PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 06 March 1973 vol 339 cc1021-59

4.28 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 7 [Purposes to which Part II applies]:

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 7, line 12, at end insert— ("(c) of installations the purpose of which is to assist civil aircraft on the ground or in the air.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the first of my Amendments, may I briefly step a little out of order and apologise to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for putting down my Amendments so late? As he knows, I was a little rushed in getting all the papers together and into the hands of the Clerks in time, and I am sorry, therefore, that my noble friend has not had very long to look at them. I hope that his answers or his reactions to my Amendments will none the less be favourable.

My Lords, Amendment No. 1, which I now beg to move, is to add to the installations and aircraft which, under Clause 7, can be affected by this Bill; and in so doing I have in mind installations which are not necessarily on airfields, which are not necessarily part of aircraft, but which are none the less vital to air navigation. I have in mind, for example, installations of radio aids, which are frequently located between airfields or at turning points on airways, which are not covered by paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1). The nature of these facilities is such that they are often in remote locations and would, I submit, be quite vulnerable to attack. I think that the inclusion of this Amendment for their protection would improve the Bill.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this seems to me a very sensible addition to the Bill and in line with the principles expounded to us. These installations are extremely exposed and absolutely vital, and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

My Lords, I support the Amendment. It may well be that there are fuel installations a mile from an airfield and on rented land, or there might be lighting systems and so on. I think my noble friend has made a valid point.

LORD THOMAS

My Lords, I wish to support this Amendment. There are all kinds of things, such as radar beacons, which may be sited in remote places.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, especially as I think I shall find it more difficult to support later Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I hasten to say that I think he has something here which ought to be added to the Bill, and his Amendment has my support.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, in view of the unanimous expression of opinion I feel that I must say right away that we accept this Amendment in principle. We considered the matter previously and whether we should include air navigation facilities outside aerodromes. We decided not to because it would include the Civil Aviation Authority. But there is a strong case for taking this course, which we accept in principle. I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment because we have had only just enough time to look at it. As he knows, one has to make certain that an Amendment is in due form and we shall put down an Amendment at the next stage.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I cannot ask for more than that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 [Power for Secretary of State to require information]:

4.32 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 7, line 34, at end insert— ("Provided that nothing in this Act shall require any person to whom this Clause is applied to provide information likely to prejudice his legitimate commercial interests.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of several Amendments which I have put down, and it seeks broadly to achieve the same end; that is, to preserve what I regard as the legitimate commercial interests of airlines and particularly of smaller airlines. The big Corporations, like B.O.A.C., B.E.A., or even British Caledonian, have enough strength, one feels, to be able to expose their commercial activities, and the names of their customers for example, without fear of jeopardising their commercial interests. With smaller airlines there are often cases where the names of their customers are confidential and if they lost even one customer their commercial position might be seriously threatened. I am concerned particularly about charter operators, where the major part of the capacity of an aircraft might be sold to one customer, and if the name were divulged the business might be lost to another airline. I shall be interested to hear the reaction of the noble Lord to this line of thinking, if not specifically to this Amendment, because it will affect what I shall have to say about my other Amendments which hinge on the same point.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

My Lords, I wish again to support my noble friend's Amendment, although this one is rather more complicated than the previous one. I must declare an interest as I am a director of an independent air freight company. Competition among air freight companies throughout the world is very intense. They operate rather like cargo ships used to operate many years ago. The captain of the aircraft looks for business and takes on big responsibilities. It would be damaging to any British independent company, or indeed to a corporation, if the names of customers, or details of loads being uplifted, were divulged. I hope, therefore, that this matter will be given serious consideration.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, may I make certain that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will deal with the point about the confidential character of the information given? I find it difficult to understand how information given to the Secretary of State would be detrimental to the legitimate commercial interests of a company. I should have thought that if the Secretary of State were going to make any decisions about the matters affected he would need to have full information and, provided that it is confidential, I cannot see what harm that can do.

LORD THOMAS

My Lords, I suggest that this Amendment would not be acceptable to most of the commercial operators. In my view, physical safety is more important than commercial security. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I do not think that information given to the Secretary of State would be liable to leak back into commercial circles.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I cannot be so forthcoming over this Amendment as the previous one for the reasons which have been indicated by the noble Lords, Lord Beswick and Lord Thomas. I hope that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will not think me frivolous if I say that the whole purpose of these clauses is to make sure that people do not lose their customers. This must be the main point throughout the consideration of the Bill, and it will, I am afraid, be a recurring one in respect of the various Amendments. Protection against acts of violence is the whole purpose of Part II of the Bill. It is very much in the interests of air operators that this protection should be given, and it cannot be given completely if any information is held back.

The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is right in thinking that the information sought will be treated in confidence. This information will be related to the purposes of the Bill, protection against acts of violence. The idea of seeking it is to make sure that the Secretary of State is informed of the security measures that are being followed wherever there may be a threat. He cannot tell in advance where the threat may arise. This information is being provided voluntarily at the moment; there is no difficulty about it. I do not understand my noble friend's misgivings in this regard. Surely he would agree that where commercial information is necessary for a proper appreciation of the security position it should, and indeed must, be provided. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD TREFGARNE

The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been able to allay my misgivings over whether the Secretary of State would secure the information in such a way as to enable it to remain confidential. I am now convinced about that, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TREFGARNE had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3: Page 7, line 40, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment to the same clause is an endeavour to achieve the same purpose as the previous Amendment. For that reason I do not propose to move it.

Clause 9 [Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft]:

4.40 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 8, line 42, at end insert— ("(1A) Any operator to whom this subsection is applied may decline to accept any searcher who is specified by the Secretary of State but who is not a constable where he believes his legitimate commercial interest is likely to be prejudiced.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this Amendment is an attempt to meet the point we have been discussing I think it avoids some of the pitfalls which beset my earlier Amendment. I think also that its acceptance would achieve desirable ends. For example, the Secretary of State might wish to instruct police at London Airport, who might be employed by a major airline, to carry out searches in an aircraft belonging to the smaller independent airlines. Under the Amendment the operator will be able to insist that a constable, either of the airport authority police or of the local constabulary, should carry out the search. Otherwise, as I have said on the previous Amendment, information of a confidential nature (which I am not endeavouring to keep from the Secretary of State but only from other airlines) might be "leaked" to them. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, what is proposed by the Government is simply that it should be made possible to give directions to enable searches to be carried out. It is not a direction for the search to be carried out, but a direction not to permit persons to be allowed on the aircraft unless they have been searched. The Bill makes it clear that the direction could provide for a constable to carry this out or for other persons to be specified who might carry it out. It is not the intention for such directions to specify particular persons. In cases where it is not appropriate to specify constables it will allow the use either of the airline's own security personnel or those of other security organisations. When we are entrusting powers of this kind it is necessary to have people who are trained for the job.

