 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) |
Justice and Security Northern Ireland Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris
Shaw, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 18 January 2007(Afternoon)[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) BillClause 20
Stop
and
question
Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 18, in
clause 20, page 16, line 11, leave
out “necessary” and insert
“reasonable”.—[Mr. Laurence
Robertson.]
1
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that, with this, it will
be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in
clause 20, page 16, line 12, at
end insert
‘, if he
suspects that he may be able to provide information about a recent
explosion or another recent incident endangering life, or the effects
thereof.’.
No.
20, in
clause 20, page 16, line 14, leave
out ‘necessary’ and insert
‘reasonable’.
I
think that, when the sitting adjourned this morning, the Minister was
responding to an intervention from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I
may have got that wrong, but I call the Minister
anyway.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Paul
Goggins):
I suspect, Sir Nicholas, that the only person
who can remember is the Hansard reporter, but we shall proceed
anyway.
I think that I
was finally about to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the word
“necessary” was preferable to the word
“reasonable”. Let me give an example of why
“necessary” is the right word to use here. For instance,
an officer could detain an individual, stop them to question them and
ask them for details of their home address. After the individual gives
some information, the officer may ask, “Well, what colour is
your front door then?” When the person answers that question,
the officer may then ask, “What street is the next
street?” When the person answers, the officer must send someone
to check whether that information is accurate. If it is accurate, the
person will be released; if there are further grounds for questioning,
the questioning will continue. In other words, that officer can detain
that individual for as long as it is “necessary” to carry
out those inquiries. “Necessary” is a more
black-and-white, a more certain word than “reasonable”,
which, as I suggested earlier, offers too much room for doubt and
uncertainty.
Mr.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I am not following this
argument, because what the Minister is really saying is that all
previous legislation containing the word “reasonable”,
which has long been accepted as the right word, is
wrong.
Paul
Goggins:
I do not suggest that for a minute. The hon.
Gentleman is playing a substantial role in the Committee’s
deliberations, and I thank him for that.
“Reasonable” is
the correct word in other circumstances, but we are discussing extreme
circumstances, in which an officer has considerable concerns about a
particular individual and perhaps needs to check certain information.
It is important in those pressured circumstances that the officer has
certainty, and the word “necessary” gives the degree of
certainty that we feel is essential. There is a judgment to be made
here. I began my remarks by saying that judging the difference between
the word “reasonable” and the word
“necessary” is a fine judgment, but we think that the
word “necessary” is the right one here.
In conclusion, I would like to
deal with the other amendment that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has
tabled, which relates to limiting questioning to instances in which
there was a suspicion that someone had information regarding an
explosion or an incident that would endanger life. It would simply be
impossible to conduct any kind of random stop-and-search operation if
we were to accept that amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will
understand that, if a threat is made against a particular meeting,
building or event, it may be necessary for the Army or the police to
mount some kind of surveillance operation, perhaps involving some
rolling surveillance cordon. If they were not able, to some degree, to
make a random selection of individuals, it would make that operation
extremely difficult. Obviously, all such operations need to be carried
out carefully, sensibly and sensitively, particularly in certain parts
of the community, but we believe that the constraint that the hon.
Gentleman’s amendment would give would make it very difficult
for the police and the Army to do their
job.
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): The wording of
amendment No. 19 is lifted from elsewhere in the Bill, so the
Government accept that such a situation is the only time that
individuals can be stopped for this particular kind of questioning.
Subsection (2)
says:
“A member
of Her Majesty’s forces on duty may stop a person for so long as
is necessary to question him...about a recent explosion or another
recent incident endangering life...what he knows about a
person”.
That qualifies
why individuals can be stopped under subsection (2). Subsection (1)
does not actually state why the member of Her Majesty’s forces
or the constable would want to stop that person; they could just stop
them for no reason at all for as long as they feel necessary. I suggest
that subsection (1) is at least badly worded, and probably worse than
that.
Paul
Goggins:
I simply ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect, as I
know he does, on the context in which we are moving the clause. We are
moving to normalisation, under which part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000
will be repealed, but we need specific powers in place to deal
with some of the extreme situations with which the law enforcement and
the security services have to deal.
