Aviation and Maritime Security Bill

HL Deb 30 April 1990 vol 518 cc856-88

8.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— {Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Extension of power to require promotion of searches]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 1: Page 4, line 5, after ("if) insert ("without reasonable excuse").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 15, 16, 17, 29, 32, 34, 35 and 46. The amendments add a "reasonable excuse" defence for continuing to fail to comply with a direction or with an enforcement notice after an initial conviction or failure to comply.

The defence is already available in respect of an initial failure to comply with a direction or enforcement notice. This defence in respect of continuing offences is desirable because a person may have a reasonable excuse for continuing not to comply with the direction or enforcement notice, even though he had none at the time when he first failed to comply. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 2: Page 4, line 10, at end insert: ("(5) The Secretary of State shall provide a copy of any direction served under this section to the manager of the aerodrome concerned.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment to Clause 2 is designed to highlight the central role that airport managers can and should play in relation to the security of the airport for which they are responsible. It also provides an opportunity to highlight the need to ensure that links are made between arrangements for searches required by the airport managers and those that the Secretary of State may require any other person to undertake

Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State the power to give directions to any person other than the airport manager, having the right to occupy part of an aerodrome or having permitted access to the restricted zone of an aerodrome. It would require that person to arrange for searches of land, persons or property to be carried out by specified persons.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to copy any directions to the manager of the airport concerned. The justification for the amendment is that it is important that any requirement in relation to searches required by the Secretary of State under this power should be co-ordinated with the existing and proposed search arrangements at the airport. The airport manager is best placed to ensure that such co-ordination takes place, hence the requirement that he or she should receive a copy of any directions from the Secretary of State.

The amendment also provides the opportunity to raise more generally the important security role of airport managers. It is important to distinguish between the policing of an airport and the maintenance of security at the airport. Policing is clearly a police responsibility, but the primary responsibility for the provision of security at airports should surely lie with the airport manager. Because of this split responsibility, joint arrangements clearly need to be established to ensure co-ordination and co-operation between the security and policing arrangements. Such co-ordination also needs to involve the other agencies with an interest in security at airports, particularly the immigration and customs services.

The amendment would establish this principle in relation to the new power that the Secretary of State intends to give to himself. In a debate on a Government amendment in Committee in the other place on 6th February 1990, the Minister of Public Transport, Mr. Portillo, reminded the other place of Section 13 of the 1982 Act as amended. He said (at col. 38 of the Committee report) that the Act, enables the Secretary of State to direct an aerodrome manager to use his best endeavours to ensure that searches are carried out 'by constables' or by other persons specified in the direction".

That reference to the directions to an aerodrome manager by the Minister in the other place is surely justification for the amendment I proposed. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

The Government fully accept the principle that the aerodrome manager needs to be aware of any security requirements laid upon airport users as they affect the overall security of operations at the airport. He has an important role which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has outlined. He has a co-ordinating function and chairs the airport security committee. For that reason, the department already informs him of directions given to airlines and it will ensure that he is generally informed about directions given under the new clause.

However, it may not always be appropriate to reveal the content of a security direction to a third party. I submit that a statutory obligation to do so would be unacceptable. Nor can it be assumed that the Secretary of State would always be able to fulfil such an obligation. For example, he would not necessarily know whether a person issued with a direction because of access to one airport was subsequently allowed access to another. In such a case the obligation would be the reverse of that in this amendment: it would be for the manager of the second aerodrome to inform the department that access had been allowed. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Underhill

I thank the Minister for his reply. Frankly, I am rather amazed at the suggestion that copying directions to the airport manager—and the Minister agrees that that person is primarily responsible for security—could be dangerous to a third party. I wonder what the department's justification is for that. Is it suggested that the wrong person might be appointed as airport manager? Can we not trust airport managers who are in charge of security to adhere to the directions that may be copied to them from a Secretary of State?

I shall look carefully at what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but unless he has anything further to say, frankly I am not satisfied with the nature of the reply.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 3: After Clause 3, insert the following new clause: ("Financial implications of security operations at small airports.

When considering the use of his powers under section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to the financial implications of security operations at airports with a passenger throughput of less than 15 million passengers a year.").

The noble Lord said: The proposal is to insert a new clause after Clause 3. Its aim is to highlight the need for the provision of security measures at small airports, to be grant aided by the Secretary of State for Transport.

There is general support for the need for priority to be given to security. Commercial interests should not obstruct the implementation of effective security measures. However, it is essential that first having caused the establishment of local authority airports as "arm's length" companies, the Government should acknowledge the financial implications for them of the security directives.

Secondly, security measures required at regional airports should be related to the level of threat to them. Thirdly, the Government should recognise that the costs associated with security measures are not directly related to the size and throughput of the airport concerned.

This new clause is clearly not unrelated to a new clause which was not accepted. It was designed to reinstate the aviation security fund which was debated at the Bill's Report stage in the other place. In that debate the Minister of State for Transport reiterated the Government's position. Referring to powers in Section 32 of the Aviation Act 1982 which enabled the Secretary of State to grant aid security measures. Mr. Portillo said: I do not want to deny for a moment that the Government have not sought to use that power of making grants for security purposes, because we believe that security should be paid for by the airport, the airline and the passenger. I have no doubt that the passengers are willing to pay for it; it is simply a case of how they are asked to pay for it".—[Official Report, 5/3/90; col. 622.]

In a debate on a subsequent opposition amendment, the Minister for Aviation referred specifically to the position of regional airports. The Minister, Mr. McLoughlin, said at col. 630 of the Official Report, on 5th March 1990: I know that the whole House agrees on the importance of regional airports for our aviation policy and in providing services for people in the region. We cannot excuse those airports from the necessity of aviation security, and it would be undesirable and wrong to do so".

The Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities shares the Government's view that regional airports should not be allowed to become a weak link in the security chain.

However, the Minister's comments ignore the way in which the financial implications of security measures impinge on local authority airports. This point can be illustrated by the costs of the post-Lockerbie security directives. These related primarily to the screening of all people entering restricted areas at airports. On Second Reading on 5th April 1990 (at col. 1598 of Hansard) the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said, There is no evidence to show that airports have lacked money to implement security measures".

However, the following airports have supplied details of these costs. Birmingham airport has capital expenditure of £86,000. Its current expenditure per annum is £514,000. Bristol airport's capital expenditure is £79,000 while its current expenditure is £201,000. East Midlands airport has capital expenditure of £405,000 and current expenditure of £260,000. Leeds airport has capital expenditure of £60,000 and current expenditure of £200,000 per annum. Luton has capital expenditure of £364,000 and current expenditure of £414,000 per annum. Finally Newcastle has capital expenditure of £124,000 and current expenditure per annum of £400,000. Those are big figures.

In the absence of a national security fund, many airports are identifying a separate security element in their landing charges. However, that does not help to overcome the fact that the costs of security measures at individual airports are not related to the passenger throughput at those airports. This means that passengers who use such airports have to pay more per head towards the cost of security than do passengers at some of the larger airports. That directly conflicts with the Government's stated objective of encouraging the development of regional airports.

The proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to address the effect of the cost of security measures at airports smaller than Heathrow and Gatwick when considering the use of the powers of Section 32 of the 1982 Act. The intention behind the proposed new clause is to encourage the Government to use their grant powers to ensure that the implementation of essential security measures does not make regional airports financially less attractive to potential passengers. The amendment states: the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to the financial implications of security operations at airports".

That does not mean that there is a mandatory requirement upon the Secretary of State beyond having particular regard to those financial implications. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

Once again I must say that it is quite clear that this is a transport debate because the television cameras have their hoods on. One can also be sure that I am about to speak when the lights in the House go down. I wish to support the amendment which I suspect is a probing one. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has touched on an important point regarding small regional airports.

The weakest link in the chain of security is often comprised of those countries which do not take security seriously, and those airports which do not take security seriously or which cannot afford to have the kind of sophisticated equipment which is necessary to ensure that terrorists cannot board aeroplanes in obscure parts of the world that we have never heard of. However, I do not include any of the airports to which the noble Lord referred as obscure airports. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that what it may be easy to provide in relative terms at airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester, becomes more expensive, per capita, to install at smaller regional airports. The Secretary of State, as the amendment states, should, have particular regard to the financial implications of security operations at airports". Those airports then have to devote an outrageous percentage of the price of tickets to the maintenance of security not just for their own airport but for the whole of the system. I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that there is some means of ensuring that the costs of security do not fall either on ratepayers or on the travelling public at particular airports.

Lord Mountevans

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to small airports. I was a little surprised when he admitted that he regarded all airports outside Heathrow and Gatwick as small airports. I should have thought that Manchester and Newcastle were fairly large airports, as are many others. I am intrigued that the noble Lord has picked up the point that I made about small airports on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also picked up that point when he repeated an argument I had previously made that security is as weak as its weakest link. However, the figure of 15 million passengers a year seems a huge number of passengers. I had in mind airports such as that of Barra, the Scillies and Bembridge when I spoke on Second Reading. If I understood my noble friend's reply, he said that the Government would take account of the financial implications of the provisions of the legislation. I look for reassurance like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, but I hope that my noble friend will reject this amendment either in the form in which it is drafted or in a tightened up form.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I have listened carefully to the arguments deployed by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff and by my noble friend Lord Mountevans. The amendment appears to me to address two questions: first, whether the Government should reimburse the cost of aviation security out of taxpayers' money: and, secondly, whether in doing so they should pay special regard to the particular problems of small airports. I cannot see any provision in the amendment to state that the Government should reimburse the cost of airport security, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, proposed. As I understand it, the amendment merely states that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the financial implications of that matter.

However, it will not come as a surprise to noble Lords that the Government do not consider that the costs of aviation security should be borne by the taxpayer. Since the Aviation Security Fund was wound up in 1983 the costs have, quite properly in our view, fallen on the industry. It is the industry, its aircrew, and its customers that aviation security benefits and it is right that the industry should pay. I have to say that although the 1982 Act gives the Secretary of State power, following the demise of the Aviation Security Fund, to reimburse security costs, his present policy is that it is the industry and not the taxpayer that should pay.

On the second point, the idea of special assistance to small airports is, on the face of it, attractive. It is understandable that airports which handle a small volume of passengers may find that security costs, per passenger, are higher than for the biggest airports. But I think it would be wrong to single out security costs for some kind of special subsidy. Economies of scale may give low unit costs for Heathrow and Gatwick—my noble friend is quite right to say those are the only two airports not covered by this amendment—but there may be other costs which are relatively less for regional airports. We are not setting out to equalise these costs—they are all part of the business environment in which airport business must learn to operate.

The concept which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, put forward would lead to cross-subsidisation between different regional airports themselves, for example, between Manchester and Liverpool, between Birmingham and East Midlands airport:; or between Stansted and Luton. However, I believe that in this discussion we should keep the difficulties in proportion. At the smaller airports the cost of security may be somewhere between £1 and £2 per passenger: I suggest that this is not a high cost in relation to other aviation costs and the price of an air ticket. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, gave some interesting examples of the costs of aviation security to some of the regional airports. However, he did not give the figure per passenger. I do not have examples for the airports to which the noble Lord referred but the airports for which I have examples are probably not dissimilar.

The cost of security on a per passenger basis at Heathrow is 23-2 pence compared with Gatwick at 19-5 pence. The cost at Stansted, which is quite high because the airport has not yet reached its full potential, is 71 pence. Figures for the smaller airports of Glasgow and Edinburgh are 21 pence and 18 pence per passenger respectively. Therefore I believe that we should keep the matter in proportion.

Lord Tordoff

Can the Minister give a figure for some of the really small airports, such as Southend, which often have feeder services into major airports, not necessarily only in this country but also in Europe?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I cannot. I said that I did not have a full list of security costs. I may be able to find that out, but I am not sure whether Southend is sufficiently large to fall within the net of the National Aviation Security Committee's work. However, as I said to my noble friend Lord Mountevans at Second Reading, financial implications are taken into account. The rules are not the same for the Heathrows and Gatwicks of this world as they are for some of the regional airports. I am not keen to give specific examples of where the differences lie but the Committee can be reassured that there are differences in the security requirements.

I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment. If not, I must urge the Committee to reject the proposed new clause.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Underhill

In view of the comment which the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, made about my use of the word "smaller" I hope that I used the correct interpretation. I referred to smaller airports in relation to the larger airports, which seemed to me to be an obvious relationship to use.

It is interesting to note from the Minister's comments that although we are dealing with an Aviation and Maritime Security Bill no attempt has been made by the Government to amend Section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982. In debates in the other place Ministers recognised that the power set out in that section remains with the Minister. He has the power, if he so wishes, to reimburse or make grants towards security costs at various airports.

The figures that I mentioned regarding capital expenditure, for example, of £405,000 at the East Midlands airport represent very substantial sums. At Newcastle the capital sum is £124,000. Ignoring the question of the annual figures which the Minister quoted, those capital sums are substantial. However, I should like to consider carefully what the Minister has said because he appears to feel that there is some justification in the argument that has been advanced. I believe that the department has occasional meetings with JACOLA (the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities) and I hope that this will be a matter for discussion. We all want effective security. If there is a difficulty regarding finance at some of the less large airports—if I may put it that way for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans—that matter should be considered. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 [Enforcement notices in respect of directions under Part II of the Aviation Security Act 1982]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 4: Page 7, line 14, after ("if') insert ("without reasonable excuse").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 5: Page 8, line 15, at end insert: ("or (iii) conflicts with the requirements of another statutory or regulatory authority.").

The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is to add a further ground of objection to an enforcement notice which the Secretary of State may issue under Clause 4; namely, that the enforcement notice conflicts with a requirement of another statutory or regulatory authority. Clause 4 makes a number of insertions into the 1982 Act relating to the extensions of powers to require the promotion of searches. Paragraph 3 of new Section 18D of that Act, set out in the Bill, lays down grounds for objection to an enforcement notice. The amendment seeks to add one further ground for objection.

