HL Deb 17 May 1990 vol 519 cc452-66

6.47 p.m.

Report received.

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

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 4, line 10, at end insert: ("(5) Any person served with a direction under this section shall be required to inform the Secretary of State which aerodromes he has access to within 7 days of access being granted. (6) The Secretary of State shall provide the manager of any aerodrome to which any person served with a direction under this section has access with a copy of that direction.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to refine an amendment debated at Committee stage. The earlier amendment simply required the Secretary of State to provide the airport manager with a copy of any direction served under Clause 2 on any person occupying part of an aerodrome. A key aim of that amendment was to highlight the important role played by airport managers in co-ordinating security at airports.

In responding to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, acknowledged the important role of the airport manager and confirmed that the Department of Transport, will ensure that he is generally informed about directions given under the new clause". — [Official Report. 30/4/90; col. 858.]

However, the Minister went on to argue that there were two objections to imposing a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to copy the direction to an airport manager. First, the noble Lord said at col. 858: it may not always be appropriate to reveal the content of a security direction to a third party".

No one will argue that directions should be copied to any third party. It is difficult to understand in what circumstances it would not be appropriate to copy a direction to a person who, in the words of the noble Lord at col. 857, needs to he aware of any security requirements laid upon airport users as they affect the overall security of operations at the airport".

The noble Lord continued at cols. 857 and 858: He has a co-ordinating function and chairs the airport security committee".

The noble Lord's second objection was that the Secretary of State may not know to which airport someone served with a direction has access. He said: 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".—[Official Report. 30/4/90; col. 858.]

What the noble Lord appeared to be saying was that the Secretary of State is not prepared to undertake to inform an airport manager as a matter of course that someone occupying land at his airport has been served with a direction; but that if the manager happens to discover that someone at his airport has beer served with a direction he should tell the department in case the Secretary of State does not know.

Given the importance of airport security, which I am sun; we all readily accept, it is clearly unacceptable that the Secretary of State should not require a person on whom a direction under this clause has been served to inform him about which airports he has access to. It is equally unacceptable that airports managers on whom the Secretary of State is happy to rely for information cannot be trusted with copies of directions served.

Under the proposed subesecton (6) the amendment repeats the requirement on the Secretary of State which was proposed in the Committee stage amendment. It overcomes the noble Lord's second objection by requiring the recipient of a direction to ensure that the Secretary of State knows the airports to which he has access. Therefore, in those respects, the amendment meets the noble Lord's requirements. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved an amendment in terms similar to the proposed new subsection (6). The proposed new subsection (5), I believe, seeks to address a point to which I referred when replying to the noble Lord's amendments. I said that the Secretary of State will not necessarily know whether a person issued with a direct on because of access to one airport was subsequently allowed access to another.

Once the Bill becomes law the Secretary of State will probably want to issue notices under Section 11 of the 1982 Act to all aerodrome managers asking them to provide details of all persons occupying the land forming part of an aerodrome and of all persons having access to the restricted zone of an aerodrome for business purposes. This will provide the Secretary of State with a comprehensive list of those to whom directions under Clause 2 could be issued. As well as providing an initial list, aerodrome managers will be required to update that information regularly. Therefore, I do not see the need for the proposed new subsection (5) imposing that obligation on a person who has already received a direction. It would seem to be a rather circular process. We believe it would be better for this information to be collected by the aerodrome manager, who has, as the noble Lord said, overall responsibility for the co-ordination of security at his airport and sent to the Secretary of State than to rely on individuals sending in their various returns.

As I said earlier, the proposed new subsection (6) is in substance the same as Amendment No. 2 which the noble Lord moved in Committee. I have little to add to what I said then. However, I should like to expand on one point which seemed to cause the noble Lord some concern. I said that it may not always be appropriate to reveal the content of a security direction to a third party and that a statutory obligation to do so would be unacceptable. An example of what I had in mind was a direction requiring a person having access to the restricted zone of an aerodrome for business purposes to have searches carried out of his business premises off the aerodrome. The aerodrome manager really has no need to know what types of searches are to be carried out at those premises. Nevertheless, I can assure your Lordships that aerodrome managers will generally be informed about directions given under this clause.

With that rather fuller explanation than I gave in Committee, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. His explanation went a little further than the points he made in Committee. He referred to a copy of information being sent to the airport manager, which was the most important point we made in Committee. In view of those new assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 2: After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

("Financial implications of security operations at airports

The Secretary of State shall each year submit to both Houses of Parliament a report on the fiancial implications for airports of aviation security measures.