The purpose of specifying other people is to ensure that if a direction is received to carry out searches, the people doing the searching will be people trained for the job. It will not be right for operators of airlines or of aircraft to go out and find anybody to do the job. I do not think that the situation envisaged by the noble Lord can arise. At present the airline operators decide who they will use on searches of their passengers and the Government pay. We would expect this process to continue; but if it did not the specification of the persons to be used in searching would be in general terms and would follow appropriate consultation. I do not expect that difficulty will arise in the way my noble friend suggests. Where necessary, searches are already being carried out using recognised methods. This will continue to be the practice in the future.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend has said, but there is one aspect which is giving rise to concern. It is the simple things that go wrong. At present Customs personnel have an absolute right to search an aircraft. There may be a danger in future from people impersonating them. Some form of identification is required. If a man wishes to cause trouble, to do damage or harm, he can dress in an appropriate uniform and copy the badges. I should like to see some more definite arrangements made to obviate impersonation as far as possible. Perhaps the noble Lord could look at that.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I follow the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harvey, has made on the security aspect. I should not have thought the point was covered by Lord Trefgarne's Amendment. I do not share the apprehensions of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in this matter and I would support what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. At the same time, one has some sympathy with the general point which Lord Trefgarne has made about the need to maintain the confidential character of the information which might be obtained in one way or another by the Secretary of State. I wonder whether it may not be appropriate to put into the Bill (perhaps in Clause 8 or Clause 9) something which would give assurance to noble Lords that special steps will be taken, or every effort will be made, to ensure that such information as comes to the Secretary of State as a result of these emergency powers will be treated in a manner ensuring its confidential character. Would the noble Lord agree to have a look at that?

LORD THOMAS

My Lords, not only should a person be specified but he should also be identified so that the airline's own security people know what is going on. I would resist this Amendment.

LORD CAMOYS

My Lords, I have made a further experiment. In plain clothes with a rather fancy hat on, and making myself quite conspicuous, I entered London Airport. I was not stopped from going up to the roof and leaning over the V.I.P. entrance, from where I could have dropped a grenade. I feel that this aspect of security, about which we have spoken before, is very important and we must give more attention to it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I note what my noble friend has said. The severity of security measures will depend very much on the degree of "alert" at any given moment. We are now discussing searching before boarding aircraft rather than searching as a security measure in aerodromes. I can reassure the noble Lord that identification is one of the major security measures taken at airports at the present time. Identity cards are issued to all persons concerned. I think the main point we have to bear in mind here is that the directions in question will be given to the operators of the aircraft. It is for them to make their own arrangements for the searching for it will be up to them to do it. The other matter is that the directions are intended to ensure that whoever does the search is qualified for the purpose. We shall be coming to Clause 12, subsection (1) of which says: A direction under subsection (1) of section 9 or under section 10 of this Act may specify the … qualifications which persons carrying out any such search are to have …". Subsection (7) reads: In this section 'qualifications' includes training and experience. I do not think that my noble friend has anything to fear from the point of view of commercial confidentiality because this will be in the hands of the operators themselves.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I am not speaking again—this is Report stage—but asking a question. Will the noble Lord answer my question about some phrase or clause in the Bill which would give some assurance to Lord Trefgarne about retaining the confidential character of information gained here or elsewhere?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I thought that by implication I had answered that question. I said that this was in the hands of the operators themselves. In cases like this, they are the people who are going to organise the searching of people before they go aboard an aircraft. If the noble Lord is considering the more general point of confidentiality under the whole Bill, I will willingly look at it to see just how that is covered.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I am not sure whether I should ask the noble Lord to respond to my point before he sits down, but I am still a little concerned, because although I accept what he says, that at this moment the operators make their own arrangements and produce suitably qualified people to conduct the searches, this clause empowers the Secretary of State to make a direction as to who shall carry out the search. As an operator, I am concerned that the Secretary of State may direct somebody to make that search, not only of passengers but also of cargo—and personally I am particularly concerned with cargo—who will of course pass on any relevant information to the Secretary of State, but might also pass it on to my competitors.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for a moment. I wonder whether my noble friend has understood the words in line 37. It says there: … in the direction have been carried out by constables or by other persons of a description specified in the direction …". There is no question of directing particular persons to carry out the search.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I must say that that allays some of my fears. I was reading this at about 3 o'clock on Sunday morning, and I might have got it wrong. I will have to think about it a little further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.52 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 9, line 8, at end insert— ("Provided that no operator shall be required to comply with a notice served under this subsection before the expiry of a period of 90 days beginning on the day that the notice was served.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was considered by me at five past three on Sunday morning. However, I think I have got it a little nearer the mark than I had the last one. Subsection (2) of Clause 9 empowers the Secretary of State to direct airlines to carry out such modifications or alterations in their aircraft or to fit such apparatus or equipment as he may specify. I think that is an admirable provision. For example, he might specify certain firearms to be installed for use by the crew. I do not suggest that that would be a good idea, but it might be something that he would specify. I should like to submit, however, that operators ought to have some time in which to do this, and in my Amendment I have suggested a period of 90 days, because that is usually the period for which large transport aircraft are maintained: in other words, the aircraft normally go into the hangar for regular maintenance for periods of 90 days. It varies from aircraft to aircraft, but that is a typical period. I suggest it is right and reasonable that operators should have this time in which to make preparations for doing this work, and also should not be put to the inconvenience and great financial cost of having to do these installations at short notice, particularly, for example, at the hight of the summer, when charter operators, such as those the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, heads, might find themselves severely embarrassed by having to withdraw an aircraft for a few days to do some maintenance on it. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, first I should like to take the opportunity of saying to my noble friend and to your Lordships as a whole that it is not intended that directions should be given, except of course in an emergency, without consultation with those to whom they are given. The obvious reason for this is that one wants to make certain that whatever directions are given are practicable and can be carried out. I say that because it might turn out from such consultations that any particular level of time laid down in the Bill might not be appropriate. I entirely take my noble friend's point, that a reasonable time for compliance has to be given, but I am not sure that 90 days would be the appropriate norm, if I can put it that way, or that there should not be some flexibility. If my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment on the assurance that we accept the idea, we will try to put down an Amendment which I hope will commend itself to the House.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

My Lords, I should like to agree with my noble friend who moved the Amendment, but I am unable to do so. The last thing that I want to see is aircraft grounded and kept out of the air when they could be earning revenue. It may be that a modification has to be carried out to the avionics or some part of equipment in the interests of the safety of the crew or passengers, and to put a hard and fast time of 90 days would be wrong. I would rather, as my noble friend, says, see this brought about by consultation and arrangement.

