Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Public Bill Committee, 4 March 2003.

Standing Committee D

Clause 81 - Detention pending arrival of police

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Good morning, Mr. Hurst. Welcome back to the Chair.

In Committee last Thursday, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport said:

''I am sorry that the hon. Member for Vale of York has left the Room for a moment. Since she is not here, now is perhaps the moment to complete my remarks.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 27 February 2003; c. 408.]

I did not intend to appear rude or disrespectful to the Under-Secretary, but I had not had the chance to wash my hands in three and a half hours. I am sorry that while I was responding to a call of nature, the Under-Secretary refused to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) to intervene on my behalf for precisely one minute. I am sure that we will be sitting for equally long periods between now and the end of the Committee proceedings, so may I make a plea for a comfort stop before we continue to a later hour, Mr. Hurst?

The clause deals with detention pending arrival of the police and refers to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, among others. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will of course also apply. [Interruption.] The Committee is especially noisy today; it is good to see its members in such good heart.

The very useful explanatory notes, which I presume the Department provided, tell us:

''At present, local bye-laws allow some harbour authority officials to exercise powers to detain ships whose pilots are suspected to be committing an offence of being impaired by drink or drugs. Clause 81 extends this regime to allow marine officials to detain a vessel when they reasonably suspect that a person on board is committing an offence under this Part. However, this clause does not apply to ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in order not to affect the operational effectiveness of the armed forces.''

I do not know whether it is appropriate to make that point now or when we come to clause 87, but suffice it to say that one hopes that separate checks are carried out in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to ensure that its personnel would not fall foul of the Bill. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will put my mind at rest when he replies. That raises another question, which I am sure the Under-Secretary will want to address. If a harbour master or harbour official is invited to carry out checks under the clause, will they fall foul of the strict provisions on intoxication?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

May I remind the hon. Lady that I previously moved an amendment suggesting that harbour masters should be included in a list earlier in

the Bill? If I have an opportunity to bring that amendment back, I hope that she may be willing to support me.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said, we would certainly look at that. It would be an extremely useful probing amendment.

Obviously, one is grateful for the thoughts of the industry. In February, the newspaper of the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, the NUMAST Telegraph, stated:

''The Bill will give police new powers to test seafarers for alcohol and drugs after an accident or where they have reason to believe an offence is being committed, and to arrest them without warrant.''

The article, which is on page 20, states:

''Harbourmasters will also be able to detain ships until police arrive if they believe a seafarer on board is over the limit.''

The article gives a little of the background. In relation to a point that has been well made in Committee, it states:

''During consultations over the new laws, the government took onboard NUMAST's argument that ships are effectively homes as well as workplaces—determining that the regulations would not normally apply to off-duty seafarers unless they would need to safeguard passengers in an emergency.''

That is particularly appropriate. The article states:

''While not resisting the new regulations, the Union had argued that existing provisions within section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act gave the authorities adequate powers to address any alcohol abuse at sea.''

I believe that that is a serious charge, and I urge the Under-Secretary to address it today. The point was well and forcefully made by as eminent a union as NUMAST during the consultations, and presumably that was the purpose of having, at considerable expense, such lengthy consultations.

If the point was well made, we should like to know, although we broadly support the Bill, why the Government felt it important to go further and introduce the new law. We want to know why section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 did not, in the Government's view, give the authorities adequate powers to address any alcohol abuse at sea. Why do they so dramatically part company from NUMAST, which is highly respected?

Powerful points were made by a number of other bodies during consultation. We have some concern, along with the Liberal Democrats, as to who the ''marine official'' will be. The relevant points were well made last week. A ship may be some considerable way from a police station, so detaining a ship pending the arrival of the police could put marine officials under considerable stress.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me out. The clause applies not only to the sea, but to inland water. However, ''marine'' implies to me the sea. Is another part of the clause concerned with inland waterways?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My hon. Friend raises a very serious point. The Bill appears to be silent—perhaps we are missing something—on who the arresting official would be in the event of a vessel or craft committing an offence on an inland waterway. As the Committee will recall, I have a particular concern

about inland waterways. I cannot claim that Vale of York is a coastal constituency. Although we are under water a lot of the time, it is inland. The Bill is defective in that regard. Who would the marine official be? Do the Government expect it to be a member of the police force, in which case would it be a local police officer, or would it be a British Transport police officer? The Government must answer that question.

We recognise that there have been few instances in which clauses 80 or 81 would have been invoked. The dreadful tragedy of the Marchioness disaster is probably the most graphic example to date. Although the Under-Secretary argued that section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 was sufficient, there probably is a need for further powers. The industry as a whole puts safety first and is therefore hopeful that it can work with all the authorities. However, even the industry has some concern about who the marine official would be.

It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some idea of the penalties. I referred briefly to NUMAST's concern about whether section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act was sufficient. It sets out a fine of £5,000 or two years' imprisonment for a master or seaman who is guilty of endangering his ship or other ships while under the influence of drink or drugs. I do not immediately see a clause on penalties. Obviously, the Bill is not mine, but the Government's, so why is there such a serious gap? We will spend time this morning looking at detention, arrest without warrant and right of entry, but I do not see where the penalties are set out. Will we rely on the penalties in the Merchant Shipping Act, and if we will, why do we not rely on the other provisions of that Act?

According to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, a marine official has said that the provision relates to coastal areas or shipping in United Kingdom waters. Certainly the British Marine Federation would like the Bill to differentiate between commercial shipping and recreational boating. I mentioned that I was a guest of the BMF at the London boat show. I saw some magnificent river and inland waterways craft there that would appeal to both my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), and which obviously sail on different waters and face different conditions. How will the clause differentiate between the types of vessel?

The clause refers to detention. I am not sure whether clauses 80 and 81 tell us where the tests would be carried out. The consultation document set out the problems. As the industry recognised, time is critical in the test analysis process. The practicality and cost of carrying out tests on vessels that may be a considerable distance from the shore would make random testing neither justified nor practical. The industry believes that such checks should be carried out only following an incident.

The question of at what point and on what occasion the tests would be carried out is a constant theme in the Government's responses to consultation on this part of the Bill. I said at our last sitting how difficult it was to get hold of those replies, as they are not on the

web. The Government usefully supplied a summary on the web of their replies to responses to the consultation paper on part 3, relating to the British Transport police. I have had to rely on the Library and the good services of the House to provide the replies to part 4, which is highly regrettable because a lot of useful information from the consultation process has yet to be addressed.

It is not clear from clause 81 whether the Government will introduce random testing on inland waterway and sea craft plying UK waters. Is it implicit that a test will be carried out only if an accident, or what might be described as a near miss, has occurred? If the Government do not satisfactorily answer that, we may return to the matter on Report.

It is extremely important to know who will carry out the tests. The clause refers to detention pending the arrival of police, which could be a considerable time. It is considered that the police service can be the only body equipped to enforce legislation; other agencies such as harbour authorities and navigation bodies are not trained or equipped to carry out the task of arresting members of the public, submitting them to breath-testing procedures, and dealing with the associated court appearances. The Liberal Democrats said that harbour masters should also be treated—[Interruption.] I hope that that cough is not serious; I refuse to be distracted. Harbour masters and marine or navigation officials should be above reproach in that regard; they must show that they, too, have not consumed alcohol or drugs, and that should be written into the Bill.

As we said in debates on part 1, in view of the extensive powers being given to investigators and inspectors of the rail accident investigation branch, we would prefer them to be accompanied in every eventuality by a British Transport police constable. Police officers are best equipped in that respect as they are trained to cope with difficult situations. We can all imagine anyone who is the worse for the drink in charge of a craft—

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

We do not know anyone who is the worse for drink.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I think we can imagine someone like that. People who are the worse for drink may be aggressive and unpleasant and might resist arrest. A marine official or an official from the navigation authority would not be trained or equipped to cope with such a situation. How will the Government tackle that? In view of current police resources and priorities, that leads to further concern that new measures, such as clauses 80 to 82, may be damaging to the boating market if they are not policed consistently throughout the UK. All police forces operate on the basis of policing priorities, which are determined locally through consultation with communities and nationally with the Home Secretary. The Bill does not lay out any policy on how a marine official, be it a harbour master, navigation officer, port official or anyone else, should react in trying to apprehend and arrest a person who could be behaving bizarrely and in a difficult manner.

