HL Deb 24 May 1990 vol 519 cc1059-65

1.10 p.m.

Read a third time.

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

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara) moved Amendment No. 1: Page 25, line 15, leave out from ("then") to ("any") in line 16 and insert ("subject to subsections (4) and (4A) below, if a constable or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Noble Lords will recall that on Report I gave an undertaking to enhance the contents of Clause 22(4) to strengthen the rights of private householders in harbour areas in circumstances where a search of their homes was necessary. I believe that there was total agreement on that fundamental point and that the previous wording was accepted only on the understanding that it would be amended along the lines that I now propose.

The amendments present two safeguards for householders who, often by accident of geography and history, find themselves living within harbour areas. First, only constables with a warrant will be able to carry out searches of private residences under the Bill's powers. That brings the Bill's provisions in line with general practice. As a consequence of requiring constables to have a warrant it is necessary to enable them to obtain warrants. The amendment provides for that.

Secondly, only certain constables will be able to carry out such searches. The amendment that we agreed on Report limited the right to search private dwellings to constables, thereby excluding security guards. The proposal now before the House limits that right still further.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked exactly how "constable" would be defined for the purposes of this subsection. It is a very important point as under Clause 46 "constable" has a very wide definition which includes all types of constables such as British Transport Police and ports police. The amendment includes constables in a body maintained by a police authority and constables in certain other police forces. A police authority, I should explain, means an authority for a police force maintained under the Police Act 1964 or, in Scotland, the Police (Scotland) Act 1976.

The amendment also makes it specifically clear that in respect of private police forces it is only those constables from constabularies which have entered into agreements with the Police Complaints Authority who are able to carry out searches of private residences. These agreements are entered under Section 96 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act l984 and in effect draw the participating forces into the codes of practice employed under PACE. As far as I am aware only two of the relevant private police forces have entered into Section 96 agreements: these are the British Transport Police and the Port of London Police. However, two more port police forces are considering doing so.This does not, however, imply that private residences exist in the harbour areas for which they are responsible.

1 should like to take this opportunity to elaborate on an answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, about applying this change to searches of private residences outside harbour areas. Although it is true that such searches, if required, would be by constables with a warrant I should explain that searches of private dwellings outside harbour areas would be under other provisions as they are not possible under the terms of this Bill. Under Clause 23 there is a power to require persons who have access to a restricted zone of a harbour for the purposes of a business carried on by him to arrange searches of any land he occupies outside the harbour area. However, under subsection (2)(b)(i), those searches can only be of land occupied for the purposes of his business and not of private residences.

Finally, despite the profound changes that we have made to Clause 22, I stress that it was never the Government's intention to use the powers in the Bill to require private residences to be searched by security guards. Indeed, careful consideration would have been given to the need for any private residences to be searched at all and where that proved necessary the Secretary of State would have required it to be carried out by constables. However, as that proviso would always have been implemented, it seems to me both sensible and prudent to formalise this particular matter with these amendments to the Bill. I beg to move.

1.15 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am certain that noble Lords who took part in discussions on the Bill will be grateful to the Minister for carrying out his promise to look into the matter and for bringing forward amendments which will achieve unanimous agreement.

I recall that during our discussions on the port developments at Harwich reference was made to security guards becoming special constables under certain circumstances. In such cases would they be covered by the amendment and included in the definition of a constable? That may be an important question in view of some of the points raised in another place about defence.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, Harwich does not have a ports police force and, therefore, those constables would not be allowed to search private residences. In any event, they would not be allowed to do so unless they put themselves under the relevant section of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If they formed themselves into a police force such as the British Transport Police or the Port of London Police they could be covered by the provision but at present that is extremely unlikely.

Lord Bethell

My Lords, I join with noble Lords in welcoming the amendment. It is thoroughly to be applauded from two points of view. The first is from that of civil liberties. It is wrong that someone who inhabits a private dwelling should be subject to search without a warrant. That is particularly so because Clause 22 makes it clear that force may be used in carrying out a search. Secondly, it is right that the normal rules which bind the police in such matters should be applicable to any search made of a private dwelling wherever that may be.

In declaring my interest as a parliamentary representative of the Police Federation, I welcome the gesture which the amendment makes towards the proper work of police constables in England and Wales. I approve of the provision contained in the amendment whereby only constables should be authorised to carry out certain duties.

I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I press him a little on an answer that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Perhaps I did not hear him correctly but he appeared to be leaving the door open to the idea that ports police sworn in as special constables by a magistrate, as is possible in certain ports under outdated legislation (dating from 1850 in the case of Harwich), could be entitled to carry out searches under the provisions of the amendment. I believe that my noble friend said that it is unlikely, but can he go a little further and say that it will be impossible for special constables to carry out such searches under the amendment?

My understanding of the amendment is that only regular police constables will be able to carry out these searches, armed with a warrant and subject to normal police procedure. No other police officers, special constables or others will be entitled to do so. I am sorry to press my noble friend on the issue but it is important. As a result of events at Harwich it has exercised the Police Federation over the past few years. I should be grateful if he would clarify that small but important point. I welcome the amendment and see it as a significant improvement.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Bethell. I had not realised that he wished to make a point on this amendment.