The amendment has been tabled in the light of fears expressed by members of JACOLA that security requirements conflict with other legislative requirements imposed on airports. The amendment is intended to highlight the potential conflict between the contents of security directives and instructions issued by other statutory bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive and Customs and Excise.

I hope the noble Lord can give an assurance that Ministers recognise the problem and will ensure that any such conflicts are identified and reconciled before directions are issued, thus removing the need for any objections to enforcement notices on the ground set out in the amendment. The Committee will therefore see that this is a probing amendment. I hope that the Minister can give such an assurance, which would satisfy the airports concerned. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Section 19 of the Aviation Security Act 1982, as amended by paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, provides that an enforcement notice will have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act or rule of law. That means that aviation security considerations have to be paramount. I believe that that is right. The clause already imposes limitations on the scope of enforcement notices in Section 18B on page 6, and provides a reasonable excuse defence against failure to comply with a notice as well as providing the objection procedure which the noble Lord seeks to amend.

I have taken very careful note of what the noble Lord said; so will those who have to enforce the rules. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Underhill

I thank the Minister for that reply. It goes some way towards the assurance that I requested. I shall read carefully what he said and see whether that is satisfactory or whether I need to return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 [Offences relating to security at aerodromes etc.]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 6: Page 9, line 37, leave out ("or").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 10 to 13, 51, 52 and 55 to 58. The amendments are fairly straightforward. They add the police to the list of persons to whom it is an offence under Section 21A and Clause 37 to make a false statement in answer to questions relating to baggage, cargo or stores intended for carriage by a civil aircraft or by sea. They also add the police to the list of persons to whom it is an offence under Section 21B(l)(b) and Clause 38 to give false information in connection with the continued holding of an identity document. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 7: Page 9, line 39, at end insert ("or (iii) by a constable,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 8: Page 10, line 10, leave out ("course of his duty") and insert ("exercise of the power conferred by section 20(2)(aa)of this Act").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 14, 20, 48, 53, 54 and 59.

This group of amendments seeks to confer statutory authority on authorised persons to investigate and test the security practices and procedures operated by those to whom a direction can be given. Such investigations and tests are regarded as essential elements in improving aviation and maritime security, but there is a balance to be struck between the need to carry out those tests and the possible effect that they may have on commercial operations. There is therefore a need to have statutory authority so that checks to secure adherence to security procedures are not inhibited.

Although the tests will be planned to avoid causing delays at airports and ports, there remains the possibility that delays might be incurred with the consequence that those affected might be inclined to claim for damages or financial loss against those carrying out the tests or against the Department of Transport for negligence or interference with contractual relations. It therefore seems a reasonable precaution to have explicit statutory powers relating to the investigation and testing of security practices and procedures. Such powers should avoid claims being laid provided the tests or investigations were property carried out for the purposes described in the enabling provision. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 9: Page 0, line 23, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below").

On Question amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 1 3: Page 10, line 32, leave out first ("or"). Page 10, line 32, after ("person") insert ("or to a constable"). Page 10, line 34, leave out second ("or"). Page 10, line 35, after ("agent") insert ("or to a constable").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 14: Page 11, line 6, at end insert: ("(3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to any statement made by an authorised person in the exercise of the power conferred by section 20(2) (aa) of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Further amendments of the Aviation Security Act 1982]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 17: Page 52, line 8, after ("if) insert ("without reasonable excuse"). Page 52, line 21, after ("if") insert ("without reasonable excuse"). Page 52, line 41, after ("if) insert ("without reasonable excuse").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 18: Page 53, line 8, at end insert: ("(6) For subsection (5) there is substituted— (5) Where 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 inform the chief officer of police for the police area in which the searches are to be carried out or the other measures taken that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate that constables should be duly authorised to carry, and should carry, firearms when carrying out the searches or taking the measures in question. (7) After subsection (7) there is inserted— (8) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland for the words in subsection (5) above from "chief officer" to "measures taken" there are substituted the words "chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary"."").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 43 which fulfil the same purpose in the maritime environment.

During the Second Reading debate on this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to an amendment to what is now Clause 25 which had been moved by Mr Ronnie Fearn, the honourable Member for Southport, in another place. My honourable Friend the Minister for Public Transport has given further thought to Mr Fearn's amendment. The amendment to Clause 25(4) and the equivalent amendment to the Aviation Security Act 1982 provide that a person receiving a direction which requires searches to be carried out or other measures to be taken by the police should inform the local chief officer of police, or in Northern Ireland the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, if the direction requires the searches or other measures to be undertaken by armed police.

We envisage directions requiring the arming of police to be issued very infrequently: in fact, none has ever been issued under the powers in the Aviation Security Act 1982. Nevertheless, it is important to have that power available in case urgent and direct action is necessary in the event of an increased threat of terrorist attack. I beg to move.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

I should like to thank the Minister and his honourable friend in another place for responding to my honourable friend the Member for Southport, who, as he rightly said, raised the matter in another place on a couple of occasions. I am glad that the fairly long gestation period has proved fruitful. I have yet to check finally with my honourable friend that he is totally satisfied with the matter as it has now emerged, but I am sure that the point that he made has been covered in principle and I think it unlikely that we shall need to return to it at a later stage to suggest any further amendments. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and his honourable friend for having taken up this matter which the Minister in another place originally suggested was perhaps not necessary. I am glad that important 'i's have been dotted and 't's have been crossed.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for that response. I hope that he will find that it fully satisfies the points that were raised both in another place and by the noble Lord at Second Reading.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 19: Page 54, line 2, at end insert: ("(aa) for the words from "any person authorised" to " "authorised person")" there is substituted "an authorised person",").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61. These amendments provide for the retention of the term "authorised person" in Section 20(1) of the 1982 Act, but delete the wording which defines that expression. That wording is unnecessary in view of the definition of "authorised person" given in paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 20: Page 54, line 16, after ("land") insert: ("(bb) after paragraph (a) there is inserted the following paragraph— (aa) to take such steps—

1. (i) to ascertain what practices or procedures are being followed in relation to security, or
2. (ii) to test the effectiveness of any practice or procedure relating to security,",").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 [Interpretation of Part IT]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 21: Page 20, line 30, after ("British Dependent Territories citizen") insert ("a British National (Overseas)").

The noble Lord said: As I am sure noble Lords will be aware, this is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Power of Secretary of State to require information]:

Lord Underbill moved Amendment No. 22: Page 22, line 23, after ("person") insert ("except a master").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 23.

Clause 19 enables the Secretary of State to obtain information to enable him to exercise his functions under the Bill. Amendment No. 22 would exclude masters of ships from those from whom the Secretary State may require information under the clause. Subsection (2) of the Bill provides that at least seven days shall be allowed from the date on which the notice is served.

It will be useful to outline some of the exchanges on the matter which took place in Committee in the other place on 15th February. Mrs. Joan Ruddock, Member of Parliament, said that, as there is a seven-day period for action to be taken, that would give sufficient time for the responsible people to be contacted and that it would be unlikely for a master to act without consulting his employers; namely, the ship's owners. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, replied that there might be no difficulty in reaching the owners if it were a British-owned ship. However, quoting him from col. 117, he went on: It would be sensible to apply that requirement to the master of a foreign ship so that we would detain the ship's departure, if we were not satisfied.

