried out by constables or by other persons of a description specified in the direction.
§ (2) The searches to which this section applies, in relation to an aerodrome, are searches—
- (a) of the aerodrome or any part of it;
- (b) of any aircraft which at the time when the direction is given or at any subsequent time is in any part of the aerodrome; and
- (c) of persons or property (other than aircraft) which may at any such time be in any part of the aerodrome."
§
The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the powers to require aerodrome managers to promote searches at aerodromes and subsection (1) of the clause enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the manager of any aerodrome in the United Kingdom
requiring him to use his best endeavours to secure that such searches to which this section applies…are carried out by constables or other persons of a description specified in the direction".
Such searches as are specified in the direction are set out in subsection (2) of the clause. The persons who are to carry out any search specified in a direction under this clause are given express powers of search et cetera in so far as are thought appropriate in Amendment 22. However, there could be other powers under which searches could be carried out: for example, other Statutes; even under contractual rights obtained by the aerodrome manager. No powers of search will be required for a search of the airport manager's own property. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
§ General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies
§ (".—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may give a direction to any person who is—
- (a) the operator of one or more aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, or
- (b) the manager of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom,
§ (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection, the measures to be specified in a direction given under this section to an operator of aircraft, or to the manager of an aerodrome, may include the provision by the operator or manager of persons charged with the duty (at such times as may be specified in the direction)—
- (a) of guarding the aircraft, or
- (b) of guarding the aerodrome, or persons or property (including aircraft) in any part of the aerodrome,
§ (3) A direction given under this section may be either of a general or of a specific character, and may require any measures specified in the direction to be taken at such time or within such period as may be so specified.
§ (4) A direction given under subsection (1) of this section to an operator of aircraft may be given so as to relate either to all the aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom of which at the time when the direction is given or at any subsequent time he is the operator or only to one or more such aircraft, or to a class of such aircraft, specified in the direction.
§ (5) A direction under this section—
- (a) shall not require any search (whether of persons or of property) to be carried out, or prohibit anything to be done unless such a search has been carried out, and
- (b) shall not require any aircraft to be modified or altered, or require any aircraft to have any of its apparatus or equipment modified or altered, or to have additional apparatus or equipment installed in it, or prohibit any aircraft from being caused or permitted to fly unless a modification or alteration of the aircraft or of its apparatus or equipment, or the installation of additional apparatus or equipment in the aircraft, has first been carried out.
§ (6) A direction may be given under this section to a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be about to become such an operator or manager as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section; but a direction given to a person by virtue of this subsection shall not take effect until he becomes such an operator or manager, and, in relation to a direction so given, the preceding provisions of this section shall apply with the necessary modifications.
§ (7) The ownership of any property shall not be affected by reason only that it is placed on or under, or affixed to, any land in compliance with a direction under this section.")
§ The noble Lord said: This new clause enables the Secretary of State to give a direction to a person who is an operator of a United Kingdom registered aircraft, or of other aircraft for the time being used in flight to or from the United Kingdom, or the manager of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom, requiring him, in respect of his aircraft or aerodrome, to take such measures for the purposes set out in Amendment No. 12; that is, purposes for the protection against acts of violence as may be specified in the directions. I do not suppose that noble Lords will wish me to go through the requirements in detail, but if there is any point troubling noble Lords I shall be glad to try to answer it.
416§ LORD BESWICKThere is one point about which I should be grateful if the noble Lord could help me. Subsection (5)(a) states:
A direction under this section —(a) shall not require any search…to be carried out, or prohibit anything to be done unless such a search has been carried out…I confess that I cannot follow that, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell me what it means.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI tried to explain this point when my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, raised it during the discussion on the last Amendment. The object here is that directions for searches should be given under the provisions of Amendment No. 14 and not under this new clause. It looks as if this is something which cannot be done at all. It can, of course, be done under the provisions of Amendment No. 14, and it would be, I am told, inappropriate to have two clauses providing for the same thing, one specifically and the other generally or by implication.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMay I ask one question? Subsection (1)(b) says:
…such measures for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies …I understand that would cover modification matters which we have been discussing on the previous Amendment. Does this provision mean that the operator of a foreign aircraft landing once in this country could then have a direction given that a modification must be carried out?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNThe modification provisions are dealt with again in Amendments 14 and 17. This Amendment is dealing with directions requiring measures to be taken—such measures as are specified in the direction. It is precisely because this is a wide general power that restrictions are imposed as in sub. section (5) which specifically says:
A direction under this section shall not require…any aircraft to be modified or altered"—and so on.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
417
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause:
§ Matters which may be included in directions under ss. (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) to (General power to direct measures to he taken for purposes to which Part II applies).
§ "—(1) A direction under subsection (1) of section (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) or under section (Power to require aerodrome managers to promote searches at aerodromes) of this Act may specify the number of persons by whom any search to which the direction relates is to be carried out, the qualifications which persons carrying out any such search are to have, the manner in which any such search is to be carried out, and any apparatus, equipment or other aids to be used for the purpose of carrying out any such search.