It seems unlikely that the majority of constabularies would allocate resources to this as a priority area, when faced with other day-to-day demands. This year, the Vale of York area has been allocated a stand-still budget, and will be left with an £8.2 million shortfall. I do not see how a local constabulary such as the North Yorkshire police could be expected to deal with a scenario such as that put to the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, in which a crew of a recreational craft on an inland waterway such as that near Roecliffe and Boroughbridge caused a severe hazard both to themselves and to others plying that water. There is a range of interests to be considered: those of British Waterways, tourism, the boating industry, and the safety of the waterways. I believe it to be grossly unfair to place such additional responsibilities on that local police force when its budget has been cut by £8.2 million.

At the time of the consultation—I do not believe that the situation has changed since then—there were only six police forces in the UK with active marine sections. I do not believe that North Yorkshire is one of those, for reasons that I mentioned earlier. There are, therefore, only six police forces in the UK that would be capable of actively responding to and policing the new legislation. With only a handful of constabularies able to enforce the new legislation, and others with no prospect of additional resources, policing practice on a geographical basis would inevitably be unequal. North Yorkshire might be compared with Cumbria, and Devon and Cornwall with Durham, and that comparison would not be fair. Overstretched police forces throughout the UK will be asked to take on more duties at a difficult time for them.

We have not been told that that is one of the new Government targets. It remains to be seen whether the Government will amend those targets, to which they are wedded, once the Bill becomes law.

Moreover, it is unlikely that police officers would attempt to stop or board large ships or fishing vessels making their way through UK deep waters. Therefore, in the view of the marine industry, the focus of attention would be turned to the so-called easy option of the private leisure boater, using inland or near-to-coast waters. The British Marine Industries Federation is concerned that that situation would inevitably produce unfair and unequal policing practice.

To put the matter in context, the British Marine Industries Federation has approximately 1,500 members. Its members provide boats, equipment, facilities and services that enable 9 million British people to use boats on the coast and inland waterways. The UK's boating industry is wholly comprised of small or medium-sized companies, which jointly generated an annual turnover of £2.4 billion in 1998, of which £566 million was derived from export sales. The industry directly employs more than 23,000 people.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. I am sure that members of the Committee are interested in statistics about the

industry, but the point that the Committee is dealing with is narrower.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The point is that a representative organisation such as the British Marine Industries Federation would not condone individuals taking charge of a vessel while being incapable due to the influence of alcohol, but it does not believe that there is sufficient evidence that that is a widespread problem. However, it believes that its members will be easily targeted, because they cannot escape quickly; they tend not to travel as far or as fast as commercial traffic. I hope that the Under-Secretary's responses this morning will put their minds at rest.

What will the additional cost of the clause be? Presumably, the Government will have to pay for a marine official's time and for the transport to get that official on board the boat. I assume that the Department has thought through the problem; it has had long enough to prepare the Bill. Before 1997, when we were in government, we were strongly committed to introducing such a Bill and to set it in motion. We would also like to hear where the resources needed will come from.

The United Kingdom Major Ports Group made equally valid representations in connection with the clause in the consultation. [Interruption.] I welcome back the Minister of State, Department of Transport. I hope that we will not lose either of our distinguished Ministers through ill health today. That would be most regrettable. We shall endeavour to nurture them for the rest of the Committee.

The United Kingdom Major Ports Group raised the question of who should be covered; that argument has been well rehearsed. It also asked about the penalties. It thinks that they should be severe, and that a ship's officer found to be over the blood alcohol level limit should have his certificate withdrawn or be suspended in addition to suffering a fine. Personally, I believe that that would be going quite far.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. I think that the hon. Lady is considering the wrong clause.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Perhaps the Minister could say which clause sets out the penalties, because I cannot find it. If we are to detain ships with a view to prosecuting for an offence, we should know what the penalties are.

The United Kingdom Major Ports Group also mentioned the circumstances in which the test should be carried out. It said that accidents are mercifully few, but that there should be a power to require a breath test not only when a crew member is involved in an accident, but when there is reason to suppose that he is in breach of the law. I wonder whether the Minister could elucidate that point. Are the Government considering random breath-testing and detention of ships, or would the clause apply only when there had been an accident?

Who would carry out the test? The group says that some ports have their own police officers, and in those cases, the ports should be given the power to administer the police tests. It also mentions that legislation would entail small additional costs for

port authorities; their officials might be asked to board the vessel with a view to detaining an accused person prior to the police arriving. Before the consultation, the Government emphasised safety within harbours, which the ports support. Ports would not wish to resist the proposals on the ground of cost, but that begs the serious question of what those costs would be, and who would pay them.

The marine section of the United Kingdom Pilots Association also raised some interesting issues. Its preference would be for testing only when there has been an accident. Will a pilot from that association be considered a 'marine official' for the purposes of the clause, and is it envisaged that he will board the ship? The clause does not go far enough. The Committee and the industry would like to know precisely who it is envisaged will board ships under the clause.

In Belfast a magistrate heavily fined a Scandinavian master for endangering his own and other vessels in the port under the existing provisions. We feel that the existing Act is workable, but further information is required.

I alluded earlier to an interesting question that was raised by the United Kingdom Pilots Association. The legislation covers UK ships in UK waters, but does it also include all foreign merchant ships and merchant seamen operating in UK waters? What jurisdiction would a UK marine official have when boarding a foreign vessel plying UK waters? Is that allowable under clause 81?

The British Ports Association appears to be involved under the very loose drafting of clause 81, and it has no strong views on whether legislation should cover UK ships when outside UK waters. There may be problems in applying the laws realistically out at sea, and those are recognised in the consultation paper. There is a scenario where a ship in UK waters, to which clause 81 would apply, takes itself out of UK waters as quickly as possible, and therefore presumably outside the provisions of the Bill.

Can the Minister tell us what the powers of hot pursuit are in the event of a vessel fleeing from the scene of the crime after an accident or near miss? Does clause 81 allow a marine official pending the arrival of the police to hot-pursue that craft until they have apprehended it? The British Ports Association agrees that testing should take place after an accident and when there is reason to suspect a breach of the law. It stated:

''We would not support—and we do not believe there are resources to do this anyway—a wider regime of random breath testing. Resources should be directed towards cases where there are strong reasons to believe that an offence has occurred.''

It went on to say:

''We strongly believe that it is the police who should carry out the testing and we would not seek powers for harbour authority staff to take on this role.''

Can the Minister clarify the relationship of clause 81 to clause 82? Who will perform the test? The British Ports Association says:

''Some ports have their own police and in such cases, they would carry out the testing. We believe that the police have the necessary authority and expertise to carry out this task and to gather prosecution evidence. This might require extra resources being made available to the police to cope with this task, but we see little point in introducing new legislation which cannot be properly backed up by the authorities.''

Can the Minister tell us what those extra resources would be, and from which budget they would come? If we are going to support clause 81, as we feel inclined to, those questions will need to be answered.

Who is going to carry out the test? Is the marine official going to be allowed only to detain and to board the ship while awaiting the police? Who is going to pay for their time? The British Ports Association says:

''As port authorities we do not envisage any significant additional costs, although we base this on the assumption that the police will carry out testing.''

We asked earlier whether additional resources were to be provided for the British Transport police. Under clauses 81 and 82, it is appropriate to ask the Under-Secretary about any additional resources for the police for these purposes.

Clause 81(1) says:

''A marine official may detain a ship if he reasonably suspects that a person who is . . . on board the ship''

has committed or is committing an offence. Must an accident have occurred, or is it sufficient if a marine official believes that an accident is likely to occur because of the behaviour of the relevant person?

Under subsection (2), the ''power of detention'' is

''conditional upon the marine official making a request . . . for a constable in uniform to attend''

and it

''lapses when a constable in uniform has decided whether or not to exercise a power''.

As I said in respect of clause 80, it is important to know the status of a constable who is not in uniform. An officer sent out as a matter of urgency may not be in uniform at the precise moment.

I understand that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 covers circumstances in which an officer out of uniform can fulfil his responsibilities. I hope that clause 81 will not fall in circumstances where the constable is inadvertently not able to wear his uniform, which would defeat the whole purpose of the clause. As I said, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act sets out the circumstances in detail, but we want to know exactly how they will apply in this particular case.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the 1984 Act sets out that a person on a vessel could be detained for a maximum period of 24? I presume that a review will take place every six hours. That raises the question I asked earlier. If a person accused of an offence is intoxicated, the effects of the alcohol will inevitably wear off, so at what point will the breath samples be taken? How is the period of detention defined? How will an application be made on a boat at sea to have the period of detention reviewed? If I am right about the six-hour period—I may, of course, be wrong—will the 24-hour period be the maximum?

A marine official is defined as

''a harbour master, or an assistant of a harbour master'',

but it is clear from submissions to the original consultation made by the industry, the pilots, the UK Pilots Association and the British Ports Association that many people are concerned about the persons listed in section 284 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. For convenience, I managed to copy the relevant provisions of the 1995 Act. Section 284(1)(a) includes

''any commissioned naval or military officer''.