LORD THOMAS

My Lords, I think this Amendment is unnecessary, because one can only assume that the provision of any piece of apparatus that is required would be done in consultation with the A.R.B., or someone like that. The idea of flying an aircraft without an essential piece of equipment for 90 days is quite horrifying. I am against this Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, if I may intervene again, I do not think it is so much a question of flying the aircraft without an essential piece of equipment, but more the provision of some device which might be useful either to get rid of something you did not want on the plane or to prevent your getting rid of something that you wanted to keep—for example, allowing somebody to parachute out in flight. These are the kind of ideas that we had in our minds regarding modifications. As to the time, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury that nobody wants to have his aircraft grounded, and for that reason it may be unwise to put in a definite time, except that once a time has been agreed upon it is desirable that within that time the thing should be done: in other words, there should be compliance with what has been agreed to. That is the sort of way in which we intend to try to devise our Amendment.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for the friendly reception of the spirit of my Amendment, if not the words, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) Before giving any direction under subsection (2) of this section the Secretary of State shall be required to obtain the consent in writing of the Civil Aviation Authority.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this Amendment I am seeking to establish that any modifications to aircraft or additional equipment fitted to aircraft should either comply with British civil airworthiness requirements or in some other way be approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. The Bill as at present drafted, and as I read it, merely requires the Secretary of State to consult the Civil Aviation Authority and to take account of any advice. In my Amendment I seek simply to ensure that the Civil Aviation Authority approve the modification or the additional equipment. For that purpose I beg to move.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I think someone ought to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on the simple way in which his mind works, and what I might call without offence the cool cheek of this wording. I should love to think that Secretaries of State could not get on with their jobs unless they had the consent in writing of some people they had appointed. At the same time, I agree—and I expressed agreement at the earlier stage—that it would be inconceivable that any modification to an aircraft would be permitted if it was contrary to C. of A. requirements. If the modification made the aircraft unairworthy, surely it would not get a C. of A. In effect, the Civil Aviation Authority would have the final word; but to put down in a Bill that the Secretary of State must have consent in writing from some organisation like this is, I should have thought, going just a little far.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I do not think I need to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said. I really think my noble friend can rely on good sense in this matter. The final decision has to rest with the Secretary of State, but of course in a matter of this kind he would not disregard the advice of the very body which is responsible for issuing the certificate of airworthiness.

LORD TREFGARNE

Yes, my Lords; but we have appointed the Civil Aviation Authority as experts. The Secretary of State, in all his wisdom, is not necessarily an expert in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and I served on the Committee which set up the Civil Aviation Authority. We did not all agree that the Air Registration Board should become part of it; but it did. Now we give the Secretary of State power to overrule or neglect that advice completely, if need be.

The Bill contains some degree of safeguard. The Secretary of State is required to consult the Civil Aviation Authority and to take account of any advice given to him by the Authority. But as I read the Bill, that does not mean he has to obtain their consent to any instructions that he may give in relation to this clause. I cannot say that I am very happy about either the remarks of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn or those of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for whose experience and wisdom in this matter I have a high regard. Nevertheless, I shall not seek to press the matter and would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 [General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies]:

5.1 p.m.

LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 8: Page 10, line 27, leave out from beginning of line to ("the") in line 28.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, and should like, if I may, to couple with it the following Amendments which really all go to precisely the same point: Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 19. The object of the Amendment which I now move is to direct your Lordships' attention to the structure of Clause 11 and to submit to the Government that really it ought to be remodelled in order to import into it a much greater degree of precision as to the powers it confers.

I believe that your Lordships are all agreed, as appeared in the Committee stage of our discussions on the Bill, that one really is dealing with two separate categories of measure. There are emergency measures, and I think your Lordships all felt, and I certainly feel myself, that in so far as the Government are asking for powers to take emergency measures in order to achieve the purpose set out in Clause 7 of the Bill—that is, to protect aircraft and passengers from acts of violence—we as a Legislature ought to go very far indeed in trusting the Executive with wide powers for that purpose. They are measures which have to be taken at once, and they are measures which it may be urgently necessary to put into operation immediately in order to protect unfortunate people, perfectly innocent, who may be miles high in the air and wholly at the mercy of some half-crazy villain who seeks to execute his will on those persons. We go a long way in that direction. I believe your Lordships felt that in so far as the Bill purported to confer power for measures which were long term in their nature we should be much more careful both to define those measures and to give time for reflection and appeal against them by those affected.

Having said that, may I go back to the actual wording of Clause 11(1), which enables the Secretary of State to give directions to certain persons who are described— requiring him to take … such measures for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies as are specified in the direction. Those words are absolutely general in scope. There is in them no limitation whatsoever. If one looks at the next subsection, one finds that a direction may include the imposition on the operator or the manager of an aerodrome to undertake guard duties and to provide the necessary personnel to carry out those duties. With that I have absolutely no quarrel at all. Those powers seem to me to be absolutely necessary: what I criticise is the extremely general scope of the words I first read out.

If one looks further on in the Bill one finds, as it were by a side wind, looking at subsection (4) of Clause 13 or at Clause 20, that those measures which can be included in the direction are intended to comprise the destruction of a building, the construction of a building, the alteration of a building or the removal of a building either on the area of an aerodrome or outside it. One finds that in so far as that building work may be included in a direction, it is subjected to some, though rather uncertain, limitations by subsection (6) of Clause 13. I said "uncertain"—for the moment, I do not discuss the detail of it—because subsection (6) seems to me, at any rate, to be very substantially qualified by subsection (2) of Clause 14, and whereas subsection (6) of Clause 13 seems to limit what the Minister can order to be done, when one looks at subsection (2) of Clause 14, that limit seems very substantially abated.

What I am therefore asking the Minister to do is to take this clause back and say what measures he means to be comprised within the general words which I have cited from subsection (1). I do not for a moment mean to say that those measures should not include the construction or destruction of any buildings: I concede that that may be urgently necessary. I have not the necessary technical knowledge and many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate know infinitely more about these matters than I do, so that I speak with the greatest respect to their experience which they bring to bear.

I accept that drastic powers of that kind may be necessary, but what I am criticising is the way in which the clause is drafted. It contains those very general words which we find, as it were by a side wind, looking further on to the clauses to which I have referred, include building work. There is no appeal given. The direction has just got to be carried out. My Lords, how far does it go? Do those very general words, for example, include a power to direct that somebody is to be deprived of his liberty, whereas the law apart from that would not allow him to be deprived of his liberty? If that is so, it seems to me that we are embarking upon a new and dangerous form of legislative enactment.

I am simply appealing to the Government to say what it is they think should be included in those words. If they wish the words to relate to the construction or destruction of buildings, let them say so. I accept at once that one cannot be too rigid in the development of our law. We are, as the years go by, confronted with new and different situations. We are now confronted with the situation of hijacking by utterly unscrupulous villains who will endanger the lives of other people for their own purposes, which may sometimes be idealistic but which are not infrequently simply for the purpose of gain. I quite accept that we must furnish those who are responsible for our affairs with far more drastic powers than would have been thought appropriate in the past. I do not quarrel with that, but I am appealing for precision in the formulation of our Statutes. There is no reason why we should not in our Statutes say precisely what powers they are to have, but in departing from the requirement of precision as a legislative body in entrusting powers to the Executive we are, I submit, embarking upon a dangerous course. I submit that that is precisely what we are doing by the wording which we have embodied in Clause 11(1).