§ (2) A direction under subsection (2) of section (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) of this Act may specify the qualifications required to be had by persons carrying out any modifications or alterations, or the installation of any additional apparatus or equipment, to which the direction relates.
§ (3) Before specifying any qualifications in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, the Secretary of State shall inform the Civil Aviation Authority of the qualifications proposed to be specified, and shall take account of any advice given to him by that Authority with respect to those proposals.
§ (4) A direction under section (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies) of this Act may specify—
- (a) the number of persons to be employed for the purposes of any measures required by the direction to be taken by an operator of aircraft or by the manager of an aerodrome, and the qualifications which persons employed for those purposes are to have, and
- (b) any apparatus, equipment or other aids to be used for those purposes.
§ (5) In so far as a direction under any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act requires searches to be carried out, or other measures to be taken, by constables, the direction may require the person to whom it is given to use his best endeavours to secure that constables will be duty authorised to carry, and will carry, firearms when carrying out the searches or taking the measures in question.
§ (6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) of this section shall be construed as limiting the generality of any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act.
§ (7) In this section "qualifications" includes training and experience."
§
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause, the rubric of which says:
418
Matters which may be included in directions…(Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) to (General power to direct measures to be taken far purposes to which Part II applies).
This new clause provides that a direction under new clauses 14 and 15 may specify the number of persons by whom any search is to be carried out, their qualifications, the manner in which the search is to be carried out and equipment or aids to be used in carrying out the search. The purpose of specifying numbers was that there might be a case of urgency for a quick search of an aerodrome and you would have to get a strong body of searchers on the job at once. But in the main this is not likely to apply to operators of aircraft. Subsection (2) provides that a direction may specify the qualifications required by any person carrying out modifications or additions to the aircraft or its equipment pursuant to such a direction. The idea there is that they should be properly qualified before they are allowed to touch the aircraft, which seems good sense.
§ I do not think there is anything that I need draw attention to in particular, except in the matter of firearms which is referred to in subsection (5). This provides that in so far as a direction given in this Part of the Bill requires measures to be carried out by constables the direction may require the person to whom it is given to use his best endeavours to secure that constables are authorised to carry firearms when taking those measures. I explained the situation earlier. The point here is that an ordinary citizen requires a firearms certification from the chief office of police, under Section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, to carry a firearm lawfully. In the same way, other bodies of police—including, for example, the British Airports Authority Constabulary, not being a police force and their chief constables not being chief officers of police within the meaning of the Police Act—require firearms certificates like ordinary members of the public. I must emphasise again that the Bill is not intended to change existing measures controlling the use of firearms by police; but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that in certain circumstances it would be highly desirable for the police to be armed, in view of the fact that those with whom they will be dealing are very likely to be armed.
419THE EARL OF SELKIRKI have asked over and over again who is the authority in this matter. An emergency may arise at any well-known airport and somebody has to take decisive action. It is clear that the Secretary of State for the Environment cannot do so. He cannot authorise the use of violence. He cannot authorise the use of firearms. He is entirely dependent on the local chief constable. Is the noble Lord really sure that this is enough? Should not someone at a pretty high level be able to take decisive action? He is deliberately taking away the immediate authority to use force in extreme circumstances when it might be necessary. In saying that, I am going a long way, but I think that the noble Lord should think again about taking further powers for emergency cases such as he has emphasised.
§ LORD TREFGARNEMay I put one other point to the noble Lord on the question of modifying aircraft? Subsection (1) of this new clause provides that persons who carry out such modifications have to be suitably qualified. Is this a departure from the fundamental requirement at present, that modifications should be carried out only in accordance with the British civil airworthiness requirements, or am I mistaken? At present, as noble Lords may be aware, only properly licensed engineers, or those holding suitable approval, are authorised to do such work as this, and I should have thought that the present arrangements were adequate.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNTo deal first with the point raised by my noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, he will bear in mind that under the new clause the subject of Amendment No. 14, the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the Authority on airworthiness, has to be consulted before any directions as to modifications are given. No doubt, if necessary, they will also be consulted about the qualifications required.
Then, dealing with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, there are procedures laid down already for dealing with any act of violence at United Kingdom airports. I ought not, I think, to give details, but my noble friend can be assured that overall direction will be at the highest level and will be passed down through a proper chain of com- 420 mand to the incident. I know that it looks loose for an aerodrome manager only to be required to use his best endeavours, rather than to be empowered to give orders, but to give orders would require taking further powers. I noted that my noble friend did not flinch from taking further powers in a case like this. I am sure this is a matter which ought to be considered further, and we shall go on giving it consideration. But at the moment I would say that there does not seem to be any particular reason why one should anticipate that there would not be co-operation between the police and the aerodrome manager or, for that matter, the aircraft operator, as the case may be. If there were, I imagine that representations would be made very quickly by the person who had received the direction, whether it is the aerodrome manager or the aircraft operator, and the matter would be taken up very directly with the chief constable if there was any difference of opinion. In a matter of order of this kind, I cannot for the life of me see how the civil power would not do as it always does; that is to say, take all necessary action in the circumstances.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKI am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer. I have no possible objection to any powers in an emergency, but I sometimes suspect the Government of using emergencies for continuing power. That is the point I am making.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—
§ Limitations on scope of directions under ss. (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) to (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies).