Under clause 81, such an officer may operate as a marine official, but we are told that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service is excluded from the Bill. Does that exclusion mean that officers of the fleet are not permitted to operate as a marine official? Section 284(1)(b) includes ''any Departmental officer'', so will Department for Transport officials be seconded to act temporarily as a marine official for the purposes of clause 81? Is that what the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and clause 81 intend to allow?

Section 284(1)(c) includes

''any officer of customs and excise''.

I know that those good men and women are often burly creatures, and they are used to seizing illegal drugs and drink, but how will they be qualified to apprehend, detain and accuse people who may be highly intoxicated and very aggressive? Section 284(1)(d) includes ''any British consular officer'', but as the Bill is about operations in UK waters, I do not see how many British consular officers will be to hand. I may be wrong. An off-duty British consular officer may be on a vessel and get a radio call from his boss to respond to an emergency and detain a ship. However, considering the provisions in both clause 81 and the 1995 Act, it strikes me that not many such people will be available to apprehend and detain the people accused of committing an offence.

I will support what the Government are trying to do, providing that they respond to the points of NUMAST and the British Marine Industries Federation about section 58 of the 1995 Act. I want also to know how detention will be paid for and what extra resources will be given. I assume that detention will be empowered only when the marine official has been clearly identified and has applied for a constable in uniform to attend, and will lapse when that constable has decided whether to exercise his power. Detention should not last for more than 24 hours and should be reviewed after six hours.

Will the Under-Secretary tell us whether, if there is a 24-hour detention, the person who detains the ship will be empowered to perform the test? Will he rule out any random testing and confirm that testing and detention will happen only in the event of an accident? In the rare event that a constable is not in uniform at the time, is the Under-Secretary satisfied that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows that constable to operate under the provisions of clause 81? How strictly will the term ''constable in uniform'' apply?

The most serious charge that we lay against the clause is that section 284(1) of the 1995 Act and

subsections (3) and (4) are too narrow. I repeat that section 284(1) provides only that

''Where under this Act a ship is to be or may be detained any of the following officers may detain the ship—

(a) any commissioned naval or military officer,

(b) any Departmental officer,

(c) any officer of customs and excise, and

(d) any British consular officer.''

We are looking at a huge area—the whole of the UK's waterways, including its inland waterways—and that is not enough to cover it.

We would also like a response on hot pursuit.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. Repetition is to be avoided.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I will conclude on the following point. We would like to know whether it is envisaged that other officers will be covered under section 284 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. If that Act is to be amended in that regard, why is that not set out in the clause? Will it cover a port official, a pilot or anybody else in addition to a harbour master? As drafted, clause 81 is defective.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers will resist the thrust of what the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has said.

I am sure that such quibbles about other laws on alcohol and drugs—in relation to road traffic for example—have been made. We do not want the law to be made ineffectual because there are so many qualifications that the officials cannot take appropriate action. For instance, if a pilot were to board a supertanker full of oil in the Solent and could not, because of the law, do anything about the fact that all the crew were drunk and falling about and reeking of whisky, and if an accident occurred after that event, that would show that the law was ineffectual. I hope that the law will be made stronger so that it will have an effect and that accidents arising from drugs and alcohol will not occur in future.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I wish the Minister to clarify a couple of things.

In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York, I alluded to the issue of jurisdiction. We have been discussing that, and we know that it does not apply just to the marine environment in the strict sense of that term. It applies to waterways within the UK, although I think that it does not apply to the internal waterways in Scotland.

I want to be given some idea of the difference between inland and internal. I am thinking about estuaries in particular. We all support the Bill, but—bearing in mind that it was largely inspired by the terrible Marchioness disaster—how does jurisdiction apply with regard to the Thames estuary?

We have not discussed the position of the river police—about how far they can operate and whether there would be any crossover. Essex and Kent border the Thames estuary: would the river police be able to cross into those jurisdictions, or would they stick strictly to the Metropolitan police area?

That is germane because of the term ''marine official''. I hope that the Minister will tell us that ''marine official'' does not relate merely to the sea because we would feel a lot happier if it went wider than that. My hon. Friend referred to clause 81(3)(c), which refers to

''a person falling within a class designated by order of the Secretary of State.''

I presume that that order is still to come, and that the Secretary of State will introduce an order that describes the extra people who can be included as marine officials. I would be interested to learn what sorts of persons and jobs the Government envisage might be included in such an order so that we have an idea of their intention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York talked about detention and periods of time. I believe that she was referring to individuals, but the clause refers to ships, not individuals. I wonder, therefore, whether there is a time limit, or whether it is just one of those legal things. The clause does not appear to mention any period of time after which the ship can say, ''You can't keep us any longer.'' After all, there should be no question of the detention being unreasonable in the case of a commercial ship, or even a leisure craft. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) might give the example of an oil tanker sailing up the Solent. If the tanker were detained for some time, and it was then discovered that the allegation that had led to it being boarded was unfounded, could the company or the ship's owner be compensated? Would that be deemed fair? Would the case go to a civil court?

Subsection (2)(a) refers to

''the marine official making a request''.

Because of the nature of what we are discussing, I presume that that request could be made in any form, including by telephone. It would not have to be written. Similarly:

''when a constable in uniform has decided whether or not to exercise a power'',

how could anyone be sure that that came from a proper source? I am sure that there are proper methods of deciding that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York also mentioned constables in uniform. That may have seemed slightly off the point, but it is not. I have often been told that if a police officer arrests someone and is not wearing his cap, he can be deemed to be improperly dressed, and the person cannot be charged. That may be an urban myth; I am fortunate enough not to have been in a position to test it. I am interested to know whether that applies to the marine environment, which, as we know, can be rather windy. What would happen if the constable's cap were blown off? That may seem slightly irrelevant, but will the Under-Secretary assure us for the record, and to avoid subsequent arguments in court and mounting lawyers' fees, that constables setting off

properly dressed would be deemed to be correct enough?

I must say to my hon. Friend that I have my reasons for not having especially kind thoughts towards the British port authorities, as they were instrumental in scuttling my private Member's Bill on marine wildlife conservation, which had all-party support. However, I must not allow personal feelings to intervene. If I have to listen to their representations, I shall take them on merit and not out of any sense of revenge after what they did to my Bill.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am pleased to see you back in the Chair this morning, Mr. Hurst.

In her opening remarks, which seem now to have been some time ago, the hon. Member for Vale of York asked if we might have a pit stop if the Committee proceedings continued for a long time. I must tell the hon. Lady that my contribution to the sitting to which she referred was preceded by nearly 50 minutes of her speech. I do not know whether the Scottish education system was the same as the English one at the time, but in my childhood I remember doing something in the English language called précis. If the hon. Lady does not know what that means, perhaps she can ask me afterwards. I am also reminded of someone who spoke at great length at a meeting. At the end, he apologised for not having had the time to shorten his speech.

The clause puts into statute what already exists in some harbour byelaws. Police presence is not as ubiquitous on the water as it is on the roads. That is why the proposals seek to give powers to, but not to impose duties on, marine officials to allow them to assist the police. In order to operate the testing regime in practice, it is necessary to put in place suitable powers to detain suspects for a reasonable time pending the arrival of the police. The police may then administer breath tests, arrest a crew member or a person exercising a navigational function who is suspected of being intoxicated or unfit either through alcohol or drugs.

In the same way that a store detective may detain a shoplifting suspect pending the arrival of the police, those powers may be triggered only when the marine official has reasonable grounds for suspicion that an offence under this part is being or has been committed. Examples of persons to be treated as marine officials under clause 81(3)(b) are: a commissioned naval or military officer; any departmental officer, including officers of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; any officer of Customs and Excise; and any British consular official.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

The Minister mentioned store detectives, which struck a chord with me. There is a valid case for store detectives having reasonable ground, but they are trained. The kinds of people the Minister illustrated under paragraph (b) will not necessarily have such detailed knowledge, and subsequent counter-charges could be brought against them for false detention. That is something store detectives have to be aware of.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I think we covered training in a previous sitting. In certain cases people will need training. However, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is extremely familiar with the procedures. It is most likely to be involved and already has powers to detain ships over inadequate crewing or the maintenance of the ship.

Under clause 81(3)(b) the Secretary of State may by order designate other classes of persons as having the power to detain vessels, which was a point raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York. It will be important to define those groups of marine officials carefully. We have in mind officials from such organisations as British Waterways and the Broads Authority. I hope that that helps the hon. Member for Uxbridge with his concerns about inland waterways.