Obviously the Minister cannot give a promise straight away to recast the whole of this clause. Speaking for myself, I shall be perfectly content if he will say that he recognises that there is some force in that argument, and that it ought to be given further consideration, consideration which will be directed towards a more precise formulation of the general—and I accept probably quite necessary—powers which it is sought by those words to confer upon executive Ministers and others. I beg to move.

5.10 p.m.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

My Lords, we have listened to words of wisdom from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. If he is frightened, imagine how the rest of us feel about the wording of this clause! I know that my noble friend wants to do all he can to safeguard aircraft crews and passengers, but in my view this really is going far too far. Anybody reading Clause 13 would never go into business. If he were contemplating doing so, he would be advised not to go into the aviation business. What could happen to people investing their money, effort or time here is far-reaching, and I would ask my noble friend to try and condense this clause into something which makes sense to the average person.

LORD THOMAS

My Lords, I have followed with considerable care the closely reasoned argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. It both clarifies and fortifies the Bill, and I hope that the suggestions made by the noble and learned Lord will be followed by the Minister.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I confess that I find myself somewhat at a disadvantage in arguing on drafting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I am also a little puzzled about his moving Amendment No. 8 and linking a whole series of Amendments, except by way of illustration. The Amendment we are dealing with, as I understand it, is to leave out the words: Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection".

LORD STOW HILL

My Lords, I hope I am not conflicting with your Lordships' practice in intervening again, but may I answer this question? I apologise for not saying that the effect of all the Amendments I have put down is to cut out the general empowering words, and to limit the scope of Clause 11 to the providing of guard duties and the providing of personnel carrying out those duties. That was the drafting device I used. It is designed to support the argument that a further clause should be formulated and inserted in the Bill saying precisely what further powers the Minister feels ought to be incorporated into the Bill, and saying precisely what they are.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I take that general point; but I should have been happier if the noble and learned Lord had amended subsection (1) rather than the opening words of subsection (2). He complained of the words in subsection (1), but he does not propose to amend those. I cannot see that the other Amendments he has proposed would have the wide effect he seems to intend.

The noble and learned Lord is going a little too far in quoting the words: … the Secretary of State may give a direction to any person who is … requiring him to take … such measures … as are specified in the direction. Of course, he missed out the vital words: such measures for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies …". We come back again, as we are bound to, to the purposes of the Bill, which are: the protection against acts of violence … of aircraft, and of persons or property on board aircraft, and of aerodromes, and of such persons or property … in any part of an aerodrome. These are the purposes, and they are very limiting purposes. The noble and learned Lord spoke about the destruction of buildings. He linked the Amendment with this. He referred to Clause 13(4) and it is just as well to say that this is another very limiting factor. I will quote the relevant words: A direction … 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". From that are excepted the words to which he referred: except in so far as it requires any building or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed. The reason for those words being there is simply that technically the removal or destruction of works would come under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Technically it would be an act of violence under that Act.

The noble and learned Lord has asked in effect that Clause 11 should list all the various things that could be done in addition to the powers given in Clauses 9 and 10. But we are bound to come back to the fact that this clause deals with emergencies. I recognise that the noble Lord has distinguished between the emergency situation and what one might call the advance preparation for an emergency situation, but in an emergency it may be necessary to give directions of almost any character for the purposes of the Act to avoid these acts of violence. They will have to be carried out at very short notice; they will have to be comprehensive. On the other side of it—and we are talking about preparations for an emergency—I can only say again (and it is important to emphasise this) that in every case, as there is now without these powers when something has to be done, there will be consultation. On the other hand, the powers have to be there.

The noble Lord does not interpret the provisions regarding dealing with works in the same way as I am advised. It is important to note here that a direction may be given to a manager of an aerodrome in respect of works, whether they are to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed, but he then has to use his best endeavours to see that those directions are carried out. He has no power to direct the landlord of a property outside the aerodrome, for example, to do anything at all. The landlord in giving consent will know that he will be entitled to compensation. It would not be practicable to list in Clause 11 all the things that the Secretary of State might give directions about. One cannot foresee everything he may have to give directions about in an emergency. As for the rest, it would be difficult to provide in one clause for the various powers and limitations of powers that are provided in the various clauses which follow. So I think the noble and learned Lord, who is a perfectionist, is asking for a very great deal of perfection if he thinks this could all be done in Clause 11. I really do not think it could be.

It is a little difficult to deal in advance with all the points that might be queried under one set of Amendments. Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 obviously hang together but we have not really discussed the others at the present time. I hope that what I have said will be sufficient to show your Lordships that we accept entirely the distinction between the emergency situation and the preparation for the emergency situation. In the emergency situation there will probably be no prior consultation because it will not be possible; in the preparation for the emergency situation there will be the very fullest consultation so that everybody knows what is likely to have to be done in an emergency situation, and nothing will be done that does not have to be done. The important thing here is that people are instructed to take such action as is practicable and necessary.

I hope that with this explanation the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 8, to leave out the words Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection", which are saving words which are so often included in Acts of Parliament.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he say exactly what is in his mind? Why might the manager of an airfield want a new building put up? Has my noble friend taken into account that the airfield may be on the British Airport Authority's ground and the operator would have no legal right to put up a building? And if he had the right, he probably could not afford to do so. This whole clause seems hamhanded, if I may say so, and I hope my noble friend will give an illustration of what is in his mind.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I think one of the most modest of the noble Lords in this House is my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, and I suspect he knows a good deal more about the technical aspects of air transport than he lets on. But it does not require any false modesty for us to say that we are far below him in the appreciation of the use of words. Frankly, I listened to him and I am prepared to take from him a lot that I do not properly understand. In this case, I think the principle that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and I are seeking to establish is agreed to by most noble Lords on both sides of the House. The powers are very wide, they are ill-defined and, so far as I can make out at the present time (although we shall come to Clause 20 later and there are some Amendments tabled to that clause), there is no question of appeal. There ought to be some appeal. Probably we could accept some of the radical powers with a little less doubt if we received some assurances that later in the Bill there was going to be some provision for appeal. Having said that, I recognise that these Amendments are complicated; they do hang together and it might have been easier for us to understand if we had rewritten the clause so that we could see exactly what was left when we had taken certain words out and put some other words in. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would agree, if we were to withdraw these Amendments, not only to look at the clause again but to discuss with my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill what is involved and to see whether we cannot in some way meet the point.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will look again at what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said. This is more than just drafting. The noble Lord has said constantly, "There is consultation; there is emergency". I accept the Civil Aeronautics Authority, but I do not think the word "consultation" appears in this Bill at all. The word "emergency" does not appear in the Bill at all, or indeed anything like it. It is not a very limited power. This affects every single aerodrome in the country, which, so far as I know, could be brought to a complete standstill at any time, by a telephone message. We must consider whether this is entirely what we want. I am a little worried about the situation, and if the noble Lord will undertake to look at it I shall be very happy.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, there are two points that I should like the noble Lord to clarify for me. First, when one is constructing a building under the direction of the Minister in a potential emergency situation, or an emergency situation, surely that situation will be long since past by the time the building is finished—or is that point again too simple? The other point on which I seek clarification is the definition of an "aerodrome". It may be in the Bill somewhere. Must it be a licensed aerodrome or can it simply be something that the Minister suddenly decides is an aerodrome for the purposes of this Bill? There may be a definition somewhere which I have missed. Perhaps the noble Lord would help me.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I can certainly help my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on his last point, because in Clause 23 of the Bill there is a definition of what is meant by an "aerodrome".