§ ".—(1) Without prejudice to subsection (5) of section (Matters which may be included in directions under sections (Powers to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) to (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies)) of this Act, a direction shall not require or authorise any person to carry a firearm.
§ (2) A direction shall not have effect in relation to any aircraft used in military, customs or police service.
§ (3) A direction shall not have effect in relation to any aircraft of which the operator is the Government of a country outside the 421 United Kingdom, or is a department or agency of such a Government, except at a time when any such aircraft is being used for the carriage of passengers or cargo for reward or is for the time being allocated by that Government, department or agency for such use.
§ (4) A direction (except in so far as it requires any building or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed) shall not be construed as requiring or authorising the operator of any aircraft, or the manager of any aerodrome, or any person acting as the servant or agent of such an operator or manager, to do anything which, apart from the direction, would constitute an act of violence; but nothing in this subsection shall restrict the use of force (whether at the instance of such an operator or manager or otherwise) by a constable or its use by any other person in the exercise of a power conferred by the following provisions of this Act.
§ (5) In so far as a direction requires anything to be done or not done at a place outside the United Kingdom—
- (a) it shall not have effect except in relation to aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, and
- (b) it shall not have effect so as to require anything to be done or not done in contravention of any provision of the law (whether civil or criminal) in force at that place, other than any such provision relating to breach of contract.
§ (6) In so far as a direction given to the manager of an aerodrome requires any building or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed on land outside the aerodrome, or requires any other measures to be taken on such land, the direction shall not confer on the manager of the aerodrome any rights as against a person having
- (a) an interest in that land, or
- (b) a right to occupy that land, or
- (c) right restrictive of its use;
§ (7) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from any exemption or immunity of the Crown in relation to the provisions of this Part of this Act.
§ (8) In this section "direction" means a direction under section (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft), section (Power to require aerodrome managers to promote searches at aerodromes) or section (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies) of this Act.".
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 18. I would draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (1), which provides that, except for the carriage of firearms by constables under the clause with which we have just dealt, 422 no direction should authorise or require the carrying of firearms. Any direction involving firearms, as indeed any direction impinging on the liberty of the individual, will be the subject of close consultation with the Home Secretary. Here again, I do not think there is any matter that I need draw particular attention to, though some of the provisions are complicated.
§ It might just be worth drawing attention to the question of an act of violence, which is defined so that it includes an assault and an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act. The effect of subsection (4) on a direction given under Amendment 14 is that it is not an assault to use reasonable force to prevent trespass. If a passenger having no proprictory rights in the aircraft were to attempt to board it against the wishes of the operator, reasonable force, not amounting to an act of violence, could be used to prevent him from doing so. The position with regard to allowing persons and property into proximity of the aircraft is the same, except that as a question of fact the aircraft operator would not normally have any interest in the land on which the aircraft was. If he has no such interest, any use of force against another person would be an assault and therefore not within the direction. The operator will no doubt make appropriate arrangements to ensure that, like most operators at present, he has a contractual right so far as possible to exclude persons from the aircraft unless they are searched.
§ LORD BESWICKI am glad the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, thought it worth while to call attention to the reference to violence, because subsection (4) of this new clause seems to me to be an absolute gem of legislative ingenuity. It says that a direction shall not require any act of violence to be committed, but it is thoughtful enough to say,
(except in so far as it requires any building … to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed)".I find it extremely difficult to see how you are going to demolish or remove a building without committing some degree of violence. I wonder if in the interests of purity of legislation here we cannot have this subsection looked at again.
