| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 85 [Removal of an intruder]:
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 150A:
- Page 43, line 1, after Xperson" insert X(authorised in writing)"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 150A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 150B to 150G.
Amendments Nos. 150A and 150B seek to insert in Clause 85 the words Xauthorised in writing" after the words,
- Xthe manager of an aerodrome or a person acting on his behalf".
Moving to Clause 86, subsection (2) states that regulations Xmay" provide. We believe that regulations Xshould" provide, and therefore Amendment No. 150C seeks to remove the word Xmay" and insert the word Xshall".
Amendment No. 150D seeks to remove paragraph (c) from subsection (3), which states that the regulations may Xcreate a criminal offence". My purpose is to discover from the noble and learned Lord—I am sure that he will be able to tell me where this is in the Bill—whether the power to create a criminal offence under these regulations refers specifically to this clause or goes wider. Where do I find anything which can restrict that power to create a criminal offence? I am sure that it is in the Bill in some obvious place, but I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would point it out for me.
Paragraph (g) of subsection (3) states that the Secretary of State Xmay",
- Xmake provision about removal from the list (which may include provision for appeal)".
- Xor on a specified person".
My final amendment in this group is purely a probing amendment. Surely the regulations would fall automatically under a court, so there is no need to include the words,
- Xconfer jurisdiction on a court".
Lord Rotherwick: I support my noble friend and have added my name to the amendment. In regard to Amendments Nos. 150A and 150B, I am concerned that the person referred to should be authorised in writing. Let us take the example of a police constable who makes an arrest. He does so with a warrant card, which he can show if the person asks the reason for his arrest. Interestingly, a policeman is not allowed to enter this Chamber before changing out of his uniform, his epaulettes, and his helmet or hat. He has no authority in this Chamber. If he were to attempt to arrest someone and the person queried his action, he would have no authority.
It seems sensible that if someone is doing something wrong and a person approaches him and says, XYou are to come this way", and he questions that, the person approaching him must show some kind of authority. It seems sensible that he should have some form of authority, even if it is only a written authority.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The first two amendments tabled by the noble Viscount relate to Clause 85, dealing with the removal of an intruder. The Bill states:
- XA constable, the manager of an aerodrome or a person acting on his behalf may use reasonable force to remove a person who fails to comply with a request under subsection (1)(b)",
What the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, seeks—and what the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, suggested in support—is that the person who helps the constable or the manager of an aerodrome or who is acting on his behalf needs to be authorised to do so in writing. No limit is suggested on the number of persons who could be authorised in writing. So such written authority could plainly be given to all employees.
It is clear that an aerodrome manager or aircraft operator must have the power to remove unauthorised persons from their property. It is also right, given the nature of the business and of this particular power, that they should be able to remove such persons quickly.
To limit those authorised would be counter to those objectives. And to require written authority to be given to all appropriate staff would simply be an unnecessary bureaucratic exercise. One would end up with the need for speed, which would not necessarily be complied with if the authorisation had to be in writing. Equally, in order to comply with the provisions, an aerodrome manager could authorise all the staff to have that authority so as to comply with the proposed amendment. Yet that would simply be an unnecessary bureaucratic exercise.
I remind the Committee that the wording of the Bill is consistent with the equivalent provisions in the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 and the Aviation and Maritime Act 1990 in respect of the Channel Tunnel and maritime industries respectively. So, although this is a probing amendment, if one thinks about it, it is not a sensible one.
Viscount Astor: Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, does he accept that, as the Bill is drafted, someone acting on a person's behalf need not necessarily be a member of that person's staff? He could authorise anyone to act on his behalf whether or not an employee.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Indeed, the wording of the legislation is in that exact form. In order to be prepared, he would simply authorise all his employees on the basis that they might be the class or category
most likely to be authorised. I am sure that the noble Viscount has in mind a practical rather than a bureaucratic provision.
Earl Attlee: Does the clause not go further than authorising? There is no requirement for authority. I could weigh in and help the manager of an aerodrome because I am acting on behalf of the manager. I would not necessarily be authorised. There need be no record of it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have no doubt that the provision is a requirement. It is giving constables, managers of aerodromes or persons acting on their behalf specific powers. The noble Earl would not be acting pursuant to that power if he simply weighed in, as he said. He would not have, therefore, the protection of the statute.
The remaining amendments relate to the establishment and maintenance by regulation of a list or lists of companies approved by the Secretary of State to provide security services to the aviation industry. Amendment No. 150C replaces the word Xmay" with Xshall" and obliges the person to produce the list. It is likely that such lists will be needed but details will need to be considered carefully before a final decision is made. That consideration would need to include full regulatory impact assessments. For that reason, we would not want the clause to be worded in such a way as to require the Secretary of State to maintain such lists.
With one exception, to which I shall come in a moment, the other amendments would dilute the effectiveness of the clause. Amendment No. 150D would mean that regulations could not create an offence of falsely claiming to be a listed person, as provided for in Clause 88 of the Bill, in respect of air cargo agents. That is the purpose of the provision and its omission would clearly be a serious weakness.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked in effect one question: why would the offence be restricted to matters referred to in Clause 86? New Section 20A(2) states:
- XRegulations may provide for the Secretary of State to maintain a list of persons who are approved by him for the provision of a particular aviation security service".
We regard Amendment No. 150E as eminently sensible and entirely in line with our intention to provide for a right of appeal in the event of delisting. We shall accept Amendment No. 150E. I urge the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to move that amendment and we shall agree to it. I congratulate him on bringing forward the amendment.
Amendment No. 150F limits the power in regulations to conferring functions only on the Secretary of State. The noble Viscount does not want there to be anyone else. With respect, we might well
need to appoint an independent person to hear an appeal against delisting. If the Secretary of State delisted someone, it would be sensible for there to be an independent person to hear such an appeal. This power would enable such an appointment to be made. We think that that is sensible.Amendment No. 150G is related to Amendment No. 150D. The power would permit the granting of a forum to an aggrieved party other than judicial review and would therefore seem to us to be desirable.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Viscount will be willing to withdraw the amendment and will not move Amendments Nos. 150B, C, D, F and G, but that he will be persuaded to move Amendment No. 150E.
10 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I think that this is the first time that I have ever received a compliment from him in the many debates that we have had on transport matters. Recently, I have received some far from complimentary responses from him, so I am enormously grateful to him and I shall do as he asks.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord saw the point of our first two amendments. We were concerned to probe the Government's understanding of who could act on behalf of an authorised person. This is the first time that a power to use reasonable force has been granted. No such power is included in the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, although, as the noble and learned Lord said, there is such a provision for the Channel Tunnel.
The noble and learned Lord has given a clear response to my other amendments, for which I am enormously grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 150B not moved.]
Clause 86 [Aviation security services]:
[Amendments Nos. 150C and 150D not moved.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page