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I apologise.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I fully understand the feelings of noble Lords and of course I shall be perfectly willing to look at this matter again, and particularly to look at it in conjunction with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and to discuss what could be done to alleviate the anxieties that have been expressed. But I hope noble Lords will not allow their fancies to run away with them. I really think my noble friend Lord Selkirk was going a little far in imagining that a single telephone call could bring to a complete standstill the whole of an aerodrome—unless, of course, there was a serious emergency there, and then it could, and probably should, be brought to a complete standstill. As for the rest, such as the preparations for an emergency in circumstances like that, it has to be remembered that security measures are pretty far advanced at the present time; that this has been done entirely by consultation; that this is the proceeding that we expect to continue and that we intend to use the direction powers only where there is a real need for them—and that is something that one cannot put in a Bill. This is a matter of trusting the Government to deal with emergencies, just as you trust the police to deal with emergencies. It is the same kind of operation.

I will, of course, look at this matter again. I confess that I am not absolutely clear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has in his mind, but if we can, between us, help to make the Bill clearer and to allay the misgivings on this subject we shall be very glad to do so. We do not want to stir up anxiety. I see that my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury has now disappeared, but we do not want to have a situation in which people will be afraid to conduct civil aviation matters in any way at all. I do not believe for an instant that in this Bill we are doing anything to make them more reluctant to go in: quite the contrary. What we are seeking to do is to protect civil avia- tion operators of aircraft, those who fly in them and property that is carried in them, and the people who resort to aerodromes. This is the whole purpose, and if we can in any way get this point over and alleviate the anxieties, I shall be glad to do so if the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD STOW HILL

My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, if I may have the leave of the Committee to withdraw this Amendment I seek to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.30 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 11, line 28, at end insert— ("(8) No direction given under this section or under Section 10 of this Act shall come into force before the expiry of a period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the notice was served. Such direction may however come into force at once where the Secretary of State specifies in his direction that matters of urgent national security are involved.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment adds a sympathetic purpose to the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, have just discussed but not moved. I seek to impose some restriction on the very wide power that the Secretary of State is granted under this Bill. At the same time I believe it is reasonable that he should have some power to achieve the purposes of the Bill when the situation warrants it. I do not pretend for a moment that my Amendment is perfect, but I believe that if we can provide for some delay between the serving of the direction under the Act and its coming into force, that at least gives the person upon whom the direction has been served time to appeal to an appropriate court to have the direction laid aside, if that is the appropriate thing to do, and if the direction is not, for example, for the purposes for which the Act has been passed. I believe that the spirit of my Amendment, if not the detail of it, has some support in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, this is an Amendment which has been put down at fairly short notice, and my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I am not in a position to say that I can accept it, even in principle. I suggest one reason for that, namely, that it is very difficult to say, as he did, that there should be an appeal to a court on what is essentially a matter of tactical security. The courts are not really equipped to deal with that kind of problem. Of course, if the Secretary of State were to exceed the powers that are given to him in the Bill, then the matter could obviously be taken to the courts on an appropriate "prerogative writ"—which I believe is the right phrase.

I sympathise considerably with my noble friend in his desire to get some greater assurance on the way in which directions are to be given relating to longer periods—the period of preparation for emergency, as I said, rather than emergencies themselves—but at the moment I can only say to my noble friend that our view is that it would be a mistake for Parliament to try to tie the hands of the Government in this way. If we are to deal satisfactorily with emergencies and with the avoidance of violence, it is necessary to have the same kind of free hand as, for example, the police have elsewhere; and possibly in view of the nature of the threat, to have a special degree of powers to deal with it.

One recurring difficulty again is that my noble friend refers to a period of 30 days. Once again, if one had any kind of time limit that might be very awkward. There are different kinds of emergency. For example, there is the immediate emergency; then there is a "tip-off" that an emergency might arise in a week or so; and there is all this gradation of alert. It is a very difficult problem. We have thought about the problem and we have not been able to find a solution to it. We were hoping that Parliament would agree to give us the powers for which we are asking. am perfectly prepared to look at this point again. Perhaps my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment so that it can be given a little more consideration than it has yet received.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and while I am willing to withdraw my Amendment, can he tell me what redress is open to somebody who gets a direction under the Act, if we do not amend the Bill as I suggest, and if it is passed as at present drafted? Can he go to the courts and, if he thinks fit, seek some form of injunction?

LORD DRUMALBYN

If he has reasonable excuse he can in some circumstances, but not all: not in the case of Clause 9 or in Clause 10 where he has to "use his best endeavours". He can in those cases avoid liability for having failed to comply with a written notice or direction. But for the rest, the other safeguard, which I have already indicated, is, so far as property outside the aerodrome is concerned, that a landowner cannot be compelled to reach an agreement for works to be carried out. On the question of works being carried out, we do not envisage, particularly outside aerodromes, directions being used to any considerable extent. One can conceive of the possibility that they might be if there a vulnerable point at the extremity of the airport where one wanted to clear land outside the airport and, for example, erect some kind of light there. All that is covered by "works". One might want to have an are light or something of that kind, so that a dangerous area could be lit up. That is the kind of thing that might be done outside. Within the aerodrome itself, again one must not let one's imagination run away with one. The type of things that may need to be done by way of preparation for an emergency will be the subject of very careful consultation within the existing airport security committees. Nothing is likely to be done without the most careful consideration. If, at the end of the day, a direction had to be given, there would be full compensation.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord gave an assurance when he spoke previously, that this matter of the question of what redress is available to somebody who feels aggrieved by the direction served on him, would be looked at again, perhaps more widely than the question to which my particular Amendment relates. On the basis of that assurance I shall certainly withdraw my Amendment. In the meantime, may I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for inadvertently calling him something different a little while ago. A man with so long and distinguished a career in civil aviation as him will inevitably be called wrongly occasionally, but I do apologise to him. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD STOW HILL

My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I with great respect follow on what the Minister said. He said that a person affected by the Amendment first has the right to escape the consequences in a criminal court if he can show that he had reasonable excuse for so doing. Would the Minister kindly look at Clause 18(2) where he will see that: Any person who refuses or fails to comply with a direction given to him under section 9 or section 10 of this Act shall be guilty of an offence. He has absolutely no opportunity of saying that he had a reasonable excuse. It is an absolute liability. The provision as to reasonable excuse does not apply to directions under Clauses 9 or 10.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I say—and perhaps the noble Lord missed it—that I went out of my way to say "except in the case of Clauses 9 and 10".