Mrs. Ruddock retorted that it would seem that the Government's intention was to put responsibility on the master because of the difficulty of finding others who are responsible. When Mrs. Ruddock added that the responsibility for British ships—

Lord Tordoff

I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me. I do not want to tell my grandmother to suck eggs, but I think that if the noble Lord is quoting directly from another place, he should confine his quotations to those of Ministers speaking from the Dispatch Box. I may be wrong, but I suspect that is the case.

Lord Underhill

I am fully aware of the point raised by the noble Lord; but I have been very careful and have not quoted directly. I have given my transcription of what Members have said.

When Mrs. Ruddock added that the responsibility for British ships clearly lay with the owners, charterers and managers, the Minister's comment in reply, at col. 118—and now I am quoting—was: The power is to be used when the owners cannot be contacted". Later in col. 120 the Minister said: We regard the master as the last line, not the first, or front line. However, that is not what the clause says. Subsection (6) provides that a person who is guilty of an offence for failing to comply with a requirement imposed by the notice shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both. This will place the master, who is an individual employee of the owner or manager, in the same position as that of a corporate body and I suggest is unduly harsh.

For this reason, the second amendment I am proposing is a fall-back position: should a master be guilty of an offence he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, but there should be no provision for the possible two years' imprisonment, as provided in the Bill.

During the seventh sitting of the Standing Committee in the other place on the 22nd February, when considering a suggested new clause, the Minister, Mr. McLoughlin, said (at col. 203 of the Committee report): General directions do not apply to the master. He is subject only to directions that prohibit him from going to sea or from providing information. The attention of the Minister has subsequently been drawn to the apparent conflict of this statement with the provisions of later clauses, to the effect that a copy of an enforcement order and of the direction to which it relates may be served on a master. Penalties would apply to a master if he failed to comply.

Since the debate took place in the other place, the Minister has stated that the department does not intend to operate enforcement notices against masters involving matters outside their responsibilities, where it can pursue the ships' operator. That is encouraging, but will the Minister bring forward an amendment so that it can be written into the Bill? Will he at the same time accept the amendment I am proposing, which would meet the wishes of all concerned? I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I do not think there is a great deal that I can add on this amendment to the extensive quotations given by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, regarding the exchanges which occurred in another place. I would just say that in response to calls for removing discriminatory provisions which apply differently as between British and foreign ships, we introduced an ability to give directions to a master. The main intention is that such powers would be used only where it proved impossible to locate the operators of ships, usually foreign registered. Assurances to this effect were given in another place.

I would say that in Clause 19(5) there is already a "reasonable excuse" defence to cover situations where masters are unable to provide the information being sought under that clause. Apart from specific cases where the court can decide the relevant merits, it is difficult to see, at any rate so far as I am concerned, why masters should be any less liable to penalties as other groups. I would just say that those requirements are not different from those placed on any other group. I hope that having repeated those assurances which have already been given in another place, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Underhill

As the Minister says, I appreciate that ore of the assurances was given during the debate in another place. The other assurance has been given in correspondence since the debate took place. Those assurances are very valuable; but Secretaries of State change and departmental officials change. As the Minister is so convinced that the assurances are useful and valuable, I should like to see the Government bring forward amendments to write those assurances into the Bill. However, this is not the time to seek the view of your Lordships on this matter. I shall look carefully at what the Minister has said, and I hope he will be able to bring forward an amendment, failing which we may have to consider bringing forward an amendment of our own at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Power to impose restrictions in relation to ships]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 24: Page 23, line 15, after ("charterer") insert ("or").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 24, I should like, with the leave of your Lordships, to speak to Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28. Clause 21 empowers the Secretary of State to give directions restricting persons and property being taken on board ships or being in proximity to ships unless searches are carried out as specified.

In Clause 21(1) the master is included along with the owner, the charterer or manager as a person to whom the Secretary of State may give a direction which prevents ships going to sea unless the ship meets certain requirements. Subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State may give a direction in writing. I should like to quote from page 23 of the Bill, lines 32 to 36. This refers to a direction given in writing by the Secretary of State, requiring him not to cause or permit the ship to go to sea unless such modifications or alterations of the ship, or of apparatus or equipment installed in or carried on board the ship, 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 or carried on board the ship".

The first four amendments seek to leave out the master from this clause. The inclusion of the master seems not to make sense. First, the master cannot keep people from the proximity of the ship. Secondly, he will lack the resources to institute the searches as specified. In the wording I have read out there is reference to carrying out modifications or alterations to the ship or to the apparatus or equipment. The master lacks the authority or resources to carry out any such modifications or alterations and he should be separated in this matter from the owner or the other persons, so that if necessary he may be directed not to sail.

That is the purpose of Amendment No. 28, which inserts a new section. Once again, Mrs. Ruddock in the other place, pointed out (in col. 596 of Hansard at the Report stage on 5th March 1990) that the real responsibility is that of the owners, charterers or managers.

In col. 597, the Minister said: We shall extend the possibility of giving directions to masters only to matters on which they are competent and responsible to act".

Where is that written into the Bill? That is a definite statement made by the Minister in another place. Surely it should be written into the Bill.

I suggest that the best approach is to leave out "the master" from the general provision of the clause and insert the new subsection whereby the Secretary of State may give a direction to the master of a British ship or any other ship not to permit the ship to sail unless the owner or other person has complied with the direction given. I beg to move.

9 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

In response to the amendment, perhaps I may give some thoughts on how Clause 21 will work. We shall be giving directions and enforcement notices to masters only for those matters on which they are competent and responsible to act. As they cannot be given directions under Clause 24—the main direction-making power which can require measures to be taken—there is no liability placed on them to take decisions which involve capital expenditure. That of course is the responsibility of the ship operator. Masters will only be likely to receive directions which prohibit them from allowing people or property to be brought near or on a ship, or for the ship to go to sea, unless searches are carried out; and allowing a ship to go to sea unless certain modifications are carried out. All these matters are within the master's scope of responsibility to act on.

In Clause 21 the amendment removes the Secretary of State's ability to obtain quick and effective action where it is needed (again mainly in the case of foreign ships) because a direction could be given to a master not to do something only after a direction had been given to the operator, assuming he could be located. This might well involve inordinate delay during which time no doubt the ship will go to sea—the very thing the direction powers are seeking to control. I am also unhappy about attempting to get operators (often distant) to comply with directions seeking to prevent unsearched persons or property from coming on board a ship or be brought near to it when the accessible master is in a far better position of authority to do so.

Apart from the assurances already given by the Government, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred—that masters will not be singled out to bear the brunt of any directions because of their accessibility—I suggest that the prohibitive nature of Clause 21 in itself restricts its use to unusual and extreme circumstances. Most improvements to security will be made voluntarily. Others may be made by directions under Clause 24.

Clause 21 will need to be used only where co-operation has not been forthcoming after consultation or in emergencies where a quick direct responsive course of action is needed. In these circumstances it may be necessary for the master to receive directions restricting his actions. This contingency power is especially necessary where the master is the only one capable of receiving direction.