I again draw on the experience
of Whiterock. Officers have very little time to make judgments, decide
and act to preserve law and order or detain people who may be
responsible for lawlessness and worse. It is to deal with those extreme
and pressing circumstances that we seek such powers. We have judged
them necessary. I ask the hon. Gentleman, in assessing whether to
support the clause, to bear in mind the context in which we are
proposing
it.
Mr.
Robertson:
The Minister used an interesting phrase when he
said that the context was that wewere moving toward
normalisation, but the word “necessary” is not normal in
this context; the word “reasonable” is. I am afraid that
he has done the reverse of selling the case to me.
On the reasonable test of the
man on the Clapham omnibus, I came in by bus this morning, so I
consider myself that reasonable man. Members in Committee yesterday
probably did not think so, but that was a different matter. I have
watched a video of Whiterock with the police, and it was a terrible
situation. If a constable or member of Her Majesty’s forces
needed to detain someone hurling rocks at the police—as some
were—in order to question them about their identity and
movements and if that person did not comply, I would think that the
person questioning them would be entitled to detain them for a
substantial amount of time. I would consider that reasonable. What I do
not consider as moving toward normalisation is the insertion of the
word “necessary”. It is open-ended and not generally
accepted as a legal term, whereas “reasonable” most
certainly is. Given that, I am sorry to tell the Minister that I am not
happy with his explanation and that I will press the amendment to a
Division.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
9.
Division
No.
9
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): I beg to move amendment No. 32,
in
clause 20, page 16, line 25, after
‘to’, insert ‘six months imprisonment
or’.
It is a
real pleasure to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Sir
Nicholas, to take us through more clauses of an interesting Bill. With
your leave, I apologise to my Committee colleagues, as I was called
away to a meeting outside the House this morning and missed the exciting
debate, particularly about the provisions concerning the Northern
Ireland Human Rights
Commission.
My
amendment relates to what I think is the proportionate punishment for
not complying with a reasonable—in fact, as the Minister has now
told us, necessary—provision for Her Majesty’s forces on
duty to have certain powers of stop and question. The Minister, in
response to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, reminded the Committee that
the Government were attempting to deal with “extreme
circumstances”, such as Whiterock, which was a vicious outbreak
of rioting in September 2005 in Belfast that spilled over into my
constituency of North Down. Yes, I am well aware of the nasty
circumstances in
Whiterock.
Let us
consider what is in clause 20. Subsection (1)
says:
“A member
of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable may stop a person
for so long as is
necessary”.
Subsection
(2) adds:
“A
member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty may stop a person for so
long as is necessary to question
him”
about very serious
matters—
“(a) what
he knows about a recent explosion or another recent incident
endangering
life”
or
“(b)
what he knows about a person killed or injured in a recent explosion or
incident”.
The
member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty is not stopping the
person to question them about bird watching or another light matter,
but about serious issues— about a person killed or injured in a
recent explosion or some other incident endangering life. However, in
punishment for failing to stop to answer such questions—which
the Minister has assured us are “necessary” bearing in
mind the circumstances of,for example, Whiterock—for
refusing to answer the questions or for failing to answer the questions
to the best of his knowledge or ability, a person is merely
“guilty of an offence” and
liable
“to a fine not
exceeding level 5 on the standard
scale”.
Roughly
translated, that is about £5,000. Frankly, I do not think that
that penalty is at all proportionate to the serious matters that a
member of Her Majesty’s forces may stop and question a person
about.
The intention
of my amendment is, first, for the Minister to accept the amendment,
which would be the best judgment. However, he might be unable to accept
the amendment at this early juncture and might need a little time to
reflect on how to get the provision right. I therefore urge him to make
the punishment fit the crime and to be proportionate to the serious
issues that he has drawn to the attention of the Committee when
responding to earlier amendments in the name of the hon. Member for
Tewkesbury. With those words, I look forward to the Minister’s
response.
1.15
pm
Paul
Goggins:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as ever, for
probing and for scrutinising every aspect of the Bill. It is important
that penalties are proportionate tothe offence. It is also
important that penalties are
consistent throughout the legislation. As set out in schedule 3, an
offence of failing to stop is punishable by a fine up to level 5, the
same penalty that we are proposing in clause 20.
The hon. Lady should consider
that the clause deals specifically with the offence of failing to stop.
It may be that a person refuses to stop because they have a grudge
against the police or Army but, of course, it is important that there
is a penalty for someone who fails to stop in whatever circumstances. A
person may not have committed any offence or have any further
information to offer but, even so, failing to stop would be an offence.
If a person had committed a more serious offence, if they were actively
engaged in violence or inciting violence and so on, they could be
arrested by the police, taken away and placed in custody. There is no
question that a person behaving unlawfully can be arrested under other
legislation. Clause 20 deals merely with the offence of failing to
stop.
I made it clear
earlier in the debate that it may be necessary to use the powers to
stop and question randomly. It may be that surveillance is drawn up on
a particular event and that people are stopped and questioned randomly.
In those circumstances, we regard the fine of up to level 5 to be
proportionate for the simple offence of failing to stop. If a more
serious offence is being committed—if people’s lives are
endangered, or violence incited—it would be up to the police to
arrest the individual involved and deal with them
appropriately.
Lady
Hermon:
Will the Minister confirm what the penalties are
if we are talking about a constable in the Police Service of Northern
Ireland? There is a question of consistency, because clause 20(1)
refers to
“Her
Majesty’s forces on duty or a
constable”.
Will the
Minister assure the Committee that the penalties for the offences of
failing to reply, refusing to answer to the best of one’s
ability or refusing to answer at all a question posed by a constable of
the PSNI, and not merely a failure to stop, are punishable merely with
a £5,000
fine?
Paul
Goggins:
They are, and we believe that the penalties are
proportionate. However, if a person acted in a violent way to an
officer or to a member of the public in the course of failing to stop,
that would be a more serious, arrestable offence, which could carry a
sentence of imprisonment. We regard the penalty as proportionate for
the actual offence of failing tostop. Indeed, we have
consistently applied that proportionality in the Bill. Clearly, such
things are a matter of judgment, but we regard a fine of up to level 5
as appropriate for the simple offence of failing to stop, and that that
is proportionate and consistent with other measures in the
Bill.
Lady
Hermon:
The Minister has repeatedly implied, or has
expressly said, that the only offence that can be committed under
clause 20 is simply that of failing to stop. With the greatest respect
to the Minister, and though I am about to disagree, the offences are
listed in clause 20(3):
“A person commits an
offence if he
—
(a) fails to
stop when required to do
so...
(b) refuses
to answer a question addressed to him,
or”—
Paul
Goggins:
I have no quibble with the hon. Lady.
Inadvertently, I was using the term “failure to stop” as
shorthand for all that is contained in clause 20(3). She is entirely
right.
Lady
Hermon:
As ever, and characteristically, the Minister is
entirely gracious. He was paraphrasing and using shorthand, which he
has acknowledged. He meant to say that there are various offences,
because we have the conjunction “or” in clause 20(3). The
offence is not only
“failing to stop when required to
do so”
but
“refusing to answer a question
addressed to him”
and
failing to
“answer to the
best of his knowledge and ability a question addressed to
him”
about
“a recent explosion or another
recent incident endangering
life”
or “a person
killed”.
I
know that the Minister does not think that life is cheap in Northern
Ireland. For an incident in which someone’s life is endangered
or they are killed or injured, I would like to think that a
corresponding term of imprisonment would be an alternative to the
£5,000
fine.
Paul
Goggins:
The hon. Lady helps the Committee to get nearer
to the point. If a police officer has evidence that an individual has
carried out or been connected with a violent act such as the setting of
explosives or some other heinous crime, the officer has the power to
arrest that individual. Any obstruction would carry its own penalties.
If the individual were found guilty of those more serious crimes, they
would go to prison and rightly so. The provision relates simply to
somebody who has failed to stop; they may be completely innocent of any
other crime. We think that the fine is a sufficient, proportionate
penalty. If there are grounds to believe that somebody has committed a
more serious offence, they should be arrested and dealt
with.
Lady
Hermon:
The Minister is as persuasive as ever, but he has
highlighted a particular error in the drafting of clauses 20 and 22. I
would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to an ambiguity that
gives rise to some confusion, which the Minister just inadvertently put
his finger on. Clauses 20 and 22 both begin with the
words:
“A
member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a
constable”.
The rest of
clause 20 does not talk about a constable, however. My amendment
attaches to subsection (2), which is exclusively about a member of Her
Majesty’s forces. Clause 22, however, contains the two
alternatives of a member of Her Majesty’s forces or a member of
the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and then deals only with the
powers of one or the other. It is extremely confusing.
The Minister
has just assured the Committee that if a more serious offence has been
committed and if the person resists or is violent towards the officer,
the police constable can arrest the individual. Sorry, Minister: in
clause 20(2), that is the power of
“Her Majesty’s forces on
duty”.
Mercifully, we do
not have joint patrolling. In the horrible, awful days of the killings
and of hundreds of deaths in Northern Ireland, we had joint
operations.
The
Minister indicated that these provisions were brought forward to deal
with the extreme situation of the loyalist rioting in Whiterock in
Belfast in September 2005. We witnessed on our television screens those
absolutely disgraceful pictures, which were flashed around the world.
It was the worst possible publicity for Northern Ireland.
We are trying to move towards a
more peaceful, stable Northern Ireland, but the drafting of clause 20
deals with a member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty on his own,
not on a joint operation. He cannot turn to his PSNI colleague and say,
“You can use your
powers.”
Paul
Goggins:
I shall try to clarify the differences to which
the hon. Lady has referred. Clause 20 refers to
a
“member of Her
Majesty’s forces on duty or a
constable”
because when
part 7of the Terrorism Act 2000 is repealed, neither will have the
power to stop and question. If we look at clauses 21 and 22—I
stray slightly, but only to make the point—we will see that they
apply only to members of Her Majesty’s forces, because the
police already have sufficient powers to carry out the actions that the
clauses cover, whereas Her Majesty’s forces do not. An Army
officer is not in a position to make an arrest, for example, and clause
21 will give him that power. That reinforces the point that our
approach has been minimalist; we have identified the minimum powers
necessary after July 2007 to have the wherewithal to maintain public
order and deal with extreme circumstances.
Lady
Hermon:
I am absolutely fascinated by that response. If a
police constable in Northern Ireland already has those powers and we
therefore do not need to grant them through clause 20, why on earth
does clause 20(1) include the word
“constable”?
Paul
Goggins:
I shall simply repeat what I said earlier. Once
part 7 goes, neither the police nor the Army will have the powers that
we seek to provide in clause 20. If we did not replace some of those
powers for the Army, the police would still have the powers that
clauses 21 and 22 seek to give the Army. However, we wish the Army to
have the powers, too, so we look to do the minimum
necessary.
Lady
Hermon:
Let me paraphrase what the Minister has just told
the Committee. Owing to the lapse of other terrorist legislation, the
police and the Army will not have powers. Therefore, under the
legislation before
us, we must give the Army powers, but the police will have powers under
other legislation. That is a fair summary of what he has just
said.
If that is
true, will the Minister look carefully at the wording of clause 20?
Subsection (1) refers
to:
“A member
of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a
constable”.
If a
constable already has the powers, as the Minister has assured the
Committee, there is no need for the clause to refer to a constable at
all. He just said that the provisions give members of Her
Majesty’s forces the powers to stop and to question.
My point and that of my
amendment is that there will be no joint patrols: a member of Her
Majesty’s forces will be on duty on his or her own. They will
have the power to stop a person in serious circumstances pertaining to
a recent explosion, a recent incident endangering life, or to a person
killed or injured in a recent explosion or incident. My entire argument
is that in those serious circumstances, when a member of Her
Majesty’s forces is on duty on their own and unable to call in
aid a member of the PSNI, any offence committed ought to be punishable
by a term of imprisonment equivalent to the £5,000 fine. That is
my point.
Paul
Goggins:
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again,
if for no other reason than to clarify one point on which I slightly
misled the Committee when responding to the hon. Lady. Clause 22
applies to constables as well as to members of the Army, so we seek to
confer powers specifically on members of Her Majesty’s forces
only in clause 21. When part 7 lapses, they will not have any power of
arrest. The Army must have that limited power of arrest and of
detention for up to four hours so that they can participate effectively
in what may be a difficult public order situation or a situation
surrounding an explosion.
Clause 21 is only for the Army,
and clauses 20 and 22 apply power equally to the police and to the
Army. We want to introduce the minimum powers necessary. The specific
powers in clause 20 are concerned with the ability to stop and to
question. If the Committee focuses on that narrow offence, I hope that
it will agree that the penalty of a fine not exceeding level 5, which
is the issue under discussion, is
proportionate.
I am terribly sorry to disagree
with the Minister, but as all hon. Members who consider the Bill will
clearly see, the reference that he made to clause 21 and to the powers
of arrest refers only to the powers of arrest given to Her
Majesty’s forces. There is no equivalence given to a member of
the PSNI. The word “constable” does not appear in clause
21. The powers in clause 22, relating to entry to a building, noting
what and who is in the building and so on, are given to a police
officer. There is no equivalence between the powers of entry in clause
22 and what we are discussing in clause 20, namely the power to stop
and to question. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the
legislative provisions that give PSNI constables the right to do what a
member of Her Majesty’s forces can clearly do under clause 20,
because the Bill does
not.
1.30
pm
Paul
Goggins:
I am always happy to try to help the hon. Lady
and the Committee, but I suspect that I have gone as far as I can. On
the narrow point of her amendment, which concerns whether a fine of up
to level 5 is proportionate in relation to the offence of failing to
stop when a constable or a member of Her Majesty’s forces
insists on it, I fail to see how I can say more to try to persuade her.
I acknowledge, however, that the clauses need to be read with great
care, as the hon. Lady has said. For example, clause 20(1) refers to
a
“member of Her
Majesty’s forces on duty or a
constable”
but clause
20(2) refers just to “Her Majesty’s forces”. We do
not seek to give the powers to the police under subsection (2), because
they already have them under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,
and we do not seek to duplicate powers that already exist. Instead, we
want to give the minimum powers necessary to ensure that both the
police and the Army can operate effectively in situations of extreme
public disorder or in a situation involving explosives. I have gone as
far as I can—I do not know whether I have persuaded the hon.
Lady, but we shall soon find out.
Lady
Hermon:
I do not wish to detain the Committee, but the
Minister has just pinpointed PACE as the source of the rights of police
constables to stop and question in relation to an explosion, an
incident endangering life, or where a person has been killed in a
recent explosion or another incident. PACE has been identified for the
first time this afternoon. Previously, the Minister said that clauses
21 and 22 provide equivalent police powers, but they most certainly do
not. He has clarified the point, which is helpful. As he has said,
given the seriousness of incidents, such as rioting, about which a
person can be questioned by a soldier on his own with no member of the
PSNI present, I am not happy that a person who refuses to co-operate
when someone has been killed or seriously
injured—
Mr.
Robertson:
I am following the hon. Lady’s argument
and the Minister’s explanation closely. I am concerned about the
extra punishment that she is seeking to introduce, which is based on
amendments that I tabled. Had I succeeded in getting those amendments
through, I would have been more comfortable with a stronger punishment,
but as I did not, I am not as comfortable. Does she follow that
argument, and would she like to
comment?
Lady
Hermon:
I am not persuaded by the argument—I regret
that I have not been here for the entire debate. It should be borne in
mind that the provisions that we are considering today have just
increased the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
We are saying loudly and clearly to the people of Northern Ireland that
we care about their human rights and most certainly about the right to
life. We have just identified in clause 20 an incident that might
deprive a person of their life or leave someone seriously injured. I
should like to think that any well-intentioned, reasonable person on
the bus—for example, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who
travelled on the bus this morning—would expect full
co-operation from every single person in Northern Ireland who was a
witness or who has information. In those circumstances, I cannot for
the life of me believe that a person could turn their back and walk
away, and receive no more than a fine. It does not make moral sense, so
I shall press the amendment to a
Division.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
11.
Division
No.
10
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Before we move off clause 20,
I would like the Minister to clarify something. During his long debate
with the hon. Member for North Down, I became increasingly intrigued by
subsection (5). In what circumstances would he envisage the police or
the Army stopping an aircraft that is airborne? Is it anticipated that
Superman might be recruited by the PSNI to knock on the window of the
cockpit and demand that the aircraft should be stopped? Will the
Minister clarify that matter, because it has intrigued me for the past
half
hour?
Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): Thank you, Sir Nicholas.
I seek the Minister’s clarification on something that arose in
the previous debate. The phrase “or a constable” is
contained in the first line of subsection (1), but why do those words
need to be there? Surely a constable would have those powers anyway
under
PACE.
The
Chairman:
I call the Minister to reply. I think that he
has had time to ascertain precisely how he is going to answer the hon.
Member for East Antrim.
The hon.
Member for Argyll and Bute must read the wording in subsection (1)
carefully. A constable would not otherwise have the power to question
someone to ascertain his identity and
movements
“for so long as
is necessary”.
We seek to
give that power to the police, because it would be ridiculous for the
Army to have more powers than the police to deal with a public order
matter or
other pressing situation. Subsection (1) must be
read very carefully. It states that a constable
may
“stop a person for so
long as is necessary to question him to ascertain his identity and
movements.”
The police in
Northern Ireland would not otherwise have that power in the
circumstances that we have been
discussing.
Mr.
Robertson:
Given that we are returning to a situation of
normalisation, to use the Minister’s words, why is it necessary
to give Her Majesty’s forces or the police even more
powers?
Paul
Goggins:
Let us consider a situation elsewhere in the UK.
If the police have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has
been committed, they can stop someone and question them under PACE. We
are discussing situations in which the police need to detain someone to
ascertain their identity and movements. We believe that we need such
powers in Northern Ireland and that similar powers should be given to
the Army to deal with incidents that endanger life—sadly, the
threats of explosives and of serious social disorder still exist in
Northern Ireland. It is specifically because those risks still exist in
Northern Ireland that we seek to give those limited but important
powers to the
police.
Mr.
Robertson:
The Minister has not quite answered my
question. The question is why now? Why were those powers not introduced
in 1972, at the height of the troubles, or more recently? The DUP is
almost sitting down with Sinn Fein, and the IMC report says that the
IRA is not involved in paramilitary activity, so why is it necessary to
extend Army and police powers?
Paul
Goggins:
I have failed to explain the matter
sufficiently clearly. Those powers already exist in Northern Ireland
under part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000. Because of the commitment to
repeal part VII from the end of July this year, Ministers had to decide
whether leaving out all those powers was reasonable, given the threat
that still exists from terrorism and serious public disorder linked to
paramilitary activity. Our judgment was that we could not do so and
that we needed to put in place minimum powers to enable the police and
the Army to continue to deal with such serious situations. We are
including powers that already exist, but we are dropping the part VII
powers, which will not exist after July. We feel that the powers that
we are keeping are necessary in the present
circumstances.
I
cannot remember, Sir Nicholas, whether I am intervening or making a
speech.
We now come
to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Antrim. If I were to
give a serious explanation, I would not persuade anyone. I presume that
the provision means that if a police officer or someone in the Army
were waving to someone flying overhead, it would not constitute an
offence, but I am happy to write to the hon.
Gentleman—[Interruption.] I see a pilot in our
midst.
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): It had to happen, Sir
Nicholas, but I salute your self-control up to this
point.
I want to thank
whoever drafted this piece of legislation on behalf of pilots all over
Northern Ireland. It is a matter of great relief to me that we will not
be stopped while we are flying. I suggest to the Minister that it might
be possible to stop an aircraft that is airborne by using a large fan.
Is it the Minister’s understanding that an aircraft about to
become airborne could legitimately be stopped by a memberof
the security forces? It would be travelling at about 150
mph.
Paul
Goggins:
The hon. Gentleman will be copied into my letter
to the hon. Member for East Antrim. That is probably the most
constructive way to respond to that most insightful
question.
The
Chairman:
Before I put the question, I have to say that I
thought that the Minister might reply by, bearing in mind the name of
the hon. Member for East Antrim, saying that he would stop it with a
SAM.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 20
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 22 January 2007 |