LORD STOW HILL

My Lords, I missed that, and I apologise. But it is a very large exception, if one looks at Clause 9 or Clause 10.

Then the Minister said that in any event there would be the right of compensation. There is the right of compensation given by the Schedule on an application to the Lands Tribunal in the event of a direction which requires the removal or construction of buildings. But, so far as I know, there is no provision anywhere for any right of compensation in respect of any other direction. As I read it, the Bill has no such provision; I may have missed it, but I do not think so. I should have thought the noble Lord might wish to consider that before he asks leave to withdraw his Amendment. There should be such a right of compensation of some sort. Not only is there no right of compensation, but, as I read subsection (2) of Clause 14, it is precisely excluded. That relates to acts done in the United Kingdom, and the latter part of the subsection says: … 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 done by him or on his behalf in compliance with such a direction. The only exception is that contained in the Schedule, which requires the construction or demolition of buildings, if I read it rightly.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, when I referred to compensation I was talking about the construction of works. If the noble Lord will look at Clauses 20 and 21 he will see that there is provision there.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 [Matters which may be included in directions under sections 9 to 11]:

5.42 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 11, line 41, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) Before specifying any qualifications in accordance with subsection (2) of this section the Secretary of State shall obtain from the Civil Aviation Authority their approval in writing of the qualifications proposed to be specified.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this refers to an earlier point which I raised concerning the position of the Civil Aviation Authority, particularly in respect of any direction which the Secretary of State may give concerning the modification of aircraft or the installation of further equipment. I seek to secure by this Amendment that the qualifications of persons directed by the Secretary of State to carry out such work are approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. As before, the Secretary of State is required to consult the Civil Aviation Authority and to take account of their advice, but not necessarily, as I read it, to abide by their advice. It is for that reason that I have put down this Amendment. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, in a case like this the people who would know what the qualifications should be would be the Civil Aviation Authority, and therefore no doubt the Secretary of State would ask the Civil Aviation Authority what the qualifications should be and would accept their advice on this. The legal form of a clause does not always completely convey what the certain practice is likely to be. I really do not think my noble friend need have any concern about this.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I have only sought to simplify the words and make them more abundantly clear to those who would have to deal with these matters come the day. However, the noble Lord seems quite happy, and I have a feeling that he really seeks the same ends that I do, and for that reason I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 12, line 8 at end insert— ("(4A) No apparatus equipment or other aids may be specified under section 11 of this Act for use on or near aircraft unless the approval in writing of the Civil Aviation Authority has first been obtained.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a slightly different point, but one which will, I hope, commend itself to your Lordships. I am particularly concerned with search apparatus—those arches which we have all walked through at London Airport, which do, I believe, work on the basis of the magnetic effect of metallic objects about one's person. Magnetic apparatus is death to aircraft; it can upset all manner of equipment, compasses, radio equipment and so on. I seek to ensure that the Secretary of State will not inadvertently direct that such equipment is located too close to an aircraft or even on board, in the archway in the entrance of the aircraft, and thus upset the aircraft equipment. I hope this is a technical point which the noble Lord will be able to accept, at least in principle. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for bringing up this matter, and I think what he has said is entirely proper. I do not think it necessarily would be the case that the Civil Aviation Authority would always be in the best position to advise on such equipment, although they would no doubt be consulted in every case. It might be, for example, that the manufacturers of the aircraft or the parts were themselves the best people to be consulted. I can assure my noble friend that consultation will take place before any equipment is brought on to or near an aircraft. Obviously this is the sort of thing which must be planned in advance, and before any new devices of any sort are introduced—whether they are in connection with search or otherwise—there would certainly be the fullest consultation. I doubt whether this is anything which one could really write into a Bill, and for the reasons I have given, I doubt whether it would be worth while putting in the provision that my noble friend suggests.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I am not entirely happy at that. Although I can accept that in regard to major airports, where there are any number of experts either working the search equipment or looking after the aircraft, nevertheless one can conceive of a situation where, at a much smaller local airport, the only person who is immediately available with the necessary knowledge is the man working the search equipment and he might well be unaware of the effects the equipment concerned is going to have on the aircraft equipment. That was the thought that really brought me to put down this Amendment. However, the fact that we have discussed this matter in your Lordships' House will, I have no doubt, come to the ears of the appropriate authorities, and for that reason I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 [Limitations on scope of directions under ss. 9 to 11]:

LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 17: Page 12, line 33, leave out from ("direction") to ("shall") in line 35.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we considered this Bill in Committee we had great difficulty in getting the Minister to accept any additional words at all. We were told that it was quite unnecessary to add anything to the powers of the Secretary of State. Then the noble Lord had second thoughts, or his Government had second thoughts, and now we are almost overwhelmed by the additional words put down. In so far as it is possible to economise on words, I would be in favour of any Amendment which appeared to leave out something unnecessary. Frankly, I cannot see what these words which the Amendment proposes to leave out add to the Bill. The subsection reads: 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 … anything which … would constitute an act of violence …". Why do we not say that a direction shall not constitute an act of violence and leave it at that? The subsection goes on to say: … but nothing in this subsection shall restrict the use of force … So we are neither adding anything nor taking anything away by the words within the brackets, and if we could get the verbiage down I think it would make it easier to understand. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, with respect, these words are necessary, and the reason is a very technical one. The act of violence under Part II of the Bill is defined in wide terms and includes offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. For example, this means that any demolition of buildings or damage which may be caused in constructing a building would constitute an act of violence. We believe that it is important to have subsection (4) as a general limitation on the scope of directions which may be given, and also that the definition of an act of violence should be widely drawn. But this presents difficulties in relation to the construction and demolition of buildings and works, and that is why it has been necessary to insert the exception which the Amendment now seeks to remove. If the Amendment were accepted, it would be virtually impossible, as I understand it, to carry out any works at all that involve any kind of demolition, execution or even, possibly, construction.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, what is the meaning of the words after the semicolon but nothing in this subsection shall restrict the use of force … or its use by any other person in the exercise of a power conferred by the following provisions …". Can those include that of destroying, removing and demolishing?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, "the following provisions" referred to I think are the provisions relating to the powers of a constable to search—what was the old Clause 6 that has been transferred to a place that I cannot find at the moment.