§ LORD STOW HILLPerhaps I might follow what my noble friend has just said 423 by asking the Minister to be a little more explicit with regard to the scope of this new clause, and to refer, as my noble friend did, particularly to subsection (4), which says:
A direction (except in so far as it requires any building or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed) shall not be construed asauthorising violence. The implication of that is, I suppose, that a direction can require a building or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed. Where, when one looks at these Amendments, does one find any limit to the implied power conferred by those words? What buildings can be demolished? What buildings can be required to be executed? I do not know where there is to he found any limit to this. If I may look forward to Amendment No. 19, one finds that subsection (2) of that clause reads:In so far as any such direction"—that, I take it, includes the direction we are talking about—requires anything to be done or not done in the United Kingdom, the direction shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any contract…or contained in, or having effect by virtue of, any other Act or any rule of law…If those words qualify the direction which is being referred to in subsection (4) of Amendment No. 18, are we not contemplating here conferring extremely wide powers? The only limitation I have noticed (perhaps the Minister can refer me to some other limitation) is contained in subsection (6) of Amendment No. 18. That limitation, as I read it, only applies to the case where buildings areto be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed on land outside the aerodrome".But if one is talking about land inside the aerodrome, is there any limitation at all? Supposing you have a large and elaborate aerodrome, could some Minister who had temporarily taken leave of his senses require it to be taken down? Clearly that cannot be the intention, and quite obviously any Minister who gave such an order would find that its passage through this House or the other place would be somewhat difficult and prickly. Surely, in drafting legislation one should try to draft powers which, in the assumed circumstances, have to be extensive, but 424 nevertheless must be pretty clear, so that one knows what are the powers one is conferring upon the Minister who is to exercise them.That seems to be a general provision. It finds its place in Amendment No. 18 which seems to have a general application to directions which are to be given under this Part of this Bill, and I do not know really where one looks to find the boundaries of these powers. I should be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to say what limits there are in the implied power referred to, in the authorising of the Minister to direct a building to be demolished or for one to be erected. It seems to me extraordinary that there should not be some attempt (although I may have missed it) to confine those powers in so far as one is talking about land within the area of an aerodrome. I quite agree that if one looks at land outside the area of the aerodrome the power must be limited in such a way as not to invade the rights of other people, but if one is looking at land inside the aerodrome there seems to be no such limitation, and I should be very grateful if the Minister would be so kind as to give more information on this. I cannot help feeling that I must have missed something.
§ LORD CAMOYSI must first of all apologise to your Lordships and to the Minister for being so late, in spite of having travelled at high speed, probably breaking the 70 m.p.h. limit for a considerable distance. I am afraid that I was not in time to hear the first part of this debate. I am particularly worried about security, especially at Gatwick, because three weeks ago there did not seem to be any security at all. Your Lordships may have discussed this matter before, in which case I must apologise for taking up the time of the Committee.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI will take note of what the noble Lord has said, and perhaps if there are any particular aspects of security which are worrying him he will let me have full details. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has raised what seems to be a difficult point. I am advised that the limit on buildings or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed is to be found in subsection (6) of this new clause. So far as I understand it, in an emergency 425 there may be a requirement for the rapid removal or construction of a building, and the direction here might involve the use of violence against that building. I understand this is the effect of the Criminal Damage Act—that this would mean an act of violence on the building itself—and that is why the words in brackets are included. If I am wrong, I will gladly write to the noble and learned Lord.
§ LORD STOW HILLI should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to look at that point again. I referred to subsection (6). I do not think I misread it; but perhaps I might remind the Minister that it reads:
(6) In so far as a direction given to the manager of an aerodrome requires any building or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed on land outside the aerodrome…".There are some restrictions to be imposed on work outside the aerodrome, but I hoped I had made it clear that my question related to land within the area of the aerodrome. I did say, seeing that there was a limitation in the case of work outside the aerodrome, that what I was asking for was some indication as to where the limits lay with regard to a direction about the execution or demolition of works situated within the area of the aerodrome. If the Minister would be so kind as to say he will have another look at this point, I shall be perfectly content, but it seemed to me a point to which attention should be drawn.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI understand that there is no limit in those circumstances. I will look at the matter again, but would repeat that we are dealing here with emergency situations.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKMay I ask the noble Lord a very short question? To what aircraft does this apply, and how do we read Amendment 18(3)? The definition appears to be:
…such aircraft…being used for the carriage of passengers or cargo for reward…".This could cover a number of curious things. For instance, the R.A.F. sometimes charge for carrying passengers. B.O.A.C. at times carry R.A.F. passengers under contract. Some big corporations like the British Steel Corporation have 426 their own aircraft. I do not know whether they sometimes charge for the use of the aircraft. Do they then immediately come under this category? I am not objecting, but I wonder whether there should not be a slightly closer definition.
§ LORD TREFGARNEBefore the Minister replies to my noble friend Lord Selkirk, may I give him a further problem along similar lines? What about aircraft that are not carrying passengers or cargo for reward? My noble friend Lord Selkirk mentioned the British Steel Corporation. To the best of my knowledge, that Corporation do not have an air operator's certificate and therefore cannot carry passengers or cargo for hire or reward; but it may be that the provisions of this subsection ought to apply to such circumstances.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI should have thought that the British Steel Corporation would know who their passengers were, but I dare say that if there was a general alert any search might be extended to them. However, I should have thought they would know exactly who they were dealing with and therefore the danger of sabotage or hijacking would be extremely remote. I will undertake to look into that point, however. The other two subsections, subsection (2) and subsection (3), are different. Subsection (3) deals with aircraft of which the operator is a country outside the United Kingdom. There the test is: is the carriage for hire or reward, or not? If it is operated purely by the Government of a country for its own purposes alone, then of course it would be excluded, in the same way as under subsection (2) aircraft used in military, customs or police service of this country are excluded.
§ LORD BESWICKMay I ask the noble Lord to help me, not now, but on some occasion before the next stage of this Bill? When he is dealing with this rather extreme power to execute, demolish or remove a building, he says that we are dealing only with a state of emergency. I wonder whether he could write and tell me exactly how this power is related to a state of emergency? It is not entirely clear. If we are giving powers at this stage, it seems to me that we may be giving powers that are perhaps rather wider than is thought.