I hope that with that explanation, and the fact that it is clear to me at any rate that the master will not be singled out for difficult treatment, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw these amendments.

Lord Underhill

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. However, he has not justified the failure to accept Amendment No. 28. If it is not possible to contact the owners or charterers there could be a direction that the master shall not take the ship to sea. That seems to me be a desirable insertion in the Bill.

I have made reference to the alterations and modifications to the ship. Many masters will be powerless to do anything unless they are able to contact the owner or charterer. In those cases the only direction that should be given to him, which I am certain that the master would willingly accept, is that he should not put to sea. That was the subject of Amendment No. 28. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister said as to whether he gave the assurance on Amendment No. 28 or whether we shall have to return to it at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 29: Page 24, line 29, after ("if) insert ("without reasonable excuse").

The noble Lord said: I have spoken to the amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 [Power to require harbour authorities to promote searches in harbour areas]:

The Earl of Winchelsea and Nottingham moved Amendment No. 30: Page 24, line 37, leave out ("or by other persons of a description specified in the direction").

The noble Earl said: I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to move the amendments which stand in his name. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 31, 33, 44 and 60. The noble Lord has also asked me to convey his apologies to the Committee for his absence tonight due to his work for the European Parliament. I am only too happy to move the amendments. I share the same concerns, fears and worries as the noble Lord.

The reason for the amendments is obvious. They deal with a very serious matter; namely, the widening of certain police powers to include private security agencies. This practice, which is rampant in the United States, has been on the increase in this country. In my view—it is shared by the Police Federation—it must be resisted if we are to maintain our police forces as they are at present.

Recently there has been considerable press coverage concerning this dangerous and undesirable practice. The most notorious example was the bomb attack on the Royal Marine School of Music in Deal. I mention the tragedy because although the security arrangements were the responsibility of the MoD, security at Deal was in the hands of a private company.

A vital, major component of police training is how to deal with the ever-present threat of terrorist attacks and all their horrors and how best to prevent such attacks taking place by the detection of suspicious activities prior to possible terrorist outrages.

Why remove those responsibilities from the very people who are best trained and equipped to deal with them? However desirable that may seem in terms of manpower, there is no private security firm that trains its employees to such a high professional standard as our police forces. Regrettably, they have had plenty of opportunities to put their training and expertise to test and those experiences must count for something.

Could it be that the activities of the Treasury lurk behind this alarming attempt to create private police forces because they are likely to come considerably cheaper than the real thing? In that case, what price do we place on the law of the land being upheld and the Queen's peace being maintained; what price on the protection and safety of our citizens and the detection and prevention of crime?

The year 1992 is fast approaching. To those who are prepared it will bring considerable benefits. It will also bring considerable problems to those who are not prepared, not the least of whom are those involved in cross-boundary and international policing. Surely we shall need a unified central response in order to cope with European cross-border crime. A proliferation of Police Forces plc will not achieve that.

I believe that the so-called "umbrella proposals" put forward by Sir Peter Imbert, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police—it argues the case for the bringing together of structures already in existence within the police service while maintaining the best of its present policing system at community level—would make sense. Sir Peter referred specifically to the Regional Crime Squad, the Mutual Aid Co-ordination Centre, the National Drugs Intelligence Unit, the National Identification Bureau and the Serious Fraud Office. They would have the responsibility for investigating the most serious of national and international crime and would be accountable to Parliament through the Home Secretary.

We need more fully-trained genuine not bogus policemen. It we are to be successful in the constant battle against international drug trafficking, organised crime and terrorism we need people who are fully trained and equipped for the job and not people who are untrained and accountable to no one.

Much of the material that I have used tonight came from a recent speech presented by Chief Superintendent Colin Moore of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary to the national conference of the Superintendents' Association in Torquay. I should like to quote from his excellent speech. He foresees the possibility of, custody centres run by Trust House Forte; movement of prisoners by TNT; traffic endorsement by Securicor; and alarm answering the local taxi service".

He goes on to state his worry about the proliferation of private police armies which are answerable to no one.

The private security industry is enjoying a massive expansion. The larger firms belong to the British Security Industry Association; many smaller firms do not. Many employ people with criminal records. The proliferation of private police armies will take us back to the days before Robert Peel when policing was a largely private affair riddled with corruption and certainly non-accountable.

It is for those reasons, so eloquently stated by Chief Superintendent Moore, plus my serious doubts and concerns about the proposals contained in the Bill, that I propose the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

I support the amendment and should like to hear the Minister's response. I had intended to make some remarks on the Question of whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill. However, I shall make them now in response to the amendment.

Clause 22 deals with searches, including the searches of any ship when in the harbour area. The searches are to be carried out by constables or other persons. The noble Earl's amendment seeks the withdrawal of the "other persons". The Minister will be aware that during the Committee stage in another place there was a detailed debate in relation to Clause 22. Members drew attention to the concern expressed by the Police Federation to which the noble Earl referred. The federation is most concerned about accountability and the increasing use of private firms to provide security.

Members of the Committee will recall that similar anxiety was expressed during consideration in this Chamber of the development at Parkeston Quay, Harwich. There, a private security force replaced British Transport Police. The federation sent a letter of protest about that aspect of the Bill to the Home Secretary. At the same time the shadow Home Secretary raised the issue with the Home Secretary, who said that the employment of private security firms was not his responsibility. When pressed for a system of licensing, registration and monitoring, the Home Secretary stated that self-regulation was the right approach.

In the debate on amendments in the other place Mrs. Ruddock—and I refer to her again without quoting directly—asked the Minister to acknowledge that those employed by private security firms should be people of integrity with no criminal record. Rather surprisingly the Minister, Mr. Michael Portillo, replied that it is up to those responsible for the premises to ensure that they can trust the people whom they are employing. The Minister later said that the question of ports police forces was under review. When the Minister replies today perhaps he can give the result of that review. There was so much anxiety that the amendment to which I referred was pressed to a vote.

On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said that private security firms must be members of the British Security Industry Association or the International Professional Security Association. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, intends to refer to this again but he asked whether that applied also to ports and harbours. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, replied that he was not sure whether the requirements relating to membership of the various associations, training and so on, applied to ports. He said: I must come back to the noble Lord about that". I am sure that the Committee would like to know the answer to that question put by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.

The Minister also said: On the maritime side, the noble Lord"— he was referring to my noble friend Lord Carmichael— was concerned about persons other than the police undertaking searching and guarding duties. He was also concerned about the imposition of duties on the matter. I recognise that those are important points of concern and we shall have an opportunity to discuss them fully and give them proper consideration in Committee".—[Official Report, 5/4/90; cols. 1598-9.] I am certain that the noble Earl's amendment will help us to give proper consideration to the matter.

This important issue is also dealt with under Clauses 23, 24 and 25. Notes on Clauses, referring to Clause 22, state: In certain circumstances such searches can be dealt with without a warrant". That is a matter of great importance.