LORD STOW HILL

My Lords, it is the same subsection.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, it was the old Clause 6, which has been transferred to Part III in the Supplementary Provisions. It is now Clause 17.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I still do not follow the noble Lord, but if he is satisfied I do not think we can add or take anything away. I remain convinced in the view that the words are unnecessary, but on the basis of what he said I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.54 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 18: Page 12, line 38, leave out ("apart from the direction").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18. My arguments are the same as those of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I am moving to take out the words "apart from the direction". I do not know what they mean and it seems to me the clause would have exactly the same meaning if they were not there. As I understand it, the meaning is that no act of violence will take place except with regard to construction. How one performs an act of violence in construction, I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord would look at the point, and also at the last sentence of the clause, because clearly it needs amending.

What is meant by "apart from the direction"? To me, it means that no act of violence will take place apart from those under the direction—in other words, if an act of violence is included in the direction, therefore it is permissible. There is an opposite explanation, which is difficult to follow, that "apart from the direction" cannot be an act of violence, or rather an act of violence cannot be an act of violence because no civil or criminal action may proceed under it. We might conceivably have two quite different meanings. I do not think it is important, but if we were to delete the words which I suggest, we should make the Amendment on page 12, to leave out "apart from the direction".

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am told that this is essentially a drafting point, but that the words are put in to ensure that the direction cannot provide authority for a violent act within the definition of an act of violence in Clause 7 (2). May I give an example? If a direction required an airline operator to arrest anyone coming within 50 yards of his aircraft, the operator, if in fact he did so arrest someone, would have to establish that the arrest would be lawful even if there had been no direction; in other words, the direction does not create its own authority. The fact that there is something in a direction which might be interpreted as requiring an act of violence to be done does not authorise the doing of it.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this is about as clear as mud. That means that if you instruct a man to arrest someone so that he does not get on the aircraft, then you must arrest him without the direction directing you to arrest him. I think we ought to look at this again. I see the point the noble Lord is making, but the words are extremely mystifying to me. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 [Operation of directions under Part II in relation to rights and duties under other laws]:

5.58 p.m.

LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 20: Page 13, line 38, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: This Amendment really is rather in the nature of a probing Amendment and relates to Clause 14(2). If I may summarise that subsection, your Lordships will see that the effect of it is this. A direction has to prevail over any contract; it has to prevail in any principle or rule of law. Anybody who does anything pursuant to a direction is not to have an action brought against him in any court—no proceedings, neither civil nor criminal.

How far does that go? If one looks back at Clause 13 one sees nothing to prevent or restrict the use of force by a constable or by some other person in the exercise of a power conferred by the Act. Supposing quite unnecessary force is used. Is no action to lie against the constable or that other person? Supposing under the very general provisions of Clause 11(1) which the House has already discussed, someone is deprived of his liberty in circumstances, apart from this Bill, for which there can be no conceivable legal justification. He is so deprived of his liberty because a direction has been issued requiring that he is to be taken into custody, prevented from joining an aircraft, or something of the sort. Is the result to be that that person is to have no redress in any court of the land? He is not to be allowed to say, "The force you used was quite unnecessary; it has done me injury. You could have carried out the direction without the use of that unnecessary force, but you carried it out with a force which is quite unjustifiable."

Has a person who has been confined in some place by a constable or some other person for a quite unnecessary period of time as a result of a direction issued under Clause 11(1), to lie down under it? Is he to have no remedy at all in the courts of our land? If that is the effect of the subsection, it seems to me that it really is going a great deal too far. It infringes the extraordinarily important principles underlying our concept of personal independence and liberty.

My Lords, this clause is very widely drawn, and it seems to me that before a decision is reached upon it, the Minister should be able to give the House some explanation as to the limits of the complete indemnity which is conferred by the subsection on those Ministers who are to execute this direction. Because I submit that the clause is much too wide in scope, I beg to move this Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, the noble Lord is perhaps of the opinion that the powers of direction go a good deal further than they in fact do. He talks of a direction requiring a person to be deprived of his liberty. I see nothing in the Bill which would give the Secretary of State any power to issue any such direction. If a person were found, on search, to be in possession of, for example, a weapon, then he would be committing an offence under the Act, and he could properly be detained. If a constable suspected, or had reason to suspect, under Clause 17 that a person had brought, or been responsible for bringing, a weapon or something of that kind into the aerodrome in his baggage, or to be carried on to the aircraft in some way or another, then again he would be guilty of an offence, and the constable would be entitled to arrest him. But there is no power on the part of the Secretary of State to direct that somebody should be arrested. The Bill itself contains the offences on which anybody could be prosecuted.

LORD STOW HILL

My Lords, may I interrupt to ask the Minister a question? The noble Lord says that there is no power to direct that a person is to be arrested. Will he say why the general words in Clause 11(1), of which I have already complained, do not confer that power?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the words: requiring him to take … such measures for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies as are specified in the direction. As the noble Lord has pointed out, this is qualified under Clause 13(4) as to acts of violence, including, presumably, arrest on a direction. This is something that a direction cannot do. It cannot require an act of violence of that kind.

For those reasons, I do not understand what the noble Lord has in mind here, or why he should want to leave out subsection (2). This subsection deals with the manner in which a direction is to take effect inside the United Kingdom. Its purpose is to ensure that in the United Kingdom, and within the limitations contained elsewhere in the Bill, the security measures required to combat any threat of violence against civil aviation, a threat which could affect millions of innocent people, passengers and air crews, are not frustrated or delayed, in these exceptional circumstances, by the normal and proper restrictions imposed by the law.

I admit that this is a strong measure, but the limitations make this subsection far less draconian than might appear when it is read in isolation. There are limitations contained in Clause 9(5) which require that only steps that are practicable and necessary should be taken. Clause 11(5), for example, prevents the giving of directions to search passengers or to modify aircraft. You do not give directions to search passengers; you give directions that passengers are not to be admitted on to an aircraft unless a search has been carried out, which is not the same thing. Again, there are the provisions in Clause 13(4) to which I have just referred.

In practice, I am advised that the only directions that are likely to be made which might override other Acts of Parliament are directions under Clause 11 to carry out works at aerodromes. Again, we hope that it will never be necessary to use these powers to override rules of law and contract, but circumstances could arise in which immediate action would be required. I know that, despite the limitations we have written in and the explanation I have given, this will be a difficult concept for the House to accept, but I hope all the same that noble Lords will agree that the very desperate nature of the cases with which we are seeking to deal requires very special measures when the delays of the law might be quite fatal.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I must say that the noble Lord is a wonderful advocate. I know few people opposite who can argue propositions quite so effectively as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. On the one hand, he is saying that here we may well be faced with a desperate situation, and that we must have the most complete powers. He described a little earlier on that we are here thinking in terms of an emergency, and that when an emergency arises it is absolutely essential to be able to do anything that we want. This is virtually the argument that the noble Lord has put hitherto. We are not disposed to argue against this. We say that if there is a genuine emergency the powers have to be at the disposal of the Secretary of State to deal with such an emergency. But suppose that there is an error of judgment; suppose that something is done which ought not to have been done, and suppose that we have a Minister who is not so reasonable as the present Minister, or indeed that there is a change of Government with new Ministers who are not nearly so nice and reliable as the present lot. Are there then to be no safeguards at all?