§ LORD CAMOYSMay I ask whether this question of building would come under planning control?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNBut for the Bill, this would come under planning control. In the kind of circumstances contemplated, this is one of the controls that would be overridden by the Bill. I shall be glad to look at the point the noble Lord has raised. It seems to me that an emergency aspect was the reason for these words having been inserted in subsection (4). Obviously, it is not only the emergency aspect that applies in connection with the construction or the removal of buildings: it might be to get a better view or to provide special buildings for the personnel who will be required for these tasks—anything like that—on the aerodrome itself. I will look at this point again and, if I may, I will write to the noble Lord.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEWill the Minister consider some sort of provision for redress or representation by someone who is told about the removal of a building and they think it unreasonable? It may not be an emergency; as the Minister has said, it may be a building which is required for accommodation, possibly for police or for stores.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI will look at the implications of that point. I rather suspect that it is not as serious as my noble friend seems to think.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 5.40 p.m.
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause:
§ Operation of directions under Part II in relation to rights and duties under other laws.
§ ".—(1) The following provisions of this section, where they refer to a direction under any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, shall be construed as referring to that direction as it has effect subject to any limitation imposed on its operation—
- (a) by section (Limitation on scope of directions under sections (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) to (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies)) of this Act, or
- (b) by any exemption or immunity of the Crown;
§ (2) In so far as any such direction requires anything to be done or not done in the United Kingdom, the direction shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any contract (whether a United Kingdom contract or not) or contained in, or having effect by virtue of, any other Act or any rule of law; and accordingly no proceedings (whether civil or criminal) shall lie against any person in any United Kingdom court by reason of anything done or not clone by him or on his behalf in compliance with such a direction.
§ (3) In so far as such a direction requires anything to be done or not done at a place outside the United Kingdom, the direction shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any contract (whether a United Kingdom contract or not); and accordingly. where such a direction is inconsistent with anything in such a contract, it shall (without prejudice to any proceedings in a court other than a United Kingdom court) he construed as requiring compliance with the direction notwithstanding that compliance would be in breach of that contract.
§ (4) No proceedings for breach of contract shall lie against any person in a United Kingdom court by reason of anything done or not done by him or on his behalf at a place outside the United Kingdom in compliance with any such direction, if the contract in question is a United Kingdom contract.
§ (5) In this section "United Kingdom court" means a court exercising jurisdiction in any part of the United Kingdom under the law of the United Kingdom or of part of the United Kingdom, and "United Kingdom contract" means a contract which is either expressed to have effect in accordance with the law of the United Kingdom or of part of the United Kingdom or (not being so expressed) is a contract of which the proper law is the law of the United Kingdom or of part of the United Kingdom."
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which relates to rights and duties under other laws. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has already referred to subsection (2), and I will say something about this Amendment as clearly it has special features. Subsection (1) provides that in this clause reference to a direction and any duty to comply with it shall be construed as referring to it as it has effect subject to the limitations in Amendment No. 18, and any immunity or exemption of the Crown. This subsection has been included to ensure that the far-reaching effects of this new clause, Amendment No. 19, are subject to the limitations mentioned in the subsection. Subsection (2) provides that so far as anything is required to be done or not done in the United Kingdom by direction given under the Bill, the 429 direction shall have effect notwithstanding any contract, Act or rule of law to the contrary, and no proceedings, civil or criminal, in a United Kingdom court shall lie against a person in respect of anything done or not done by him in complying with the direction.
§ This subsection deals with the manner in which the direction is to take effect inside the United Kingdom. Its purpose is to ensure that in the United Kingdom within the important limitations referred to in subsection (1) of this clause, and the limitations contained in Amendment No. 18, in particular subsection (4), the emergency measures required to combat any threat to security of civil aviation are not frustrated or delayed by the normal restrictions imposed by the law. The limitations make this subsection far less Draconian than might appear on first reading. In practice I do not think it will amount to anything like as much. Because of further limitations imposed by the new clauses, Amendments Nos. 14(5), 15(1), and 16(5), the only directions which are likely to be made that might over-ride other Acts are directions under Amendment No. 16 to carry out works on land on the aerodrome, which is the point the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, raised before.
§ I have already referred to the right to refuse or allow a passenger on to a particular flight, and how this is unlikely to be at variance with a contract. I should add that a foreign legal system may impose conditions in a contract which cannot be avoided. In view of the international concern relating to violence against civil aviation, we hope that no foreign legal system would prevent a United Kingdom operator from securing by contract the right to comply with a direction, and this subsection should be little used in practice. With that short explanation, I beg to move the Amendment.
§ LORD STOW HILLI am sorry to intervene on a similar point, but the Minister in an earlier part of the debate referred to a direction which would require a contravention of a tree preservation order. Supposing there were trees subject to a tree preservation order not within the area of the aerodrome, but outside it. When one looks at subsection 430 (6) of Amendment No. 18 one thinks that fortunately those trees will be preserved because they are outside the area of the aerodrome. When one looks at subsection (2) of Amendment No. 19, one's expectations are disappointed. Looking at the final words of subsection (2), one finds that no proceedings shall lie against any person who complies with the direction, although it goes against the law. He can over-ride the law in complying with the direction and no proceedings are to lie against him.