The report required under this section shall have particular regard to—

  1. (a) the financial implications of any new security requirements introduced in the previous 12 months;
  2. (b) the necessity for capital expenditure on security measures at Public Airport Companies established under the provisions of the Airports Act 1986;
  3. (c) the implications of the cost of security measures for the Secretary of State's other aviation policy objectives;
    4. 455
  4. (d) the use by the Secretary of State of his powers under section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is designed to pursue further the issue raised by a proposed new clause which was debated in Committee. It required the Secretary of State to have regard to the financial implications of security measures at smaller airports when considering the use of his powers under Section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982. In response to the new clause the noble Lord confirmed the Government's current view that grants should not be made to airports under the provisions of the 1982 Act to reimburse security costs. Secondly, he accepted that security measures cost more per passenger at smaller airports but said that because the total cost per passenger was relatively small no action needed to be taken to redress the balance between larger and smaller airports.

The purpose of the new clause is to require the Secretary of State to keep these matters under review and to keep Parliament informed of the latest position. That is important because future security measures, particularly the planned requirement for all hold baggage to be screened, could have major implications for smaller airports. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, will understand what I mean by smaller airports.

It is essential that the Government's current view that Section 32 of the 1982 Act should not be used is regularly reviewed in the light of, for example, the implications of future security requirements and of the Government's commitment to the expansion of regional airports. The new clause specifically refers to capital expenditure at local authority owned airport companies. This is important because the ability of those companies to borrow in order to undertake expenditure is directly controlled by central government through the new local authority capital control system. Unless sufficient capital cover is provided to shareholding authorities to meet the costs of security measures, either the Government's security objectives or the provision of other new facilities at local authority airports could be prejudiced.

I should like the Government to accept the principle of the amendment. However, should the noble Lord consider that it is not worded as he would wish, it would be pleasing to me, and I am certain to those on whom I rely for information, if the bodies representing airports, particularly the joint airports committee of local authorities, could be consulted. That would meet the objectives of this new clause. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the proposed new clause seems to be concerned with the same issues as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in Committee. It implies that the Secretary of State should be informed about the cost of security measures and should take them into account before making directions. In particular, this amendment seems to be suggesting that the Government should pay special regard to the special problems of small airports regarding the cost of implementing aviation security measures and that the Government should reimburse the cost of aviation security measures out of taxpayers' money.

Security must not be limited by cost, and that has been the Government's position for many years. But as security measures become more extensive and as equipment such as TNA enters the field, the Government cannot show themselves indifferent to the cost implications of the measures they impose on airports and on airlines, which are not mentioned in the amendment.

To enable the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on the financial implications of aviation security measures each airport covered by the national aviation security programme would have to calculate the actual cost of implementing aviation security measures and make a return to the Secretary of State. That would impose an additional administrative burden both on the airports and on the Department of Transport in providing and marshalling the information required for this report.

I must repeat what I have said before during your Lordships' consideration of this Bill: the Government take the line that they should not provide financial assistance for aviation security measures. It is the industry and the passenger who should pay. As I said earlier, the cost of security forms only a small percentage of the cost of a ticket. Requiring the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on the financial implications of aviation security measures would in no way help to reduce any financial burdens faced by airports in implementing these measures.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was concerned that capital approval should be given to cover capital costs of installing this type of equipment at local authority airports. I can assure him that the capital cost of security measures will be taken into account when considering capital approvals for local authority airports. I can also assure him that there will be consultation with the aerodrome owners. As he will be aware, they are represented on the National Aviation Security Committee. I am sure that such matters will be raised in that forum. I hope that with that explanation I have gone at least part of the way towards reassuring the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

7 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the Minister said that he hopes his explanation has gone part of the way to reassuring me. However, "part" can be a very small part. He referred to the fact that there should be no charge on the taxpayer for security measures taken at airports. But there is nothing in the amendment which suggests that that is what we seek. If the Government have no desire under any circumstances to make grants for security, why have they left Section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 in force?