Nothing in the Bill will give to police forces any additional powers. The Harwich special constables will not be able to carry out those searches. I was trying to imply to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that if the Harwich authority formed a special police force in the same way as the Port of London is doing and followed the procedures of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, perhaps it would be allowed to carry out those searches. However, those would be the only circumstances in which that would be permitted.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 2: Page 25, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("premises") in line 31 and insert ("In the case of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 3: Page 25, line 32, at end insert ("any power to search or enter conferred by subsection (3) above may not be exercised except— (a) under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace; and (b) by a constable who is a member of a body of constables maintained— (i) in England, Scotland or Wales by a police authority or an authority which has entered into an agreement with the Police Complaints Authority under section 96(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; or (ii) in Northern Ireland, by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland or an authority which has entered into an agreement with the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland under Article 16 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. (4A) If, on an application made by a constable, a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an article to which subsection (3) above applies is in any premises used only as a private dwelling, he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises").

Lord Bethell

My Lords, perhaps I may detain your Lordships because, through absence elsewhere, I was unable to take part in the previous stages of the Bill. Again I declare my interest as a representative of the Police Federation. I welcome this Bill. However, I invite my noble friend to say a few more words about the wide powers which this Bill confers upon Ministers to appoint private security employees to various jobs in ports and airports.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I am advised that my noble friend should speak on the Motion that the Bill do now pass rather than on this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I hope your Lordships will agree that we can look back with some satisfaction at the time we have spent on this Bill over the past couple of months. We have had four sessions during which we have had some useful debates and have been able to fine-tune some of the provisions of the Bill.

I was heartened to know from the start of your Lordships' consideration that this piece of legislation was welcomed and broadly supported. Amendments were put forward in a spirit of helpfulness to try to improve the existing provisions or to add to the new ones. Even though only government amendments were passed—some at the suggestion of other noble Lords—the debates on all the amendments provided us with an opportunity to explain in greater detail the purpose of the various provisions in the Bill.

I should like to make particular mention of the major part which the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, who is not able to be here today, played in our debates. Their contributions were always most constructive and offered in a courteous manner. I shall not mention by name all the other noble Lords who have spoken. Without exception, their contributions were most valuable and helped to ensure that our work was in the best traditions of this House. We may have had our disagreements but they have not spoilt the positive approach your Lordships have given to the consideration of this Bill. I thank all those who have contributed.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

Lord Underhill

My Lords, this is one occasion when I am delighted to give full approval to the Motion that the Bill do now pass because, as I said on Second Reading, on these Benches we are completely in support of the principles of the Bill, settling as it does the questions of aviation and maritime security.

The amendments which we tabled were, we thought, in the interests of security, to clarify certain matters and to have certain assurances written into the Bill. As I expected, the Minister repeated the assurances and when he gave them, we accepted them. We should have liked to have seen those assurances written into the Bill for obvious reasons. As I said time and time again, the Minister may not be here and the courts will determine only what is in the Bill and not the words that the noble Lord has spoken, which we fully accept. However, I assure the House and the Minister that those who have advised me, particularly the officers' union, the National Union of Seamen and also the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities, have noted with great care the assurances that have been given and will be filing them away in case they need to be raised at any time.

As always, the Minister has given courteous attention to the points which we raised. When he has promised to look into a matter, he has done so. We always appreciate that from the Minister. I repeat that this is one of those occasions when I can give full support to the Motion that the Bill do now pass.

Lord Bethell

My Lords, I should like to beg the House's pardon for intervening earlier. I add my support to this Bill. I believe that it is important from the point of view of the Police Federation that as much attention as possible is paid to the guidelines mentioned by my noble friend at earlier stages. I should have preferred those guidelines to be enshrined in the Bill or a statute but if that cannot be, I trust that they will be followed by my noble friend's successors.

My noble friend made the valid point that some jobs in ports and airports should not be carried out by police constables; for example, searching a bag or a small case. That is most appropriately done by a private security employee. However, I am sure that he will appreciate the anxiety of the Police Federation that there should not be a slow but sure shifting of various tasks from the police to employees of private firms. If the federation sees that that is happening, it will have justifiable cause for concern.

I ask my noble friend to clarify one point. I am sorry to revert to the question of private police forces in ports, but can he clarify the question of a review which I believe the Government are undertaking on private employees being appointed as constables in ports? I believe that the Government are reviewing that matter. Can he also say at this stage whether the review has already commenced, what its tasks are and when he expects to be able to report the results to the House?

With those observations, I join with other noble Lords in supporting the Motion that the Bill do now pass.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Bethell who have spoken on this Motion. I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord and my noble friend that they support fully the principles enshrined in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had asked that certain assurances should be written into the Bill. I gave my reasons for believing that that was not a good idea. Everything is written down and I hope that that will be satisfactory for him.

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bethell was not able to be present during consideration of the Bill at its earlier stages. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me slightly to bend the rules of the House on consideration of this Motion in order to answer my noble friend's questions. In answer to his last point, perhaps I may say that the Government intend shortly to undertake a review of the port police forces. I am unable to provide any more details of the timing of that review. I referred to that at an earlier stage of the Bill.

My noble friend also suggested that wider power had been given to Ministers to appoint private security guards. This Bill gives no wider powers on the shipping side than have existed for a long time on the aviation side. The Bill only enables the Secretary of State to give directions to harbour authorities, shipowners and others. He cannot himself employ or direct private security guards. However, harbour authorities or others may employ private security guards. They are often the most appropriate people to carry out searches and guard harbours, as my noble friend acknowledged. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State can and will lay down the qualifications for those people as he has done in the aviation field.

I am grateful to noble Lords who took part in the debate on the Bill. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to wish noble Lords a happy recess. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Forward to