Safeguards are in place. The detention envisaged by the clause is conditional on a request for a police constable to attend being made as soon as possible. It will lapse if the police inform the marine official that they have decided not to take specimens. In reply to the hon. Member for Uxbridge, the constable could be summoned in any appropriate way.

I turn to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Vale of York—so long as she does not walk out on me. I am not used to ladies walking out on me, Mr. Hurst, not least the hon. Member for Vale of York. She asked about penalties. I know that we touched only briefly on clause 79 in our last sitting, but the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Uxbridge both contributed to a brief debate that covered the penalties, about which she asked several times. The hon. Member of Uxbridge asked in an intervention whether part 4 covered inland waterways. The answer is yes.

''Marine official'' applies to inland water officials as well as those at sea. The reference to harbour officials clearly covers only harbours. Clause 81 will ensure that appropriate officials will be able to detain people outside harbours; that is, outside their jurisdiction. The hon. Member for Vale of York raised a new master point about powers needed to detain a vessel pending the police's arrival to conduct a breath test on someone suspected of committing an offence under this part of the Bill. The existing provisions apply to harbour authorities. Here we are widening the group of officials given the power to detain vessels by order.

The hon. Lady spoke at great length about testing and I assure her that in line with testing on the roads it will not be at random. In our last sitting, the hon. Lady spoke for nearly 50 minutes in the debate on clause 80, subsection (1) of which states that the power to require a specimen shall apply when

''a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is committing an offence''.

There would have to be reasonable suspicion or an accident would have to have occurred, which is the case on the roads.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is as courteous and charming as ever. If the constable is not present, how can he reasonably suspect anything? Will he rely on information being provided by other people that an offence has occurred

or is reasonably suspected of having occurred? If he is not physically present, how can he know?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The information will have been provided to the constable by the marine official, or he may have had a reasonable suspicion in the first place because of information that had been given to him.

The hon. Lady asked where the test would be carried out. The screening test on board the vessel would be conducted by a constable in uniform. Evidential testing is to be done by the police, and I understand that any such test must be carried out by a constable in uniform. I repeat that there will be no random testing. We may need to consider precisely what is meant by uniform if the hat has blown off and so on. There is plenty of case law on road policing in such matters, which we may explore if we want further information.

Legislation on the constable in uniform would apply to the local police, the ports police and, if appropriate, the British Transport police. In practice, it is likely to be the local police, as they will have the equipment and the expertise to enforce this part of the Bill. Marine officials will have the power to detain vessels until the police arrive and, as I said earlier, they can detain the vessel only when they have requested the police to attend.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency plans to train a strategic number of police officers to board vessels in order to conduct the tests. The police will also have access to vessels used by harbour authorities and water authorities, should that be required.

The hon. Lady asked about hot pursuit, which is probably unlikely, although there are cases in which it is suspected that a serious offence has taken place and when pursuit is thought to be appropriate. There would be the power to track a vessel to see in which direction it was going, but in practice hot pursuit would not apply, although it would depend on what was deemed to be the severity of the situation.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the definition of United Kingdom ships and foreign ships, which is set out in clause 88, which we shall discuss later this morning if time allows. We were asked about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, which are civilian, not military, vessels. Clause 87 applies the Bill, except for clause 81, to those ships. Those on board will be covered by all the measures in this part of the Bill except that which applies to detaining ships in clause 81, for reasons which will be obvious to the Committee.

The hon. Lady also asked about consular officials; it is important that they have the power that she mentions because part 4 applies to United Kingdom ships anywhere in the world, not just off our coasts. Therefore, it may be appropriate for a consular official to act in such a capacity.

The hon. Lady asked several times about resources. I refer her to the explanatory notes to the Bill. The issue of any extra funding required is set out on page 25 in paragraph 92, headed ''Public sector financial and manpower cost''. I will not detain the Committee by reading it out, as it makes the points well. I hope

that I have given a helpful summary of the clause and that we can move on.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his explanations, as far as they went. He referred to paragraph 92, and it was remiss of me not to mention it earlier. It says:

''It is difficult to quantify the financial costs to the public purse from the introduction and enforcement of an alcohol limit for mariners.''

That may be difficult, but it is incumbent on the Government to do it. They are putting additional costs on several organisations—I will not list them again—who are concerned about the costs and whether they can pay them.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

My hon. Friend is correct. If the notes had said that it was impossible to quantify the financial costs, we could let the Department off the hook, but as it is just 'difficult', the Department should come up with an answer.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Indeed. The Government have a Department dedicated to transport policy, so although it may be difficult to quantify costs, they should do it. The notes go on to say:

''The Association of Chief Police Officers has indicated that the slightly increased resource implications for the police would be largely offset by use of current resources such as harbour launches and search and rescue helicopters.''

For the benefit of the Committee, it is only thanks to our successful local campaign that the Portland helicopters were saved. They were about to be axed.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The hon. Lady is aware that we are not debating helicopters.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister referred me to the explanatory notes. We are debating helicopters because we are told that search and rescue helicopters will be doing the job, but they have only just been rescued themselves. If they had not been rescued, who would have been doing the work?

The notes say:

''The Department for Transport would fund any training necessary for police and marine officials to enforce these proposals.''

I hope that the Department has allowed itself enough time to do that. The notes add that

''the training would cover techniques in boarding ships at sea by means of helicopter or ship to ship transfers.''

Having tried the latter twice, I can say that it is the most inelegant exercise and is fraught with danger. I was pushed out of the way by an admiral.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Was he a hero?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We will not go into that. The point is that people can break their legs or do themselves even worse damage. Considerable training is required, and I would not like to undertake it.

The notes say:

''In terms of testing apparatus, there would be minimal costs for implementation of the alcohol provisions, since the testing regime would use equipment already in use for alcohol testing on the roads.''

I thought that I made an eloquent argument for using the testing equipment used on railways, but that seemed to fall on deaf ears. However, there is still time before the Bill comes into force. We are told that the number of tests required is expected to be low, as is the number cases prosecuted.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that the provisions will apply to all vessels in UK waters, irrespective of flag. I also welcome his assurance that breath-testing should primarily be carried out after an accident or if there is reason to suspect a breach of the law and that there will not be random testing. That is welcome.

We will certainly hold the Government to their commitment in paragraph 93 of the explanatory notes:

''Alcohol and drugs provisions, both in the marine and aviation sectors, will not require recruitment of more public sector workers, though there will be additional responsibilities on existing police, marine or legal officers.''

No doubt, once the Bill is in force, we will have cause to revisit that.

The question of hot pursuit is a reasonable one that we will pursue on subsequent clauses. I am deeply uneasy about the reasonable time pending the arrival of the police because the Minister has confirmed that the police will conduct hot pursuit. The effects of alcohol may have worn off over the 24-hour detention period, and that could weaken the provisions of the clause. I share my hon. Friend's concern that the absence of the constable himself could be a hostage to fortune. I cannot speak for British Waterways, but I hope that it is happy to take on these new responsibilities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 - Arrest without warrant

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We are told that a constable may arrest a person without warrant if he has reason to suspect that an offence has been committed or that the person who is suspected of having committed an offence is on board and under the influence of drink or drugs. The provisions come from part 4 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and part 5 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

The royal commission that preceded PACE said in its report that there was lack of clarity and an uneasy and confused mixture of common law and statutory powers of arrest—the statutory powers having grown up piecemeal and without any consistent rationale. Its objectives were therefore twofold: first, it would restrict arrest circumstances to those in which arrest is genuinely necessary, and secondly it would simplify, clarify and rationalise. One recommendation—not adopted—was that all imprisonable offences should become arrestable offences.

The report stated that the basic principle of arrest without warrant remained, whether or not an offence

carried a sentence of five years or more. The penalties under clause 79 are considerably less. The report then listed some offences that were not previously arrestable. Section 17 of PACE would apparently be enforced for the purposes of entry and search without warrant. It states that a constable may enter and search any premises for the purpose of executing a warrant of arrest or a warrant of commitment. Those powers are specific. My concern is how far reaching they are when no warrant is required. We have stated more than once that as far as possible arrest with warrant would be the preferred option for the relevant constable for part 4 purposes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge suggested, the river police might be involved, but it is more likely be the local police, the road police or possibly the British Transport police. Where a warrant is issued, rights pertain to the accused. How often is an arrest without warrant envisaged? Where a ship is at sea or in an inland waterway—a considerable distance away—the constable must be able to act speedily.

Subsection (2) states:

''But a person may not be arrested under this section while he is at a hospital as a patient.''