It really is no use the Minister arguing that we are dealing with a person who may have something in his bag, or a person carrying a revolver when he ought not to be carrying a revolver. The powers contained here cover a much wider area than search for revolvers, or even the possibility of impeding someone going on an aircraft. They are very wide powers. When the noble Lord says that Clause 13(4) has a limitation on the use of violence, I must say that I do not follow this. The latter part of Clause 13(4) specifically says: nothing in this subsection shall restrict the use of force … Even though that may be some qualification in some cases, if it comes to a point where these wide powers have been wrongly used, it ought to be possible to go to a court of law for redress. If my noble friend agrees, I would think that this is an Amendment that we ought not to take back but one that we ought to press.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, if the Secretary of State cannot order an arrest, who can? Suppose he knows that somebody has a bomb, or that someone is determined to do damage at Heathrow: who is responsible? I have asked this question before and I want to know the answer, because these things happen. Only last weekend we had a case of a very desperate character. Who is in a position in the Government to take really stern action? It is no good passing this task on to a constable and saying that constables always do their duty; I am sure they do, but sometimes they want support in what may be a very desperate situation. The Minister has taken powers under this Bill, but I do not know whether he is covered or not. Apparently no proceedings will lie, whether criminal or civil. Perhaps action could be taken if desired. The other point which I shall bring up later, and which I should like the House to note, is this: this Bill may override any contract at all, and there is no provision whatever for any compensation for loss of contract. This action can take place at any aerodrome and affect anyone with freight, passengers, or anything else, and there is no provision whatever for compensation.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, with the leave of the House again, may I speak on this point of contract? Perhaps I am anticipating a little the Amendment that the noble Earl is going to move later. The point is really this. The chief kind of contract will be a contract for the carriage of passengers. In the normal way the contracts for the carriage of passengers issued by airlines provide an exclusion clause from the consequences of delay due to faults in the aircraft and so on, and also reserve the right not to admit anybody on to the aircraft despite the contract. It really does not carry the matter very much further to say that a direction may be given for the search of passengers as a condition of going on to the aircraft and for the delay or non-carriage of a passenger as a consequence. The airline itself, or the tourist agency can easily itself include conditions that are normally included, and these would be the conditions that would apply. That is the sort of contract that is involved. If there were no such exclusion clause or safeguard included in the contract the contract would be overridden by this provision, and surely rightly overridden, because what is being done is for the protection of the passengers themselves. There is no reason why they should be put in any better position for the delay of the aircraft or for not travelling than they would be if it were not possible for them to travel or they were delayed for any of the reasons for which provision is already made. Of course this kind of contract has to be expressed in broad terms in the Bill but it is limited all the time for the purposes of the Bill.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to interrupt him with a question. I take his point exactly up to there. If there was an emergency which you had to deal with, then contracts might well have to be overridden. But supposing there had been an error of judgment, as later events disclosed, would it not be right then to be able to start proceedings? In this subsection (2) it is specifically said that no proceedings would lie.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I come to that via the next point which my noble friend was raising?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes, may I just leave one thought in his mind? The noble Lord is talking about travel agencies and passengers. What if the noble Lord breaks open a warehouse, looking for something, and does not close it properly and a stealing takes place? Now this may be covered by insurance, but, quite frankly, this theft follows from the carelessness of the officers who are managing the aerodrome in not sealing it up properly. Those are the sort of things which can arise and someone's contract may go wildly astray. We can develop this point later, but I leave the thought in the noble Lord's mind.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I should have thought that the normal provisions that apply to somebody who comes to read the meter would apply to a person at the airport. There is an obligation to leave the premises safe if one has broken into them and I think that would certainly apply.

I come to the next point. The noble Lord asked who is responsible. The Minister is responsible for giving the directions where directions need to be given—and I put that qualification in quickly. The people who are responsible after that are those who are appointed

to carry out the various functions. The Bill itself defines what the offences are and in the normal way in this country where somebody is guilty of an offence or is suspected of being guilty he can be dealt with. As I said, Clause 17 carries that a little further by enabling a constable to arrest on suspicion, and that sort of thing. I think both the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk are mistaken in thinking that the Secretary of State is going to say, in effect, "Get that man" and that that means that he is going to issue a direction that there is an emergency, bring into operation emergency proceedings and give any particular directions that may be necessary. The people who will be operating in the emergency will be people with powers to deal with the situation. As to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, raised, the position is the same as it is in any case where a constable or any person acting in the course of duty or acting on suspicion exceeds his legal powers or responsibilities.

6.17 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 75.

CONTENTS
Bacon, B.	Hoy, L.	Shinwell, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Hughes, L.	Slater, L.
Beswick, L.	Jacques, L.	Stamp, L.
Blyton, L.	Janner, L.	Stocks, B.
Brockway, L.	Killearn, L.	Stow Hill, L.
Brown, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Champion, L.		Trefgarne, L.
Crook, L.	Maelor, L.	Watkins, L.
Davies of Leek, L.	Phillips, B.	White, B.
Douglass of Cleveland, L.	Popplewell, L.	Willis, L.
Foot, L.	St. Davids, V.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Gaitskell, B.	Selkirk, E.	Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.
Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]	Shackleton, L.
Hale, L.	Shepherd, L.	Wynne-Jones, L.
Henderson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Camoys, L.	Dudley, E.
Ailwyn, L.	Carrington, L.	Eccles, V.
Albemarle, E.	Cole, L.	Emmet of Amberley, B.
Alport, L.	Colville of Culross, V.	Essex, E.
Atholl, D.	Conesford, L.	Falkland, V.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Ferrers, E.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Cowley, E.	Fortescue, E.
Berkeley, B.	Craigavon, V.	Gainford, L.
Brentford, V.	Daventry, V.	Gisborough, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L.	Davidson, V.	Glasgow, E.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.	Denham, L. [Teller.]	Gowrie, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Drumalbyn, L.	Greenway, L.
Grenfell, L.	Lyell, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Gridley, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.	Saint Oswald, L.
Hailes, L.	Mansfield, E.	Sandford, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Margadale, L.	Sandys, L.
	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Sempill, Ly.
Hawke, L.	Milverton, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Kemsley, V.	Mottistone, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Kindersley, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Napier and Ettrick, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Lauderdale, E.	Northchurch, B.	Thorneycroft, L.
Leicester, E.	Oakshott, L.	Vivian, L.
Limerick, E.	Onslow, E.	Waldegrave, E.
Lothian, M.	Rankeillour, L.	Young, B.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.