I must refer also to a matter arising under Clause 24. Notes on Clauses state clearly that the clause enables the Secretary of State to give directions requiring the recipient to take security measures including the guarding of ships or harbour areas as appropriate for the purpose of protecting them against acts of violence. As was mentioned in relation to searches, we must ask who are the other persons to whom directions can be given to require steps to be taken to guard a ship against acts of violence. The issue of firearms also arises but I shall deal with that matter on amendments tabled in my name on Clause 25. I hope that the Minister can answer the various points raised on the amendment moved by the noble Earl.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

The Minister will not be surprised that I rise to support my noble friend. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for referring to what I said on Second Reading at col. 1598. I look forward to receiving a reply to that question from the Minister.

At that time there was anxiety about the problem of private security firms and the integrity of employees. The Minister will remember that at col. 1593 I raised the question of redress available if private security operators undertook searches in houses which may lie within the precincts of the dock area. As I said then, we know that if the police were to overstep the mark in making a search then there is a proper complaints authority to deal with that; namely, the Police Complaints Authority.

So far as one can see there is no such authority which is capable of dealing with private security firms that overstep the mark. I hope that the Minister will recognise that my noble friend raised a very important matter and that he can go some way towards either accepting the amendments or saying that the Government will come forward with appropriate amendments to cover those very specific worries.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

These amendments cover two specific points. One is the use or future use of the ports police authorities and the other is the use of private security firms in the ports.

With regard to the first point, discussions are under way between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport regarding the future role, if any, of ports police authorities. A number of options have to be considered but I expect some recommendations shortly to be circulated to the relevant bodies that need to be consulted. They include the body to which the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, referred. The remarks made in your Lordships' Chamber this evening can also be taken into account in those consultations.

If, as a result of those consultations or any other action, changes occur to the legal standing of ports police, those changes will affect the way in which the Act will be applied in those few ports which have their own police forces. In that context I can see no reason why we should not make full use of the skills available through ports police forces dedicated to their specific tasks. Furthermore, there is no reason to suggest that the day-to-day security activities required at all sea ports cannot be left safely in the hands of the private security staff in the same way as with airport authorities. The decision as to which type of arrangements are best suited to each port is really a matter for each port authority.

It would be ludicrous for the Secretary of State to be restricted to constables as the only persons he can specify in a direction to carry out searching and other security tasks, when so many trained staff are readily available at the ports anyway. They know the routine duties, the system of the port, the local contingency plans, the search procedures, the strengths and weaknesses and the relevant local contacts. The restrictions advocated only enable the Secretary of State to supplant the existing arrangements with new ones using constables who may have no idea how to use their over-qualified general skills within the port setting. That is a recipe for potential disaster.

I am surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, if he felt so strongly on that matter, did not extend his amendments to the aviation field. Private security firms operate at all our major airports, searching passengers and screening baggage. So far as I am aware, and certainly in the time that I was responsible for aviation, there was no overwhelming cause for complaint in that regard. I submit that it would be a waste of time of highly skilled police officers—I am as full of admiration for the police as other noble Lords—to make them spend all day checking X-ray machines or searching ladies' handbags. That is a job which can perfectly well be done by a security guard. It is done at airports and there has been no cause for complaint.

At Second Reading I said that security firms used at airports must comply with the rules of their associations. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that that will apply equally to those on the marine side as it does on the aviation side.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised one particularly interesting point regarding the searching of private houses within a dock area. I admit to being surprised that the noble Lord did not table an amendment in that respect. It is a matter to which I wish to give full consideration and I shall return on Report with a government amendment because it is an important point.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked who can receive directions about guarding ships. The answer is that any person to whom a direction can be given may be required, within his powers, to guard a ship in the sense of preventing unauthorised access to it. That does not, of course, include guarding by force of arms or carrying weapons. As regards the carrying of weapons, I have already moved an amendment in that respect but I will answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he moves his amendment.

I believe I have answered the points raised during the debate on this amendment. I appreciate that there is a source of concern to Members of the Committee. However, with the review now being undertaken into the use of ports police authorities I hope that the Chamber will be assured that we have these considerations in mind and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham

I thank my noble friend Lord Tordoff and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for their support. I listened carefully to the Minister. I agree about not widening the proposal to include aviation. It would certainly be a waste of time for police constables to search ladies' handbags, and so on. That is why I did not include such a provision. However, having listened to what the Minister said I feel that it may well be the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester)

There is a printing error in Amendment No. 31. The Marshalled List should read: Page 24, line 47, leave out ("or any other persons specified in the direction in accordance with this section").

[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara move Amendment No. 32: Page 25, line 39, after ("if) insert ("without reasonable excuse")

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 [Power to require other persons to promote searches]:

[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 34: Page 26, line 37, after ("if) insert ("without reasonable excuse").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 [General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part HI applies]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 35: Page 28, line 32, after ("if) insert ("without reasonable excuse").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Clause 25 [Matters which may be included in directions under sections 21 to 24]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

If Amendment No. 36 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 37 to 42.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 36: Page 29, leave out lines 12 to 17.

The noble Lord said: It may be helpful if in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 to 42. The first amendment provides for the deletion of subsection (4), which for the benefit of Members of the Committee is on page 29 of the Bill. It relates to a direction to secure that constables are authorised to carry firearms when carrying out searches or acts of guarding. It will be helpful if the Minister can define the person to whom the direction may be given. Will he also kindly explain how any person not connected with the Home Office or a police force may persuade constables to carry firearms? I use the word "persuade" because the subsection uses the words: the direction may require the person to whom it is given to use his best endeavours to secure that constables will be duly authorised to carry, and will carry, firearms".

I also ask the Minister whether the provision in Clause 29(3) raises the possibility of a master having to comply with this direction. The person being given directions should not be asked to put pressure on the chief constable to issue firearms. I draw attention to Clause 26(1), which states: Without prejudice to Section 25(4) of this Act, a direction shall not require or authorise any person to carry a firearm".

The removal of subsection (4) would appear to be the best way out, but failing that the other amendments to which I am speaking appear to be a fall-back solution.

The existing words in lines 14 to 16 are: the direction may require the person to whom it is given to use his best endeavours to secure that constables will be duly authorised to carry, and will carry, firearms".

With the four amendments which I suggest may form a fall-back solution, the revised subsection will then read: The direction may require the person to whom it is given to use his best endeavours to ensure that constables are aware of any direction by the Secretary of State as to whether they should be duly authorised to carry, or should carry, firearms".

It will be clearly seen that the emphasis in the latter four amendments is completely different from the wording in subsection (4). I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is trying to do, but this point is covered by Amendment No. 18, which is part of the group along with Amendments Nos. 37 and 38, and what I said earlier in response to the Minister. If the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, looks at Amendment No. 38 he will see that the last two words—"and should"—appear to be the important ones. That covers the direction which comes directly from the Secretary of State and not from any other body. I am happy to support the Government in sustaining Amendments Nos. 18, 37 and 38 and to let the matter rest there.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his remarks. As he suggested, I believe I covered these points in my speech concerning Amendment No. 18. We are now talking about the maritime rather than the aviation side of the Bill. My Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 which we shall reach in a moment answer all the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asks in his Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.