Does that cover the position where a person accused of an offence is so intoxicated through the effects of drink or drugs that he has become ill? He might have caused an accident yet not be arrested.

The Committee will be aware of a solicitor in the Vale of York—he was also an acting coroner and a pre-eminent individual in the local society—being prosecuted for substantial fraud. Sadly, after he was sentenced, he suffered two heart attacks and when he was taken to hospital, he was manacled to the bed. We all understand the requirement not to lose a convicted criminal, but we also understand the trauma to the individual and his family. We should compare that scenario with the circumstances under the clause whereby an individual who has not been convicted, but is accused of committing a serious offence and endangering lives, cannot be arrested while in hospital as a patient—even though his own silly deeds had brought him to hospital in the first place. Will the Minister clarify the position?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

People who cannot be arrested are often dealt with through the various cautions that can be given out, but does my hon. Friend agree that being at hospital is too wide-ranging an exemption?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is precisely the point of clarification that I seek. My hon. Friend is obviously taking the same line of thinking as I am. We hope that people will not try to evade arrest by making themselves unavailable by virtue of being in hospital. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury is not here to assist me in this regard, as he is busy in another part of the House, but I believe that many ships have a hospital unit. If someone is to be arrested, the police constable will do the testing, so the person will have to be available for testing and arrest.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

My hon. Friend touches on a point that I wanted to raise. I cannot understand why, if someone is incapable of being arrested in a hospital on

land, a person who has suffered an equally serious accident at sea and is in a ship's hospital as a result of his own actions, is not treated in the same way on board.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is precisely the point that I hope that the Under-Secretary will clarify.

One scenario is that the person is so drunk or drugged that he falls and hurts himself and is taken off the ship to be placed in hospital. In that case, the person conveniently escapes arrest. Is the Under-Secretary saying that clause 82 means that people may also conveniently escape being tested if an accident has been caused and they are accused of an offence leading to it?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I assume that such people will not escape arrest, as the police will wait until a suitable time until they arrest them. However, that needs to be clarified.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We need clarification because we may fall foul of clause 81, which, we were told, must be followed in a reasonable time. We have raised some serious issues, and we need clarification, especially given the fact that the provisions relate to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that the royal commission flagged up problems in principle about arrest without warrant and the statutory powers of arrest in general. I would take a dim view of clause 82 if it meant that a person accused of an offence, perhaps in the same scenario as the Marchioness disaster, would escape testing and arrest. Such a person should do so for only a limited time.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Clause 82 gives a police officer the right to arrest a person whom he suspects is committing or has committed an offence under part 4. The clause is necessary as it gives the police officer the power to take a suspect to a police station, where authorised equipment will be capable of taking a definitive reading of the amount of alcohol in a suspect's body. The provision reflects the power of arrest set out in section 4(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

A police officer will not have the right to arrest someone who is in hospital as a patient. There was some suggestion that someone could walk through the door of a hospital and avoid arrest, but that would not be the case. Such a patient should be protected from the requirement to provide a specimen if the doctor in charge of his case objected on the basis that it would be prejudicial to the proper care and treatment of the patient. If the doctor in charge does not object, specimens of blood or urine may be taken for analysis in the laboratory. Provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988, as implemented in the Bill by clause 80, deal with the provision of a specimen by a person in hospital. Those will apply in such a case.

A hospital means an institution that provides medical or surgical treatment for in-patients or out-patients. Some ships are equipped with hospital facilities, but we do not propose to extend the provision because a ship's doctor might not be sufficiently independent or detached from the

subject. Few ships have a hospital staffed by a qualified doctor—that may happen only on a large cruise ship. A ship may have a sick bay, in which some medical equipment is available, but a doctor would not generally administer treatment on most ships. It is very unlikely that a doctor will be in charge of such a patient on board a ship, and we therefore did not think it appropriate to include it in the provision.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I understand what the Under-Secretary is saying about the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988, with which we would all agree, and that there may be occasions when someone's life is at risk. He used the word prejudicial, and I understand the points about the expertise or proximity of other crew members. However, is there not a chance that someone would insist on a sample being taken that would be prejudicial to the person's health, because there is no provision to safeguard them when they are at sea?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause provides the same position as exists on the roads. If a person were to have a sample taken, it would be taken at a police station and in the normal way in which it would be taken for a road traffic offence.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am trying to say that if someone were sufficiently injured not to be able to be moved to a police station but was on board a ship, a sample could still be taken or tests conducted that could be deemed to be prejudicial to that person's health.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Again, the same position applies in this respect as applies on the roads and in relation to a road traffic accident victim. If a person were unconscious, for example, a police officer at the roadside could not ask him to take a breath test, and a blood sample could not be taken at the side of the road. I think that exactly the same conditions would apply to someone who had an injury aboard a ship as apply to someone lying injured at the side of a road as a result of a road traffic accident.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

We are almost there. The Under-Secretary said that a blood sample could not be taken at the side of a road. However, as far as I can see, under the clause, a blood sample could be taken from anyone who was suspected of committing an offence under the relevant provision, regardless of their state of health, while they were on a ship. I seek clarification. At the moment, it seems that someone could insist on taking a blood sample while the person was unconscious.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The same would apply as elsewhere. First, the person would have to be arrested by the uniformed constable whom we discussed earlier. Then the same conditions would apply as apply under the road traffic legislation. A decision would have to be made. If a person was clearly in a serious condition because of an accident, exactly the same conditions would apply. The police would not have the means to do the blood test away from the station. They do not have the ability to do the blood test aboard the ship. They would have to be at the station. As I have said,

the same circumstances that apply to someone injured on the road would apply to someone on a ship.

Let me deal with the powers of arrest without warrant in the context of the breath test on the roads under section 6(5) of the Road Traffic Act. We simply wish to replicate what happens on the roads. The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about arrest with or without a warrant. I think that it is the case that arrest without a warrant would be the normal means of arrest for the offence that we are discussing, just as it is on the road for a drink-driving offence.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for those clarifications, but it strikes me, in relation to some of the concerns that the Opposition have shared with the Committee, that there are clear differences in the application of this clause and clause 80 to a ship—whether at sea in UK waters or on inland waterways—from what pertains in respect of road traffic.

I understand that the Government have adopted some of the provisions from navigation functions as opposed to road functions. Clearly, the Under-Secretary and the rest of the Government will recognise that there will be many more practical difficulties in getting a constable on board a ship. We are not told anywhere what is a reasonable time. Nor have we been told what a reasonable time is for detention. Obviously, the person who is incapacitated and in hospital has the right to be treated and things must not interfere with his treatment, but he may escape prosecution even though his intoxication or the influence of drugs may have led to the accident. I hear what the Under-Secretary says, and his explanation of the provisions, but in those circumstances it would take longer to take a suspect to the police station where there would be equipment to take a specimen. A person could be in hospital for a considerable time, and I would like to place it on the record that, whatever the good reasons given by the Government, it would be regrettable if a person were to escape prosecution in those circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 - Right of entry

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We are told in the explanatory notes that clause 83 differs slightly from the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Transport and Works Act 1992, in that it refers to ''reasonable force'' rather than ''by force''. Would the Minister care to establish the difference?

The Bill also allows the police officer to be accompanied, whereas the 1998 Act and the 1992 Act do not. We are also told that the Bill does not extend to Scotland, where adequate common law powers of entry exist.

The clause raises an interesting issue. The clause states:

''A constable in uniform may board a ship''.

Does that power give a police officer the right of entry to a privately owned recreational craft or boat? The industry is concerned about that matter, which was raised during consultation but has not been resolved, and so would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could clarify it. If the Under-Secretary confirms that the police will have the power to board a recreational craft, does that mean that a police officer will have the right of entry to a privately owned recreational boat? Most of the Bill's provisions, largely because of the nature of the offences, seem to be aimed at commercial boats that carry substantial numbers of people. Will privately owned boats also be covered?

Paragraphs 94 to 98 of the explanatory notes refer to the human rights dimension—as we saw in part 3 relating to the British Transport police. They refer particularly to the following articles of the European convention on human rights, now enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998: article 5, guaranteeing the right to liberty and security, article 6, guaranteeing the right to a fair trial, and article 8, guaranteeing the right to respect for private and family life. I believe that those articles could be used as a defence to frustrate the intentions of the Bill. The explanatory notes state:

''Article 5 is subject to the qualification of lawful arrest on reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed or for its prevention. The powers of arrest and detention contained in this Part are considered necessary and proportionate and within the qualification mentioned.''

Playing devil's advocate, I beg to differ. I believe that there will be circumstances in which those articles might be an accused person's first line of defence, either for a commercial or a privately owned ship. The private owner of a recreational craft could use colourful language to tell the police constable or a detaining officer to go about his business because he or she wants to enjoy the private property.