When one looks back at subsection (6) of Amendment No. 18 one finds that he is in a situation of a person against whom no proceedings would lie. That being so, it would seem on one reading of subsection (6) that the trees preserved by a tree preservation order outside the area of the aerodrome are liable to be destroyed if a direction requires them to be cut down.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, have complained that there is nothing the citizen can do about that; there is no right of appeal. He can write letters until he is blue in, the face, but I do not suppose that will do him much good. I suppose one might have the situation in the future in which beautiful trees are unnecessarily destroyed. As has been said several times in this debate, of course emergency measures must be provided for and have to be taken. One has to safeguard unfortunate passengers from the risk of a semi-lunatic brigand 5 or 6 miles up in the sky. But when one is talking about demolition of buildings, erection of buildings, destruction of trees, is one in that area at all? If there is to be a power to direct the destruction of a number of trees—whether inside or outside the area of the aerodrome—which have been made the subject of an order, should there not be some means provided whereby a citizen can complain and say, "Do not carry on with this order. The harm which you are going to do easily outweighs any possible advantage that can be obtained."? I should be grateful if the Minister would say that he will give some further consideration to what seems to me—although I may have misread it—to be a conflict of terminology between subsection (6) of Amendment 431 No. 18, and subsection (2), and in particular the concluding four lines of subsection (2), of Amendment No. 19.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKI should like to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. May I ask the Minister this question? Is it intended that all damage done under Amendment No. 19 will attract compensation? I was interested in the reference to the law of the United Kingdom. I honestly did not know that there was any such thing. I have heard of Roman law, common law and Scots law, but I have never heard of the law of the United Kingdom. It may be a good thing if we had it; I do not know.
§ 5.39 p.m.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI can only answer the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill in this way: this is a matter of proportion. In this Bill we are dealing with the possibility of very serious damage to life as well as property. One has to set that against the very unlikely eventuality of trees having to be demolished under the powers of this Bill. It would not be done except in an emergency: the provisions of the rest of the Bill would secure that. The land can be dealt with only by consent. There are no compulsory powers for the acquiring of the land outside unless the powers of the Minister or of the British Airports Authority were used.
So far as the question of compensation as a whole is concerned, as I explained at an earlier stage, the cost of running the security services as a whole is being borne by Her Majesty's Government to the tune of about £1 million for the current year. Amendment No. 26 deals with the expenses
which, for purposes to which Part II of this Act applies have at any time on or after 1st June 1972 been, or may at any time after the commencement of this Act be, incurred by that person in relation to those aircraft or to that areodrome".So the answer is that the cost of this would plainly be reimbursed to the manager of the aerodrome and he in turn would compensate whoever else might have been adversely affected. Finally, in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in connection with the tree preservation order on land outside an aerodrome, that is overruled by Clause 432 19(2). Clause 18(6) only prevents private property rights from being overridden.
§ LORD STOW HILLI hope I do not seem to be too persistent, but in taking the tree preservation order I was simply using the example which was used by the Minister. If an aeroplane is thought to be taking off in circumstances of danger I do not see how it could ever really be necessary to give an order suddenly to cut down 20 magnificent trees. It seems to me that could not be the subject of an emergency, but that was the example chosen by the Minister; and while one accepts that for the sake of preserving the safety of human beings one must go a very long way, and I accept that trees must give way to human lives, surely some means can be devised by this legislative process which the Minister is commending to the Committee whereby there could be some pause for reflection and some opportunity given to the citizen, either to appeal or to procure a delay for a short time so that the matter could be subjected to some external consideration by an appellate body or a tribunal.
Putting aside the tree preservation order, as the Minister does not like his own example, there are many other types of operation within the scope of the two Amendments about which we are speaking. For instance, there is the erection of buildings or the destruction of buildings which surely could have been spread over a period of time that would have made it practicable for the citizen to make some effective representations to some appellate tribunal that was not guided and constrained by the view of a particular Minister. I hope the Minister will say that he will give consideration to this because it would be an improvement to the Bill.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI shall gladly give consideration to that, but I would emphasise that there is a strong distinction between what has to be done in an immediate emergency and what is of the nature of planning for an emergency.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNThere is not a distinction in the Amendments. I am saying that there is in fact this distinction and one must assume, as I said at 433 the beginning, that the Government will exercise these powers with great discretion.