Amendment No. 36 stops anyone from carrying firearms. It is sadly necessary that at some point firearms might need to be carried by the police in the exercise of their duties. I should point out that only ordinary police forces are exempt from the requirements of the Firearms Act 1968. Other bodies of police, including the ports police to which we referred in an earlier amendment, are not. Their members require firearms certificates in the same way as any member of the public. They would therefore fall under the control of the local chief constable in respect of their ability to bear arms. The responsibility for deciding whether constables should be armed will remain with the local chief constable.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked why this is not a Home Office responsibility. We must bear in mind the time factor. In the event of a serious and imminent threat, there is the duty incumbent on us to act with the utmost dispatch. We could not risk the possible delay resulting from any breakdown in communications, especially in out of office hours at night and at weekends, if we had to involve a third party whose only real function would be no more than to duplicate the channels of information. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with my reply, especially when we come to the next two amendments.

Lord Underhill

I am grateful to the Minister and also to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for pointing out something which I have not yet read. I have not yet read it because I made my notes yesterday and I did not see the government amendments until I arrived this morning. I do not have as quick a brain as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.

Lord Tordoff

I am not prepared to accept that. I had a specific interest in the government amendment because the matter related to what my honourable friend in another place had said. I know perfectly well that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is most meticulous in looking at amendments. I can well understand that in the circumstances he was overtaken by events. Any suggestion that I am quicker in these matters than the noble Lord is quite out of court.

Lord Underhill

I shall look carefully at what the Minister has said. It seems that the points made, the amendments he will move, and the one which he has already moved, may meet the point in mind. I did not say that only the Home Office should persuade constables to carry firearms. I referred to the Home Office or a police force. Therefore I recognise the Minister's point that we could not have delay. I am grateful to him for pointing out the two amendments. I shall look at them carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38: Page 29, line 12, leave out ("In so far as") and insert ("Where"). Page 29, line 15, leave out from first ("to") to second ("carry") in line 16 and insert ("inform the chief officer of police for the police area in which the searches are to be carried out or the other measures taken that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate that constables should be duly authorised to carry, and should").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that if Amendment No. 38 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 39 to 42.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 39 to 42 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 43: Page 29, line 21, at end insert: ("(7) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland for the words in subsection (4) above from "chief officer" to "measures taken" there are substituted the words "chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 28 agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Clause 29 [Enforcement notices]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 45. Page 32, leave out lines 5 to 15.

The noble Lord said: The officers' organisation NUMAST, with which I have been in contact regarding certain aspects of the Bill, regard this clause as the most objectionable clause in the legislation. It argues that the clause puts the master in the position of having to comply with directions which are actually intended for the owner, the charterer or the manager. Further, as a result of this subsection—which I wish to have deleted—the master must act on a copy of such enforcement notice of direction.

The list of what could be covered by the enforcement notices is pretty lengthy. However, I should like to quote the requirements therein. Clause 29(3) is in direct contradiction to Clause 45(8) and (9). It is unreasonable to place responsibility on a master, first, not to permit "persons" to come into proximity of the ship—that is Clause 21(l)(a); secondly, for requiring searches to be carried out—which is also covered by the same section; thirdly, for alterations to ship equipment and supply of additional equipment—Clause 21(2); fourthly, for guarding the ship—Clause 24(3)(a); fifthly, to use his best endeavours to ensure that constables carry firearms—Clause 25(4); and, sixthly, to take all steps which are practical and necessary to prevent "that thing being done"—Clause 21(6).

As the master does not have the authority or the resources to comply with all such matters covered by enforcement orders, it is unreasonable to expose him to offences and penalties under the three subsections of Clause 31. I should be most interested to hear the Government's reply on the matter in view of the strong feelings which NUMAST has as regards this clause. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

The proposed amendment to Clause 29 would effectively hamstring attempts to improve security. In many cases where a direction has not been complied with by a ship operator, the only effective way of getting the necessary work carried out is to place an obligation on the master. The master would have the right to object to the enforcement notice if he felt he could not, or should not, have to comply with it. Further, there is a reasonable excuse defence contained in Clause 31(1)—the offences clause—to assist in such cases where the master was unable to meet the terms of the enforcement notice.

In all Clause 29(3) cases, great care will be taken to ensure that the powers to place requirements on masters are taken sensibly and sensitively. The ship operator will already know from the direction previously given to him that work has been required by the Secretary of State and that the master is now being required to complete specified requirements within a certain time to redress the operator's failure to act. He will also know that failure to act could result in the detention of his ship. Practically, without Clause 29(3) to deal with these cases, we could end up achieving nothing. This could place masters under greater pressure from unresponsive operators. They could be instructed to act as front men and to do nothing while the operators hide, safe in the knowledge that they are inaccessible.

It is right that the Government would not expect a master to carry out works required initially as part of a direction given under Clause 24 where such work involved him in personal expenditure. The prospect of a prosecution or conviction in such cases is not desirable. Anyway it is unlikely to be successful. That is mainly because the reasonable excuse provision in Clause 31(1) offers protection to masters. It is difficult to see how it could be argued that masters should pay for work required under an enforcement notice when there was no power to require the work to be done by them in the original direction. It would be a different matter however if the master had delegated financial powers to spend company money on such work.

I hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord. For the reasons that I have given I hope that he will accept that we are not placing too onerous a burden on masters and that they too have to play their part in improving maritime security. That is the object of the Bill which we all hope will be achieved.

Lord Tordoff

Perhaps I may come back briefly on the subject. It seems to me that there is a delicate balance between, on the one hand, the unscrupulous owners hiding behind the master and, on the other hand, the master being made the fall guy. Could the Minister look again at the wording of the clause to see whether there is some way of spelling out the balance more carefully? I understand the point that he made about unscrupulous owners hiding behind the master. On the other hand, I also understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that it is wrong to load on to masters the onus of tidying up for unscrupulous owners. It is a difficult balance to achieve. Perhaps the Minister could look at it again.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I note what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said and I shall read carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said when he introduced the amendment. However, I have no reason to believe at the moment that the balance is not right.

I shall read carefully what has been said without commitment to bringing anything forward. There are many matters in this part of the Bill for which the master has no responsibility. He is not asked to do anything, for instance, in relation to Clauses 22, 23 and 24. The duties placed upon him are, in our view anyway, restricted to matters in which he has a real say. I shall look through this again and perhaps communicate in writing with both noble Lords before we come to the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Underhill

I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and for the assurance from the Minister to look carefully at the matter and write to us before the next stage. In the light of that, I am naturally happy to withdraw the amendment, I hope that the Minister's reply will be one that satisfies us.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 [Offences relating to enforcement notices]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 46: Page 33, line 12, after ("if) insert ("without reasonable excuse").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 32 to 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Inspection of ships and harbour areas]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 47: Page 36, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("whether") in line 10 and insert ("ascertain").

The noble Lord said: I am happy to move this amendment and to note that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has added his name in support of it. It may be helpful if I read the first few lines of Clause 36(l) to put before the Committee the words which I propose to delete by my amendment. Clause 36(1) states: For the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to determine whether to give a direction to any person under any of sections 21 to 24 of this Act, or of ascertaining whether".