The explanatory notes state:

''Article 6 (which is linked to a privilege against self-incrimination) is engaged principally by the provisions requiring specimens of breath, blood or urine to be provided by a suspect. However, the courts have held that the privilege is not absolute in circumstances where a proportionate response is required to combat a serious social problem.''

The Government argue that this is considered to be such a case. A defence lawyer would probably argue that it is not. Again, in addition to article 5, could article 6 be used to frustrate the Government's intentions?

The explanatory notes continue:

''Article 8 is subject to the qualification that a public authority may interfere with the right to private and family life provided that it does so in a proportionate manner for the prevention of crime and the protection of the public.''

Again, article 8 could be used by any decent defence lawyer to argue that the clause prevents an individual from having the right to enjoy his or her private and family life and, per se, his or her private yacht or inland waterway craft. The Government consider the clause to be compatible with the European convention on human rights, but the Opposition's concern is that any half decent, self-respecting defence lawyer will use it to frustrate the intentions behind the clause.

I am sure that the Under-Secretary will tell us that the clause is necessary because clauses 80 to 82 would have no effect without it. It gives the constable in uniform, with or without his hat, the right to board a ship provided that he has reasonable suspicion that he may want to exercise the powers given to him. It says that he ''may use reasonable force''

and

''may be accompanied by one or more persons.''

This may be a good opportunity to ask the Under-Secretary to put our minds at rest by assuring us that if a police officer has the right of entry on every craft, whether privately or commercially owned, the European convention on human rights, if it applies, will not be used to frustrate the Bill, especially clauses 80 to 83.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I have just found something of interest in the explanatory notes, which I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to clarify. Paragraph 90, on page 25, refers to subsection (3)(a) and its reference to ''may use reasonable force''. It states:

''Clause 83 differs slightly from the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Transport & Works Act 12992, in that it makes reference to ''reasonable force'' rather than ''by force''.''

Which is right and which is wrong, and do the Government intend to propose legislation to change the Road Traffic Act 1988?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If the enforcement measures are to be effective, a police officer must be able to board ship or to enter any other place, as appropriate, to make an arrest or to exercise any of his powers under clause 80—the powers under the road traffic legislation as modified by the table in that clause. Those powers include requesting a specimen, and are substantially similar to section 6(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

A police officer may use reasonable force and may be accompanied as necessary in exercising the power under this provision. I am informed that there is little difference in practice between ''reasonable force'' and ''by force''. Under our legal system, a police officer always has to act reasonably in such circumstances.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

As the Under-Secretary was once a member of the Government's Whips Office, I am sure that he would agree that there is a fine balance between reasonable force and force, and that he will have it right.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I think, Mr. Hurst, you will remember that in my careful charge as a Whip force was never used. Only gentle persuasion, at the very most, was ever used by the Whip's Office.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

As the Under-Secretary represents a Plymouth constituency, has he ever had occasion to board a vessel that did not wish him to do so? Has he thought about the practicalities of boarding a moving vessel from another moving vessel at sea, and using force in the process?

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. I hope that we shall not be detained by the Under-Secretary's recollections of being a pirate.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Thank you, Mr. Hurst. I was deeply tempted by the hon. Lady's comment. I have never

landed on board ship from a helicopter but I have been on a helicopter from which someone was lowered on to a moving vessel, so I know that it is possible. Of course, the Royal Navy has a large presence in my constituency and on occasion it boards vessels off our coast and in other parts of the world to enforce laws. If necessary, it uses reasonable force in the circumstances, and a 16,000 tonne vessel with some large guns on board can use substantial force.

In order effectively to operate the enforcement regime, the police will often require assistance from the appropriate authorities to gain access to vessels, especially while they are at sea within UK territorial waters. We anticipate that sometimes maritime, harbour or inland waterway authorities may need to be involved. Marine officials may accompany the constable in uniform—for example, when he is being transferred from one vessel to another by helicopter. I accept, as the hon. Member for Vale of York said, that that may be difficult or problematic, and it is not to be done by someone without the appropriate training.

The hon. Lady asked whether powers of entry applied to recreational vessels and the answer is yes, but in the circumstances set out in a previous clause. The explanatory notes make it clear that we are satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Had we not been of that mind, we would not have proceeded. This part of the Bill raises ECHR issues similar to those that apply to drink-drive legislation for roads. We are not aware of any issues that would cast that legislation into doubt.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to the Minister for that clarification; the police must have a right of entry. The nature of boardings was explained to me during my six days on HMS Cumberland; one reason for the Royal Navy being in the Gulf at that time was to police the embargo on Iraq breaking United Nations sanctions and exporting its oil. My question was not about a police officer boarding a ship from a helicopter but about the much more likely scenario of an officer boarding from another vessel at sea and the difficulties involved in trying to move from one to another.

One definitions states that any commissioned naval or military officer is considered for the purposes of section 284 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 as a proper person. In this clause, we are talking about a constable, for whom boarding a ship could be extremely dangerous, and I hope that the Government have taken that on board. It is most helpful to know that recreational craft will be covered. We hope that the Government are right that the European convention on human rights will not have a negative impact and be used as a defence to frustrate the Bill's purposes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84 - Consequential repeal

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I presume that section 117 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 is redundant because it is replaced by clause 84 and that drunkenness and being under the influence of drugs on duty are now new offences under the Bill.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Yes. The provisions in part 4 are intended to overlap with and replace section 117 of the Merchant Shipping Act (1995). Under that section a skipper or seaman on a fishing vessel committed an offence if his capacity to carry out his duties or to fulfil his responsibility for the vessel was impaired through drink or drugs while he was on board. Fishermen are now covered by clause 75 as professional staff when acting in the course of business or employment. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Lady.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85 - Orders and regulations

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in

clause 85, page 36, line 20, at end add—

'(7) The organisations consulted in accordance with subsection (6) shall include representatives of the employers, shipowning companies, the British Chamber of Shipping and the Maritime Trade Unions.'.

The amendment is fairly self-explanatory. Clause 85 gives the Secretary of State power to make orders or regulations. There are corresponding provisions in similar clauses for other parts of the Bill. Subsection (6) states that before the Secretary of State makes such regulations he

''shall consult such organisations as he thinks fit''.

We would like to make a plea for the organisations consulted to include representatives of the employers, ship-owning companies, the Chamber of Shipping and the maritime trade unions.

Will the Minister confirm that the pilots' associations and the various ports associations—of which two immediately spring to mind—will also be consulted? The maritime trade unions, of which the largest and best known is probably NUMAST, would like to be consulted as a matter of course. The Chamber of Shipping and the ship-owning companies and other employers would also expect to be consulted as a matter of course.

We and those organisations believe that too much would be left to the Secretary of State's discretion without the amendment, regardless—this is not a party political point—of what Government were in power. It would be incumbent on the Government to expand the number of organisations involved. We could write into the Bill that those bodies would be consulted as of right.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I support the amendment, and I think I know what the Minister is going to say. After sitting

for a while on these Committees, I have got the hang of things: the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that there was question A and answer B.

Subsection (6) is probably replicated elsewhere in all sorts of Bills. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York said, we are not making a party political point, merely flagging up the point. The current Secretary of State is an admirable gentleman and I am sure that he would consult as widely as possible. In today's world, however, it may be wise to specify a little more. It might be that a particular Secretary of State did not want to hear from the employers or the Chamber of Shipping or perhaps even the unions. It is in the interests of all that a wide spectrum of organisations is consulted. It will be welcome if the Under-Secretary can provide sufficient assurances but full consultation in the interests of fairness is necessary.

This is not to cast any aspersions on any particular Secretary of State, past, present or future—I am sure that many future Secretaries of State are sitting on both sides of the Committee—

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Hear, hear!

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I noted a flutter of reaction from the Opposition side of the Committee when future Secretaries of State were mentioned. Some Opposition Members are quite young, so who knows, all sorts of wonderful things could happen—perhaps even for the Liberals, but perhaps we should not go into the realms of fantasy.

The Government intend that consultation in respect of any proposal to amend the prescribed alcohol limits will be as wide as possible, and it would certainly include all the organisations mentioned in the amendment. Similarly, if it becomes necessary to prescribe limits for drugs, we would consult widely on producing the necessary equipment—a portable testing device, for example—to enable the police to screen for the presence of drugs.