§ VISCOUNT AMORYThat is the difficulty some of us are in. There is no dispute that in an emergency whatever is required must be done to save lives, but some of these instances, like cutting down trees, demolishing buildings and erecting buildings, seem to some of us who may be only laymen in this matter to be so remote from an actual emergency that it is difficult to believe that the same procedures should apply to them as to other things. It may be that in the interests of longer-term safety cutting down trees or erecting buildings will be required, and, if so, arrangements will be made for that to be done, but it is difficult to believe that there can be the same need for haste. Therefore one doubts whether precisely the same procedure could cover all those eventualities.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI take the point raised by my noble friend, but, as I understand it, these works (whatever they may be) carried out outside an aerodrome are, by and large, only to be carried out by consent, and that is with agreement as to what the compensation and the like are going to be. What the Bill says is that if it is considered necessary, and if the appropriate arrangements are made, then time consuming legal matters and other considerations can be overridden, and it is difficult to see why that should not be so in these particular circumstances. After all, in defence matters of this kind with emergency aspects arising it must be important to have certain work done, and the people who would judge whether it has to be done are those who have to operate in the emergency.
§ LORD BESWICKI shall look forward all the more eagerly to what the noble Lord writes to me about the provision in this Bill which restricts these acts to a condition of emergency or, as he now says, for defence purposes. I find it difficult to see in this Bill anything which qualifies these acts for either emergency or defence purposes.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.5.58 p.m.
434§ 5.58 p.m.
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—
§ Offences in relation to certain dangerous articles
§ ".—(1) It shall be an offence for any person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which shall lie on him) to have with him—
- (a) in any aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, whether at a time when the aircraft is in the United Kingdom or not, or
- (b) in any other aircraft at a time when it is in, or in flight over, the United Kingdom, or
- (c) in any part of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom.
§ (2) This section applies to the following articles, that is to say—
- (a) any firearm, or any article having the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not;
- (b) any explosive, any article manufactured or adapted (whether in the form of a bomb, grenade or otherwise) so as to have the appearance of being an explosive, whether it is capable of producing a practical effect by explosion or not, or any article marked or labelled so as to indicate that it is or contains an explosive; and
- (c) any article (not falling within either of the preceding paragraphs) made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person or for destroying or damaging property, or intended by the person having it with him for such use, whether by him or by any other person.
§ (3) For the purposes of this section a person who is for the time being in an aircraft, or in part of an aerodrome, shall be treated as having with him in the aircraft, or in that part of the aerodrome, as the case may be, an article to which this section applies if—
- (a) where he is in an aircraft, the article, or an article in which it is contained, is in the aircraft and has been caused (whether by him or by any other person) to be brought there as being, or as forming part of, his baggage on a flight in the aircraft or has been caused by him to be brought there as being, or as forming part of, any other property to be carried on such a flight, or
- (b) where he is in part of an aerodrome otherwise than in an aircraft), the article, or an article in which it is contained, is in that or any other part of the aerodrome and has been caused (whether by him or by any other person) to be brought into the aerodrome as being, or as forming part of, his baggage on a flight from that
435 aerodrome or has been caused by him to be brought there as being, or as forming part of, any other property to be carried on such a flight on which he is also to be carried,
§ (4) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section shall be construed as limiting the circumstances in which a person would, apart from that subsection, be regarded as having an article with him as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.
§ The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward Amendment with regard to offences in relation to certain dangerous articles. I do not think it gives rise to any difficulty. It simply makes it an offence for a person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof of which is upon him, to have with him in any United Kingdom registered aircraft, anywhere in the world, or in any other aircraft when it is in or over the United Kingdom, or in any United Kingdom aerodrome, any firearm, explosive or any article made to look like a firearm or explosive or any other article referred to in subsection (2). I beg to move.
§ LORD BESWICKI should like to congratulate the noble Lord and his advisers and draftsmen on being topical, as it were, in the light of what happened recently in Aldwych. Here we have a provision which applies not only to a firearm but to an article which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether it is capable of being discharged or not. I wish to ask only one question. In Clause 8 it is provided that the meanings of the terms on this clause shall have the meanings hereby assigned to them, and that a firearm shall include an air-gun or pistol. Does this mean that there is any qualification, taking the two together, to this refinement of a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not? Does it equally mean a pistol or an airgun capable of being fired or not?
THE EARL OF SELKIRKMay I suggest that some proper provision should be made for saying what weapons may be carried lawfully. A great many weapons will be carried, such as humane killers for pigs, cartridges for shotguns, or indeed there may be rifles going to Bisley. I have frequently had a cine camera 436 mistaken for a revolver. I suggest that some simple authority should be given whereby those who search know that they are entitled to allow a person to go on board although he is carrying, say, a toy pistol. It would make it much easier in operation if something were laid down as to the manner in which it could be done.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI am grateful to my noble friend for that point. We shall certainly have a look at it. Possibly it could be dealt with in some other way. Whether what he has referred to—for example, humane killers for pigs—could be adapted for use in other respects, I do not know, but I shall certainly have the point looked at.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, raised a point. I shall certainly write to him if I am wrong about this, but it seems to me quite clear that if "firearm" is defined to include something, then the words "whether capable of being discharged or not" apply to those other things which are included; namely, in this case, shotguns and pistols.