Amendment No. 47 would make Clause 36(1) state: For the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to ascertain whether any such direction or any enforcement notice".

The Committee will see the difference in emphasis that would result if my amendment were carried.

Much of the preceding legislation that we have discussed is concerned with enabling powers. This clause enables "an authorised person" with wide powers to gather information, and for the Secretary of State, to determine whether to give a direction to any person under any of sections 21 to 24 of this Act".

Powers are granted to an unidentified set of people who, before any directions are issued and, on production (if required) of … credentials",

may carry out the procedures that are mentioned in the Bill. I wish to read out those procedures as they show the importance of my amendment. Clause 36(1) states that the authorised person may inspect, (a) any British ship, (b) any other ship while in a harbour area, (c) any part of any harbour area, or (d) any land outside a harbour area which is occupied for the purposes of a business by a person who—… (ii) is permitted … to have access to a restricted zone of a harbour area for the purposes of the activities of that business".

Clause 36(2)(a) states that a person may test in an unspecified way property found on the ship or in the harbour area. He may also interrogate persons and detain vessels. Finally, he may, enter any building or works in the harbour area".

In certain circumstances, such a person may enter any such premises anywhere in the country.

Those provisions appear to confer wider powers than those that are generally held by the police. Those powers are granted to an as yet unidentified set of authorised persons. The Committee will appreciate that this is an important amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on it. I hope that he may consider accepting the amendment as it has the full support of the General Council of British Shipping. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I listened with care to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he moved the amendment. However, I am concerned that in intending to protect maritime operators from the supposed unwarranted attention of inspectors, the amendment in effect exposes the industry to the worst of all positions in the struggle against terrorism; namely, being unprepared. If we are to protect the industry effectively, powers must be available to see what type of action is required. That includes determining whether to give directions. The people carrying out inspections will be trained Department of Transport staff. They are the authorised persons referred to in the Bill and have specialist knowledge of security matters and have worked with the industry in this area already. They will, in line with the general approach to be taken on security matters, seek to work with the industry in close co-operation and consultation. The disputed powers in Clause 36(1) will, it is hoped, only be used where all other attempts to obtain accurate information have proved fruitless. Nonetheless, such contingency powers are very necessary as the Secretary of State may require his staff to visit certain operations and sites to see at first hand what types of directions need to be made both on a general basis and specifically for individual operators.

Acceptance of the amendment could work against the interests of the industry. Without the inspection powers to ascertain whether directions are necessary, the Secretary of State may be forced into a position of issuing directions which are not needed simply to ensure that no lapses in security provision occur through ignorance of the facts. That would be far more cumbersome and undesirable for all concerned than inspections to see whether directions were required in the first place.

The amendment produces a negative approach to security which, compared with the positive approach in the Bill, could cause the industry more inconvenience than less involvement.

Furthermore, the practice proposed in the Bill works perfectly well in the aviation industry, which does not look upon it as an intrusion. It has worked in that industry since the introduction of the 1982 Act. I am not aware of any complaints having been received on the matter. I certainly did not receive any during the two years in which I was responsible for the matter. I am sure that it is both right and proper to estabish a similar system on the maritime side.

I hope that with the explanation I have given, and particularly on the possible disadvantage to the industry which I have outlined, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will think again about the amendment.

Lord Underhill

I shall certainly consult those who have advised me on the amendment in the light of the Minister's remarks. I repeat that what I said at the outset represents the view of the General Council of British Shipping. There is a difference in emphasis as to whether the Secretary of State shall determine whether to give a direction to any person, or whether he should ascertain whether such direction has been given or complied with. However, I shall consider very carefully what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 48: Page 36 line 32, after ("tests") insert: ("(aa) to take such steps—

1. (i) to ascertain what practices or procedures are being followed in relation to security, or
2. (ii) to test the effectiveness of any practice or Procedure relating to security,").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in conjunction with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 [False statements relating to baggage, cargo etc.]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 49: Page 37, line 18, after ("if") insert ("in documentation or").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 49, it may be helpful to the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 50. Clause 37 establishes an offence if a person makes a false statement "in answer to a question". Shipowners rely to a very large extent with regard to "baggage, cargo or stores" on information, statements and declarations provided on documents or forms. The provision of false information on documents should also be an offence. That is the purpose of the amendment. Clause 3 7 would thus begin:

Subject to subsection (3) below, a person commits an offence if, in documentation or in answer to a question".

The second amendment is consequential upon the first one being accepted. It seems to me that this amendment is fully in line with the views expressed generally in the Bill with regard to security and is one which the Minister might find it possible to accept. I beg to move.

10 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I have examined this proposal closely as I understand the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has shown in the amendment. We are concerned with the security aspects here. However, Clause 37 has a specific purpose to deal with putting questions about cargo and so or and full statements, either oral or written, being given in reply. The clause is not designed to cover all types of documentation and errors made intentionally or recklessly. The direction-making powers elsewhere in the Bill should be adequate to ensure that cargo carriers and collectors carry out procedures to implement effective security practices. However, if those are not sufficient, powers are available in Clause 41 to introduce regulations to cover the activities of sea cargo agencies. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will feel that his points have been covered.

Lord Underhill

In the light of what the Minister has said—I shall have to look carefully at the other clauses to which he referred—perhaps I may ask him whether there is any reason why those simple words could not be accepted. Surely they would carry out what the Minister wishes in line with the general tenor of the Bill.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I believe that I have given the reason why we do not think the amendment would add to the Bill. I shall have another look at it and perhaps give the noble Lord a more detailed reply than I have been able to do this evening. I think that my answer will in the end be the same, but I shall certainly come back to the noble Lord on the amendment.

Lord Underhill

I am obliged to the Minister. In the light of his comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 53: Page 37, line 25, leave out ("or"). Page 37, line 27, at end insert ("or (iii) by a constable,"). Page 37, line 40, leave out ("course of his duty") and insert ("exercise of the power conferred by section 36(2)(aa) of this Act").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 with Amendment No. 6 and to Amendment No. 53 with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 [False statements in connection with identity documents]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 54 to 59: Page 38, line 6, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below"). Page 38, line 12, leave out ("or"). Page 38, line 13, after ("person") insert ("or to a constable"). Page 38, line 15, leave out first ("or"). Page 38, line 15, after ("agent") insert ("or to a constable"). Page 38, line 27, at end insert: ("3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to any statement made by an authorised person in the exercise of the power conferred by section 36(2Xaa) of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments earlier. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 43 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 [Service of documents]:

[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 53 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Repeals]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 61: Page 62, line 23, column 3, leave out from beginning to ("(5)") in line 26.

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 62: Page 49, line 12, after ("repeals") insert ("in the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975,").

The noble Lord said: This is not a great amendment on which to conclude the evening, but Clause 54 postpones the commencement for two months after Royal Assent of a number of provisions, including Schedule 3. Paragraph 3 of that schedule amends Section 2(1)(a) of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975. Consequently, the corresponding repeal in Schedule 4 needs to be postponed for the same period. The amendment will achieve that; I beg to move.

Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.