I note that the hon. Member for Uxbridge said that after two and a half weeks of the Bill, he was getting the hang of it. I hope that he will have got the hang of it by next Tuesday morning, when we will have finished. I also noted his comment that the present Secretary of State is admirable; I would go further and say that my right hon. Friend is very admirable. In about an hour's time, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to repeat the point in the House, as the Secretary of State would be delighted to hear it.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I would be more likely to extend my praise of the Secretary of State if he answered some of my correspondence.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I shall take note of that. I would have thought that most of our correspondence is answered efficiently and effectively. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular problem with any correspondence and he informs me about it in the margins of the Committee, I would be pleased to assist him.

The difficulty with the amendment is that the larger the list of organisations to be included in the consultation, the larger becomes the list of those not included. It is already clear that the Secretary of State will consult organisations as he thinks fit. That is tightly defined, and it is replicated elsewhere in the Bill and in other legislation. After that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We hear what the Under-Secretary says, but the idea of taking assurance and comfort from him is novel. We reserve the right to return to the matter later, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

One hesitates to use the term ''dog's dinner''—

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Dog's breakfast.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Indeed. Some of the orders and regulations are to be made under the negative procedure, but others are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It would be helpful to know which are which, and which amount to Henry VIII provisions.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Perhaps I can add some clarity for the Committee. Clause 85 deals with the introduction of the secondary legislation on the various matters covered in part 4 of the Bill. Subsection (4) provides that regulations under this part are to be made using the affirmative resolution procedure. That applies to any regulation creating exceptions for non-professionals under clause 77(4) and (5), any regulation amending the prescribed limits under clause 78(2), and any regulation amending the table in clause 80(1) that may be made under clause 80(2). I hope that the hon. Member for Vale of York has followed that, and that I am not going too quickly.

However, clause 85(5) provides that an order by the Secretary of State under clause 81(3)(c) to designate ''marine officials'' with the power to detain a vessel may be made by secondary legislation subject to the negative procedure. Negative procedure is appropriate here because such an order does not create a criminal offence, and the power for a marine official to detain a vessel is conditional on a police constable being requested to attend as soon as possible. Furthermore, the power lapses if the police inform the marine official that they have decided not to take specimens, for whatever reason. I hope that I have clarified the issue of secondary legislation.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Not really, but we will study Hansard when it is printed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Interpretation

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

In defining different expressions, the clause refers to section 313 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, but that section in full is much greater than the reference in the Bill, in so far as a fishing vessel is defined and deemed to be part of the Bill only in the event that the pilot or crew of the vessel are deemed to have committed an offence—in particular, the offence of being the cause of an accident, under earlier clauses. We tried, and clearly failed, to define what constitutes a recreational mariner, but the Government have had sufficient time to come up with their own definition. We look forward to hearing what that is.

The most controversial definitions are those of ''United Kingdom ship'' and ''United Kingdom waters''. At the time of the consultation, that was probably the most vexed issue. The marine section of the United Kingdom Pilots Association, whose members could be interpreted as mariners, believes that they could be called upon to act as marine officers for the purposes of this part of the Bill, but they are not included. The association said:

''Under those covered by legislation should be added 'including foreign merchant seamen in UK waters'. We consider it should cover UK ships in UK waters and that all crew members should be covered.''

I assume that in debating either clause 86 or 88, the Under-Secretary will explain that the Bill will cover all seafarers, merchant shipping and recreational craft. I would hate to think that people on a French yacht might think that we were picking on them because they had had a better lunch than our British yachtsmen, but I assume that the police or marine officer will have the power to board and detain a person on a craft who is accused of an offence under this part of the Bill. That would be helpful.

I note that ''pilot'' has the meaning given under the Pilotage Act 1987. Can the Minister confirm that a pilot could be deemed to be a marine officer for the purposes of the Bill? To clarify the definition of UK ships and UK waters, can the Minister confirm that he intends to extend the jurisdiction to non-British—that is, foreign—merchant seamen, fishermen and recreational craft owners? It will be helpful to have the Government's definition of what constitutes a recreational mariner.

The Bill states

'' 'drug' includes any intoxicant other than alcohol.''

There will be problems with this definition—as in earlier clauses—when testing for certain types of drug. What legislation is the Government drawing on in their definition of a drug? Is it the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 or the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

In a discussion on an earlier clause I raised a question about hovercraft that was not addressed. While waiting for the answer, I also thought of amphibious vehicles. There is a commercial tourist operation that sometimes travels around the roads of Westminster and then goes down into the river. In this interpretation, are such vehicles covered by the Road Traffic Act 1998 when they are

on the road and by the Bill when they go into the water? Is that covered in any of the interpretations?

Similarly, I can see that right of entry to a hovercraft is a very different matter from right of entry to an ordinary ship—with those nasty great propellers going round, and the sealed cabins. I would also like clarification regarding the definition of ''foreign ships'' and ''UK ships''. Does this relate to where the ship is registered, or who the owner is? I am thinking in particular of cross-channel ferries—or even cross-channel hovercraft, although I think that service has now stopped.

Subsection (5) defines ''drug'' as

''any intoxicant other than alcohol''.

Somebody may try and include nicotine in that. Many people would regard the nicotine in cigarettes as a drug with intoxicating effects. The heady effect of a cigarette on someone who is not used to it is well known.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Section 313 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, to which clause 86 refers, was extensive in its coverage and its various interpretations and meanings. It does not as far as I can see cover a recreational mariner, which means any mariner who is not a professional as explained in clause 77(1)(c). The issue would apply to nicotine only if it was impairing someone's ability to carry out navigation functions—for example a severe bout of coughing.

The hon. Member for Vale of York is right in that the territorial application detailed in clause 88 makes it clear that part 4 extends to foreign and unregistered vessels in UK waters. We might return to that subject in due course.

I can reassure the hon. Member for Uxbridge that hovercraft are covered by section 310 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and that amphibious vehicles are, as he said, covered by both road traffic and merchant shipping legislation. The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about pilots. According to the definition in 31(1) of the Pilotage Act 1987, a pilot is any person not belonging to a ship who has the conduct thereof. In essence, pilotage is the provision of navigational advice to a master. The pilot does not assume the role of the master, who remains at all times responsible for the navigation and safety of the vessel. The definition of ''drug'' in subsection (5) is similar to that in the Road Traffic Act 1988. We are trying to ensure consistency across legislation for ease of implementation.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am comforted by the fact that the Minister of State seems to be suffering from the same lurgy as me.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Member for Bath has it, too.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We are in good company. I shall do my best to keep it to myself, and not to pollute my hon. Friends.

The Minister refers to the definitions in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and suggests that they are all very clear. However, I refer him to the explanatory notes to that Act. The notes say that,

although it might be thought that defining ''ship'' was the simplest of tasks, there has been a mass of litigation on whether a particular structure was a ship under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 for a variety of purposes, from marine salvage to the application of safety regulations and tide bars. That is good for lawyers—I declare an interest. Incidentally, I did not hear the Minister reply to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge made about hovercraft.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

He did.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I apologise to the Minister.

The notes say that courts have generally taken a rather restrictive view of what is a ship—I presume that ''a moving object on water'' would be a start—and that there is particular emphasis on the expression, ''used in navigation.'' They go on to say that the definition of ''ship'' uses the word ''includes'', so that new craft can be recognised as ships.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am interested in the subject. I have always had a problem with the difference between ships and boats. I wonder whether coracles would count as ships, because they used to sail across the Irish sea.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I should not like to comment on that.

We are told that the 1995 Act does not solve any of the modern problems. However, an anachronism has been removed from the definition of ''ship'' in the 1894 Act. The Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994 stated that ''ship'' included every description of a vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars. The present definition removes part of that phrase so that a rowing boat can be a ship. That is important.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that the Committee would be told which types of craft were excluded. It would be helpful if the Committee and the industry were told that. I note with regret that we have not been. Presumably, boats in which people train on the Thames for the boat race could be deemed to be boats or ships for these purposes were they to cause an accident of sufficient magnitude that it was an offence under the Bill. I raised the question—it was not a red herring—of how pilots were defined and the Minister qualified that definition. He did not say whether pilots would be included in the term ''marine official''. We may wish to return to that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 - Crown application

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have a minor point to make. So far we have looked at including various items. Here we are considering exclusions. The clause states:

''This Part—

(a) shall apply, except for section 81, in relation to ships forming part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service''.