§ LORD BESWICKI am sorry; there is another question. I may have missed this, but this clause provides that these articles shall not be carried without lawful authority. Can the noble Lord give us some guidance as to what is lawful authority? If a consignment of toy pistols which has been imported recently happened to have been imported by air, where is the lawful authority required for the carrying of such a cargo?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI see the words "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse". He has to prove what is lawful authority or reasonable excuse. It is a question of fact for him to prove what is lawful authority. For example, he may be a policeman authorised to have a pistol or something of that kind. It may be lawful in that sense.
§ LORD BESWICKBut there may be a case, and there may well have been cases recently, where some of the toy pistols imported into this country have come as cargo by air. In such circumstances what kind of lawful authority has to be obtained?
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEBefore the Minister replies, may I ask him whether a traffic officer of British 437 European Airways would be a lawful authority to give power for a shotgun, in this case, to be carried in the luggage compartment?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI am bound to tell noble Lords that at present there seem to be practically no cases of what would or could constitute lawful authority. It is simply a question of fact to be determined on the particular circumstances in each individual case. If there were a whole cargo of toy pistols without a whole cargo of people to handle them, I should have thought that they would not be likely to cause any damage to aircraft. That is the whole point of the provision.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 6.3 p.m.
§
LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—
§ Inspection of aircraft and aerodromes
§ .—(1) For the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to determine whether to give a direction to any person under any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, or of ascertaining whether any such direction is being or has been complied with, any person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State (in this section referred to as an "authorised person") shall have power, on production (if required) of his credentials, to inspect—
- (a) any aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, at a time when it is in the United Kingdom, or
- (b) any part of any aerodrome in the United Kingdom.
§ (2) An authorised person inspecting an aircraft or any part of an aerodrome under subsection (1) of this section shall have power—
- (a) to subject any property found by him in the aircraft (but not the aircraft itself or any apparatus or equipment installed in it) or, as the case may be, to subject that part of the aerodrome or any property found by him there, to such tests, or
- (b) to require the operator of the aircraft, or the manager of the aerodrome, to furnish to him such information,
§ (3) Subject to the next following subsection, an authorised person, for the purpose of exercising any power conferred on him by the preceding provisions of this section in relation to an aircraft or in relation to an aerodrome, shall have power—
- (a) for the purpose of inspecting an aircraft, to enter it and to take all such steps as are necessary to detain it, or
- (b) for the purpose of inspecting any part of an aerodrome, to enter any building or works in the aerodrome or enter upon any land in the aerodrome.
§ (4) 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 building or works or entering upon any land.
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause which deals entirely with inspection. If requirements are imposed there must be some means of inspecting to see that they are carried out. The provisions are simple and unexceptionable.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEI am afraid that they are neither acceptable nor simple. If we divide the position into two as we have been doing in the Committee, that is to say, first, an emergency, in which we all recognise any action necessary to be taken at that time can be taken, and secondly, the aspect of permanent statutory powers, it is now proposed in this clause to give permanent statutory powers for anyone to inspect an aircraft and to fulfill the duty of inspection to enter it. Therefore, any airliner in the workshops could be entered and inspected. Any noble Lord here who knows anything of aircraft construction knows that inspection and entry of an aircraft can be a hazardous matter both physically and technically. You would probably have to climb up ladders and walk along scaffolding. You have to be very careful where you tread because a great deal of technical damage can be done if one is not carefully escorted. Surely there should be in this clause some words which would guard the emergency position but that at the same time would safeguard the permanent powers of inspection of any aircraft at any time in any position in which an aircraft may be. I would suggest to the Minister for his consideration words such as
the power of entry wherever required but subject where possible to the consent of the owner or operators"."Where possible" would eliminate the danger of any refusal during an emergency, but at the same time some words such as those might safeguard the right of the operator or owner not to have his aircraft entered into at any time, 439 possibly to the detriment of the aircraft and to the physical danger of the person entering.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNWe shall certainly consider whether any such words are necessary. I would have thought in a case like that that the purpose here is quite simple. It does enable the Secretary of State through his inspectors to make an informed appreciation of the security measures required and of the security measures being applied for the purposes of this part of the Bill. The clause enables him also to satisfy himself that the provisions of a direction are being complied with. There is no question of an inspector's being able to force an entry. As my noble friend will see, subsection (4) says:
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 building or works or entering upon any land.I do not know whether inspectors in this case would or would not give notice in advance that they were coming. In many cases it is not thought to be a particularly good thing. But they could be relied upon, I believe, to carry out their job in the least inconvenient manner possible. But they must carry out their job.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEI do not think that you can give a blank cheque to any number of people to enter an aircraft at any time in 24 hours. Surely there should be some safeguards for the operator or owner. All I am trying to suggest is that, in an emergency, let anybody enter an aircraft at any time, but at other times surely try to do it with the consent, co-operation and permission of the owner.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI entirely agree with my noble friend that it should be done with consent, but the whole atmosphere of this Bill is that these steps should be taken voluntarily and by consent, but that there should be in the background a power to see that the right thing is being done and to ensure that acts of violence are avoided.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
440§ 6.8 p.m.
§ LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 22: