| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Astor: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be disappointed because the next time he goes to the airport he will not be grabbed by an authorised person who says, XCome and join in the fun". Of course, he may be the first person they pick and I may be proved entirely wrong. I am grateful for the explanation that the Minister has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 151A and 151B not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 151BA:
- After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to make it clear that additions or amendments to existing legislation contained in Part 9 of the Bill are intended to be capable of being extended to the Channel Islands. The Aviation Security Act 1982 and the Civil Aviation Act 1982 both include a permissive power to extend their provisions outside the UK. As originally drafted, Part 9 did not make it clear that additions or amendments to those Acts are similarly intended to be capable of being extended outside the UK.
It is not always necessary or appropriate for an amending enactment to make it clear that additions or amendments are intended to be capable of such extension. However, the islands of Jersey and Guernsey have specifically asked that such permissive power be included. Legal advice is that, in this instance, it would be wise to make clear such provision for extension. Although it has not specifically requested an extension, the Isle of Man has no objection to Part 9 of the Bill being capable of extension in those circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 152:
The noble Lord said: It would be a gross over-simplification to suggest that the Bill seems to presuppose that terrorists would use only aircraft for major acts of terrorism. We know from experience that that is not so. One has only to look at some of the dreadful events in Israel to see that buses can be used. I cannot recall an occasion when a train has been used for an act of terrorism, but I suppose that it is not beyond the bounds of contemplation.
This putative new clause, which we have tabled as a probing amendment to explore the Government's reaction to that proposition, simply seeks to give a somewhat greater degree of security and control to the operators of trains and buses over who should or should not travel on them. It also seeks to give them the right to object to particular individuals if they are sufficiently worried that they may pose a security risk. It is a serious point, even if we have not expressed it very well. I shall be the first to say that we may not have done so. However, it seems to me that this issue merits a certain amount of consideration. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree in principle with much of what the noble Lord has said although I do not believe that he is putting forward his amendment as a serious attempt to deal with the problem. Much of what the amendment seeks to achieve is covered by existing legislation; for example, the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 provides similar powers in respect of a Channel Tunnel industry to those set out in his amendment. Section 129 of the Railways Act allows for by-laws to be made by operators covering the railway assets. In addition, powers exercisable by the police are also exercisable by the British Transport Police on board trains. So, in a situation when the police have power of arrest, the BTP will also have that power on board a train.
Even if one accepts that the suggested provisions in the amendment may be of use in dealing with people who board a bus or a train without permission, how is one to define Xpermission"? If it means not having a valid ticket, which seems to be the approach in the amendment, there are existing powers to deal with such issues under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. Equally, powers exist to remove persons causing a nuisance and so on.
The most persuasive argument against the amendment is to ask what it adds to the cause of preventing terrorism. I believe that the perpetrators of the terrible atrocities of 11th September all had valid tickets. I do not think that the matter of buying tickets is at the heart of the issue. Much was made in the other place about the importance of restricting the content of the Bill to matters strictly related to the prevention of terrorism. Similar comments were made on Second Reading.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, does not intend to extend the various provisions on not travelling without a ticket. He was probing wider issues and I hope that I have dealt with them. If one analyses the form of the amendment, one can see that it is both unnecessary and outside the scope of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation, which has helped. He is correct that we were concerned with the issue of terrorism. Although I cannot say that I am 100 per cent satisfied that existing law is totally adequate to deal with the situation, brutal experience suggests that the law has precious little to do with the prevention of terrorism if a sufficiently determined person wants to do something.
The important point is that the matter has been properly thought about. The noble and learned Lord has suggested that it has certainly been thought about even if not in sufficient detail absolutely to prevent such terrorism. Even when the Bill is enacted, there will still be an element of prayer in the prevention of terrorism. With that thought in mind, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 152ZA not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
XEXTENT OUTSIDE UNITED KINGDOM
(1) The powers in section 108(1) and (2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16) (extension outside United Kingdom) apply to provisions of this Part which amend that Act.
(2) The powers in section 39(3) of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36) (extension outside United Kingdom) apply to provisions of this Part which amend that Act.".
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
XSECURITY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT
(1) A person shall not—
(a) go onto a train or other vehicle used for the purpose of public transport except with the permission of the operator of such train or other vehicle or a person acting on behalf of that person and in accordance with any conditions subject to which that permission is for the time being granted, or
(b) remain on such train or other vehicle after being requested to leave by a constable.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) without lawful authority or reasonable excuse is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(3) A constable or the operator of such train or other vehicle, using such force as is reasonable in the circumstances, may remove from such train or other vehicle a person who contravenes subsection (1)(b).".
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page