The provisions of that section enable the Government to make grants if they should so desire. All this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that the Government, who have the fullest information, present such information to Parliament. Thereafter, the Government in their own wisdom could ensure, as paragraph (d) says, The use by the Secretary of State of his powers under Section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982". I believe that the Minister misread the amendment when he said that we wish to transfer these charges to the taxpayer when they should be borne by the industry. We wish to ensure that in the event of any airports, especially local authority airports, not being able to carry out security measures in full the powers under Section 32 will be enforced by the Government. That is the purpose of the amendment. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 [Air cargo agents]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 12 line 30, leave out ("by them") and insert ("(whether by them or any other person)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8. These amendments provide a revised definition of cargo agents to cover those instances where cargo agents do not themselves deliver cargo to an aircraft or ship but use a third party, such as a haulage contractor, to make the delivery. Without these amendments cargo agents would be able to escape from the effect of security directions simply by using a haulage contractor to deliver the cargo. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that no new points of principle are being introduced. A defective definition is being revised. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 22, line 7, at end insert: ("() A notice under this section shall be served on a master only in the event of its being impossible to locate the operator of the ship").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I proposed an amendment which sought to exclude masters from the persons from whom the Secretary of State would have authority to obtain information to enable him to exercise his functions under the Bill. I argued that this responsibility was that of the owner, the charterer or the manager. I recounted exchange s which took place in Committee in another place between Ms. Joan Ruddock MP and the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin. I have no intention of repeating those exchanges tonight. However, I am certain that noble Lords will keep them in mind because they were most important.

In replying to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said: The main intention is that such powers would be used only where it proved impossible to locate the operators of ships, usually foreign registered". — [Official Report, 30/4/90; col. 869.]

He went on to reaffirm the assurances given in another place and added that subsection (5) provided for a reasonable excuse defence. In reply, I stated that although those assurances were valuable it must always be kept in mind that Secretaries of State change, as do departmental officials. I continued by saying that, as the Minister was convinced that such assurances were useful and valuable, they should therefore be written into the Bill. I stressed that I hoped the Minister would put forward a government amendment to that effect on Report. That has not been done.

The amendment which I now move seeks to write into the Bill the most important of the assurances; namely, that a notice shall be served on a master only where it is found to be impossible to locate the operator of a ship. This would clarify an important issue and avoid the need for any legal action necessitating a reasonable excuse defence. We wish to avoid the master having the necessity to defend the position in court. If such an assurance is written into the Bill, no need for legal action would arise. I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Murray of Epping Forest

My Lords, I rise to express briefly my support for the amendment. The provisions of the Bill are very welcome, not least because of the additional protection they bring to masters and to crews. However, this provision and others in the Bill are further instances of additional obligations laid on shipmasters who are almost engulfed by a torrent of new legislation.

Shipmasters have always been subject to criminal law. As a trustee of the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, I know by talking to members that they are the most law-abiding of people. However, they feel entangled by a complex web of primary and secondary legislation. In this case, while on the face of it the provision in the Bill is innocuous, as it appears to require simply the provision of information, the fact remains that this is a new liability which should not properly lie on masters. The responsibility for providing information should lie on the owner or the operator. My noble friend Lord Underhill has most adequately made that point. I share with him the hope that this provision can be written into the Bill so that on the face of the legislation it is clear just where the responsibility lies.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I listened carefully to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the supporting remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Murray. However, I must say that this and previous similar amendments have sought to exclude or reduce the effects the clause has on one particular group, notably, the masters. I can see no reason for this preferential treatment. My colleagues and I have already given assurances that we will not single out masters for undue attention simply because of their accessibility. However, that does not mean they can have such safeguards cast in stone when the effect would be so to limit the Secretary of State's powers that he would be unable to exercise security provisions appropriately when he needed to.

I have two specific objections to this amendment. First, what is "impossible"? That is in itself impossible to prove. Is anything ever impossible? Where the Secretary of State considers it impossible to locate the operator within a reasonable time he would be liable to be challenged on any notice he served on the master. An argument could always be made out that not enough had been done to locate the operator. That will be especially true in the case of some foreign ships where the operators, registration authorities, and masters may be contriving to keep the Secretary of State in ignorance of the details he needs or at best conspiring severely to delay the production of them. In effect damage could be done by the long delay.

Secondly, it may be that the master is the only person on whom a notice could be served to obtain details of who the operator is. It is often the case that the master is the only person who really knows to whom the ship belongs or is chartered at that particular moment. This is particularly relevant in the case of foreign ships. With this amendment in place how would it be possible simply to ask the master who is the operator and where is he located? Indeed, such a simple notice might preclude the need to involve the master any further. I sincerely hope it is not the intention of the noble, Lord Underbill, to put masters to unnecessary trouble under other provisions when it could so easily be avoided by the production of one piece of information.

I have gone into this point at length so that I can illustrate how attempts to put assurances into the body of the Bill can be self-defeating when they unduly restrict the discretion of the Secretary of State to deal with each individual problem as it arises. We must recognise that the very nature of security matters does not lend itself to standardised answers and we cannot, therefore, on such a basic aspect as the acquisition of information, place restrictions on the Secretary of State as to how he must discharge his duties. That would be the effect of the amendment and, in the light of the assurances already made, and those I have given today I strongly urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am grateful for the support given to the amendment by my noble friend Lord Murray, who I hope noble Lords will have noted is a trustee of the officers' union and is therefore well versed in the detail of the amendment and has far more information and knowledge about it than I have. I cannot believe that it is beyond the powers of the draftsmen, or officials in the department, to define what is meant by "impossible to locate". We are not trying to dodge the master's responsibility; we are saying that he will have the notice served on him only if it is impossible to locate the operator of the ship.

The Minister has put forward various arguments to show how it might be impossible to find out who the operator is. It seems apparent to me that if it is impossible to locate the operator of the ship, then of course the notice will be served on the master in accordance with the amendment.

The Minister did not deal with the point I made that we want to avoid the possibility of legal action which calls into being the "reasonable excuse" defence. Surely the "reasonable excuse" defence should be put into the Bill by accepting the amendment.

There is no desire to avoid the master's responsibilities. Equally, there is no desire to place on masters further responsibilities, as my noble friend Lord Murray explained. One can have all the assurances under the sun. The Minister is no longer Minister of Shipping. I believe his assurances as to how he would carry out the terms of the Bill. I have no doubt that the officials of the department would faithfully carry out the assurances given. We may be looking at five, six, seven years hence. In the event of a "reasonable excuse" defence arising, a court will look at what is written into the Bill. That was the purpose of the amendment. Again, I shall look carefully at what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

7.15 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 24, line 6, at end insert: ("() A direction under this section shall be given to a master only on those matters on which he is competent and responsible to take action and shall not apply to any modifications or alterations referred to in subsection (2) above and which would require a decision by the master on the involvement of capital expenditure.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 21 empowers the Secretary of State to give directions restricting persons and property being taken on board ships or being in the proximity of ships unless searches are carried out as specified. The Bill provides that the master is included, with the owner, charterer or manager, as a person to whom the Secretary of State may give such direction.

An amendment that I moved in Committee sought to exclude the reference to the master. At that time I quoted the Minister of Shipping, Mr. Michael McLoughlin, who said: We shall extend the possibility of giving directions to the masters only to matters on which they are competent and responsible to act" — [Official Report. Commons, 5/3/90; col. 597.]

In Committee I asked why the Minister's statement could not be written into the Bill. The Minister said: We shall be giving directions and enforcement notices to masters only for those matters on which they are competent and responsible to act".

He added: There is no liability placed on them to take decisions which involve capital expenditure".

He further added: The master will not be singled out" — [Official Report. 30/4/90; col. 871.]

for difficult treatment.

In response to those statements I said that those assurances were important and welcome but should be written into the Bill. Close reading of the amendment shows it contains merely the assurances which were given in the other place and in Committee. Those assurance should be written into the Bill for the reason I gave when speaking to the previous amendment. Ministers and officials change, but the Bill remains for the courts to determine. I beg to move.

Lord Murray of Epping Forest

My Lords, Clause 21 appears to be framed in a way which suggests that a master has complete control of a ship. We may mislead ourselves by using the word "master" in the sense that the individual concerned is omnipotent. The general duties regulations make it clear that the master is an employee and that his powers are circumscribed. If the provision were enacted, the master might find himself caught between the millstones of the law and those of his employer. Like my noble friend Lord Underhill, I suggest that we should accept the reality of the master's position and limit his obligations to matters where he genuinely has competence.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment. Perhaps the Minister can cast his mind back to when he was Minister of Shipping and tell the House whether there is not a parallel here with the searching of ships under port state control and how the master stands there vis a vis safety matters where the ship can be detained. Is there not a parallel to be drawn with this matter?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, wanted the assurances I had given him written into the Bill; and I note that the amendment before us also attempts to limit the Secretary of State's scope of action by casting those assurances in a legal framework. I have considered his points carefully once more but I feel unable to go any further than to reiterate the ample assurances already given. In my opinion it is totally wrong to frame security legislation in such detail that it fails to recognise the need for flexibility to cater for the situations —some of which we cannot anticipate—upon which the Secretary of State may need to act.

I shall not repeat in full the arguments I used in Committee for the inclusion of masters among the groups of persons who are liable to be given a direction. Briefly, they would be given directions only where it is absolutely essential, where they have the ability to carry out the requirements placed on them and where it would not be sensible to give the directions to anyone else. Where masters are unable to comply with a direction and for some reason a prosecution was pursued, the master would always have available to him in the penalty clause a reasonable excuse defence. The noble Lord has referred to that. I think it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to determine in advance what any particular individual master is competent or responsible for. If there is any dispute as to his liability to meet the terms of a direction and a prosecution ensues, it is really for a court to decide whether his excuse is reasonable or not.

The issuing of directions under Clause 21 should be a rarity and should only occur where there is no alternative. These occurrences are only likely to be where there is a serious immediate problem or threat where a ship must be prevented from sailing if it has not been searched; or where people or property must not be taken on board or brought into proximity of the ship unless they have been searched; or where only the master knows who the ship's operator is (and where he is located) and, because of the master's powers and responsibilities, he is the only one who can effectively ensure that the ship is kept in port until security measures are adopted.

On a technical point, I think there has been a misunderstanding of the operation of subsection (2). The Secretary of State cannot require masters, or indeed anyone, to carry out works on a ship. The power he has in Clause 21 (2) is to require the ship operator or master not to permit or cause the ship to go to sea. However, that prohibition power is conditional on certain specified works being carried out. If they are carried out, the prohibition is automatically lifted. Furthermore, no offence is actually committed if those works are not carried out and the ship remains in port. The offence occurs only when the ship goes to sea without those works having been carried out. The decision as to whether to go to sea is of course well within the master's responsibility and does not involve decisions on capital expenditure. Therefore, a direction to a master under Clause 21 (2) would not be placing unfair responsibilities on masters.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, asked whether there was a parallel with the port state control arrangements. There is indeed a parallel between this Bill and ordinary safety law. It is the practice for the law to make the master responsible for matters over which he has control —in other words, not to go to sea unless defects are rectified —but not to compel him to be responsible for rectifying the defects.

I would emphasise that, wherever there are problems and masters feel that the directions or notices placed on them are too onerous and better placed on other persons, the Secretary of State will always be willing to hear their views. If appropriate, he can alter or withdraw those directions or notices and if necessary place new ones on those more suited to receive them. We hope to be working with all elements of the industry, all of whom we see as allies, and we wish to use the powers for positive purposes. Nothing is to be gained from alienating anyone showing willingness to assist the fight against terrorism and we shall naturally avoid that at all costs.

For all those reasons and particularly with the explanation I have given on the subsection, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the Minister said that my amendment would remove the opportunity for flexibility. He also said that it was difficult to determine these matters in advance. If that is the case, how can the assurances which he has given apply? My Amendment No. 5 states that we should give directions and enforcement notices to a master only for those matters on which he is competent and responsible to take action". Therefore a decision must be taken on behalf of the Secretary of State that a master is not competent to act on a certain matter. I am asking for that to be stated in the Bill. There is no argument between the Minister and myself on the difficulty of determining these matters in advance. I hope I am being reasonable in the case I am putting forward.

My amendment also states that no direction will be given which would require a decision, by a master on the involvement of capital expenditure". That is a matter which the Minister referred to when discussing the amendment in Committee. Why cannot that provision be accepted? It seems that there is nothing in the amendment which avoids the position which the Minister advanced. I know we are on Report, but I hope that, with the leave of the House, the Minister can explain a point that he mentioned. He said that if a master disagreed with what was being done he would have the opportunity to put his view to the Secretary of State. Will the Minister say how that process would work and how it would avoid holding up matters? I cannot see anything in the Bill which would allow such a thing to occur. That may be a desirable objective, but I hope the Minister can explain exactly how it would work.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that the Secretary of State is an omnipotent person in these cases. However, what we are talking about are the representatives of the Secretary of State or the inspectors on the ground or at the ports. Those are the people to whom a master would be able to make his representations. I can only assure the noble Lord that those representatives will always be willing to listen to a master's views. We do not wish to antagonise masters. We want to do what we think is best for maritime security. Obviously we want to work with the masters rather than against them.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, if decisions have to be taken before a direction is given to a master, do those decisions come within the competence or the responsibility of the master? That is all we are asking. If that is going to hold up matters, the assurances that we have been given will hold up matters. I shall have to give careful thought to what the Minister has said because I believe that logic is on the side of the amendment and not on the side of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 25, line 15, after ("or") insert ("subject to subsection (3A) below").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 7. During the course of our discussions we have examined a number of points about the scope of security measures the Secretary of State can require. A large proportion of the maritime measures have been based upon the existing and well tried aviation provisions. I am the first to recognise that there cannot be a total parallel between the two and where specific differences occur we should make amendments to cover them.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised a very important point about the rights of private householders who happen to live within harbour areas. Although they may be in areas requiring stricter security measures, we should not diminish their rights, and I wish to amend the Bill to ensure a fair balance is maintained.

Regretfully the amendments before us do not fully meet the points which I feel need to be covered and I hope your Lordships would be prepared to agree to them on the understanding that I shall propose further amendments to strengthen safeguards for private householders.

I intend to produce an amendment on Third Reading which will include additional safeguards that the constables referred to in subsection (3A) are constables subject to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provisions and are from constabularies covered by a formal agreement made with the Police Complaints Authority. Furthermore, as the current wording of subsection (3) would allow constables to execute such searches without a warrant, I feel the proposed new subsection should be changed. Searches of private dwellings should, I believe, only be carried out by constables who have a warrant to do so. This will ensure that the Bill complies with standard, broadly-accepted practice on searching private dwellings.

I trust we are all agreed that these are very important changes which must be incorporated. I hope therefore that we can agree in principle to these amendments in the knowledge that they will be further strengthened. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments and for explaining their slight deficiencies. I think they deal specifically with the point that I was seeking to bring before your Lordships in so far as there is the problem of people other than constables not being susceptible to investigation by the Police Complaints Authority in the event of some unfortunate incident taking place during a search. I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning that point.

That brings me to a slight difficulty. The noble Lord intends to bring forward further amendments at Third Reading. I hope that the House will not object to my saying at this stage that I regret that I cannot be here for Third Reading, which has been set down for next Thursday. I have to attend an interesting and enjoyable occasion at the mayor-making in Harrogate. I hope that the House will accept my apologies for not being present. I thank the noble Lord in advance for bringing forward the additional amendments.

While I am on my feet, I hope that noble Lords will not think it an abuse if I refer back to a matter which the noble Lord was good enough to deal with at the Committee stage in relation to Clause 25. In thanking the noble Lord then for accepting the changes made at that stage, I suggested that we were not totally satisfied. Having reread the Official Report I find that I was less than generous in my thanks. Perhaps I may say that my honourable friend the Member for Southport is very pleased with what has happened.

Furthermore—and this is the reason for my wanting to include the matter on the official record—I have received a letter from the General Council of British Shipping. The council believes that the Government now have the matter just right. It will be well content to leave the matter there and has asked me to express its thanks to the Minister for those changes.

Having made a Committee stage point, a Report point and a Third Reading speech, I hope that the noble Lord will accept my thanks for the amendments.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am also grateful to the Minister for indicating that he will bring forward a further amendment at Third Reading. I had intended to raise a point concerning the reference in Amendment No. 7 to a "constable". In Clause 46 "constable" is defined: 'constable' includes any person having the powers and privileges of a constable". I wanted to ask the Minister to explain exactly what that means, bearing in mind the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his amendments at Committee stage. I thought that the noble Lord might have amplified those tonight, but he has put down no amendments. Can the Minister explain tonight exactly what is meant by a "constable", or should the matter be left until his amendment is brought forward?

I too was asked by the General Council of British Shipping to express thanks to the Minister and the other place for the changes that have been made to the Bill. I should also like to thank the Minister for the very detailed letter which he wrote to me concerning the amendments that I had submitted to Clause 29. That is why there are no amendments in my name to Clause 29.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments because I also raised the point at Second Reading. If I heard the Minister correctly, he referred to private dwellings within a port area. If my reading of the Bill is correct, the search by constables or others could extend to the private dwellings outside the port area of people who work in the port area such as freight forwarders or hauliers. I presume that what he proposes will apply to private dwellings wherever they happen to be.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, with the leave of the House, that will apply to private dwellings. They will only be allowed to be searched by a constable. The explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, sought is that constables who are members of port police authorities are not necessarily subject to the Police Complaints Authority. That is the point that I want to put right at Third Reading. It should also be necessary for them to have a warrant. That is not covered either in the amendment. I hope to do better next time.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 25, line 29, at end insert: ("(3A) Nothing in subsection (3) above shall authorise any person other than a constable to search or enter any premises used only as a private dwelling").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 41 [Sea cargo agents]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 40, line 21, leave out ("by them") and insert ("(whether by them or any other person)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 8 with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.