That is a little messy. Can the Minister explain why the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service is partly in and partly out? The clause says that this part of the Bill does not apply to ships belonging to Her Majesty. Obviously all ships carry her flag. I just wonder which ships belong to her, now that we no longer have the royal yacht Britannia, which I do not think she owned anyway. Other Government ships are excluded. One category particularly concerns us, should there be an accident that led to an offence under the Bill: ships carrying spent nuclear fuels. We understand that waste-carrying ships would be included. Can the Minister confirm that?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The clause applies the prescribed alcohol limits to personnel on ships forming part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service on the basis that those are crewed by civilian personnel who should be treated no differently from other professionals under clause 75. However, in order not to risk impeding the operational efficiency of the Royal Navy, RFAS ships are specifically exempted from clause 81, so that an RFAS vessel will not be subject to the power of detention that may be exercised by marine officials. The likelihood of such a situation arising in practice is thought to be remote.

The hon. Lady asked about vessels carrying nuclear fuels. They are treated as any other vessel in that regard. She also pointed out that the clause excludes Her Majesty's ships—royal naval vessels—and other Government ships from the ambit of part 4. Such Government ships form a very small class of vessel in practice. Government ships are defined in section 308 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 as

''ships not forming part of Her Majesty's Navy which belong to Her Majesty, or are held by any person on behalf of or for the benefit of the Crown''.

Some Government ships, such as Ministry of Defence yachts, may be crewed by service men, so on balance it is thought best to exclude them along with Royal Navy ships.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I assume that such personnel will be considered to be guilty of a similar offence under different legislation and that they will not escape the provisions relating to alcohol and drug testing completely.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Let me be clear. Service personnel who are acting in a purely private capacity are not excluded from the Bill. When they are acting in a service capacity they are covered by Queen's regulations and military law. That is how both groups are covered and how the people are covered depending on the role in which they are acting at any time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88 - Territorial application

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I beg to move amendment No. 79, in

clause 88, page 37, line 20, leave out subsection (2).

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 80 and 81.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The application of the alcohol and drugs provisions to recreational mariners on internal Scottish waters is a devolved matter. However, the Scottish Executive have now confirmed that they wish the proposed offence to apply to Scotland in full. Maritime safety is a vital issue, and the Government are pleased that the Scottish Executive are supporting as a general principle the application of maritime safety rules on a consistent basis throughout the United Kingdom. Clause 88(2), which disapplies clause 77 in relation to Scotland, was drafted before that decision by the Scottish Executive. It is now no longer required, and amendment No. 79 deletes it accordingly.

Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 are technical. They ensure that parts 4 and 5 properly reflect and preserve the existing position under Scottish law. In doing so, they reflect the approach adopted in the Road Traffic Act 1988 relating to alcohol provisions applicable to drivers. Similar provisions in the Transport and Works Act 1992 relate to railways.

Such provisions reflect the Scottish common law powers of entry—one hesitates to venture into this territory with two Scottish lawyers on the Committee—for obtaining evidence in the case of car drivers, train drivers and now mariners and aviation personnel who may have committed an alcohol or drug-related offence. Without the amendments, clauses 83 and 95 could conflict with the common law powers available in Scotland.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister has put the amendments in context. My only query is about what happened between the drafting of the Bill originally and its being before us today. It is developments in the Scottish Parliament that we are being asked to—

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Scottish Executive.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Presumably the Scottish Parliament will endorse the proposal in the usual way or has endorsed it.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

A motion will be put before it.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That seems an extraordinary way of making law. However, we would tend to regard the amendments as fair.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 80, in

clause 88, page 37, line 26, at end insert—

'( ) Subsection (3) does not affect any rule of law or enactment (including an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament) concerning the right of a constable in Scotland to board a ship or enter any place for any purpose.'.—[Mr. Spellar.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister said earlier that we would return to this issue. In terms of jurisdiction and the successful application of the Bill, this is an extremely important clause. It will be deemed to have territorial application not only to UK ships, but to all foreign ships in UK waters and un-registered ships. Will the Minister explain what ''un-registered ships'' are? I am not entirely familiar with that

category. I do not know if it refers to ships that are not flagged under a UK register, or ships flagged with no register.

If we are creating a new jurisdiction, presumably it will apply to all categories: fishing vessels, recreational craft such as French, Danish and German yachts coming into UK waters, as well as commercial vessels. Are there corresponding jurisdictions whereby our ships face similar provisions in other EU states, for example, or is the International Maritime Organisation considering making international provisions that are similar to those that the Bill will impose? If the pilot, officers or crew of an oil tanker caused an accident that was deemed to be an offence under the Bill, it would have consequences beyond our shores, as there may be serious pollution that had ramifications in other countries.

The Minister explained why Scotland is being treated differently, but I should be grateful if he repeated the arguments to put my mind at rest in relation to recreational mariners in Scotland. For those who do not mind wind at sea and fairly heavy waters, a sailing holiday, especially navigating around the west coast of Scotland and the east coast is an enjoyable experience that is growing in popularity. Clauses 77 and 83 should apply in Scotland, or the Minister should give reasons why they should not. My concern is that the territorial application, the jurisdiction that is being extended, should be practicable. It was put to the Government in forceful terms on consultation that the proposal should apply to all ships and we seek the Minister's confirmation that that will be so.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am delighted that the Government amendment was accepted because it saves my asking questions about Scottish waters and boundaries. When I introduced a private Member's Bill, the boundaries between English and Scottish waters were still disputed, but the matter is resolved in the amendment.

United Kingdom waters can mean different things to different people. The jurisdictions of marine law are very complicated and any ongoing disputes may have an impact on the Bill. I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance in that respect. I should also be grateful if he confirmed that United Kingdom waters do not include waters off Crown dependencies such as Gibraltar and St. Helena.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York referred earlier to hot pursuit, which makes it sound more exciting than it may be. However, at sea it is difficult to ascertain the precise location of a vessel in respect of territorial waters. The territorial application referred to is not where the alleged offence was committed, but where the ship is when the constable tries to board it. The Bill covers United Kingdom ships wherever they are, but presumably our jurisdiction over a foreign ship would end if it were outside territorial waters. How would that be ascertained? Will it be an offence or breach an international agreement if officers go after a person who is alleged to have committed an offence in our territorial waters but who at the time of apprehension is outside them, even

though our officers have the right to go after the person involved? I should be grateful if the Minister elucidated on those matters.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We dealt with the questions about Scotland raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York in the debate on amendment No. 79. It is common for legislation to apply to foreign vessels in UK waters, in the same way as road legislation applies to foreign vehicles on British roads.

Unregistered ships are those that are not registered under part 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. That definition will therefore cover smaller vessels such as recreational vessels and pleasure craft.

The definition of UK waters is contained in section 313 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and covers

''the sea or other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea of the United Kingdom.''

That covers all UK national internal and territorial waters to the 12-mile limit.

The police jurisdiction extends to the 12-mile limit, and the police would only be able to pursue action outside that limit with the co-operation of other countries. The hon. Member for Uxbridge may have explored that issue when he tabled his private Member's Bill.

I believe the clause to be straightforward, and commend it to the Committee.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I would like to raise the issue of whether other jurisdictions or the International Maritime Organisation seek to introduce similar legislation. The Opposition welcome the provisions. We sought to introduce similar provisions and would have done so, had the change of Government in 1997 not stopped us in our tracks. Is there any indication that the IMO or the European Union are seeking to introduce similar provisions? Clearly, it would be a problem if a shipping disaster caused by alcohol or drug intoxication happened in their waters, just as it would be a problem if a foreign tanker caused an

accident arising from an offence provided for under the Bill.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I understand that there are no international plans for legislation, but many countries have their own laws. I indicated that taking action beyond the 12-mile limit would be possible only with the co-operation of other countries. I presume that such action would be with the co-operation and assistance of the countries in which the vessel is registered, which is in accordance with the international law of the sea.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 - Being unfit for duty

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I welcome the provisions in this part of the Bill. I am delighted that we have made such progress that we have reached the provisions relating to aviation, alcohol and drugs. Clause 89 raises a number of serious concerns. If it is the Minister of State who will be responding, I hope that we will both have the benefit of some refreshment during the break—although not a hot toddy, as that would be inappropriate—so that we will feel better afterwards.

Will the Minister take the opportunity to define further the phrase ''unfit for duty''? There is concern in the industry, which I am sure will have been expressed to his Department, about the definition of that phrase and, more especially, about when testing takes place to prove that a person is unfit for duty. If the test takes place at the time of recruitment, pre-employment, that will not cause any difficulty—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee D

Clause 89 - Being unfit for duty

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am sorry that I was unable to be here this morning, but it was my colleague's turn. I understand that he encouraged Committee members not to drift into irrelevance and repetition during stand part debates. I am thankful that he drew that to Committee members' attention, and I shall watch for it rather closely over the next few hours.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I warmly welcome you back, Mr. Hood? It is a great pleasure to see you occupying the Chair again, and we shall observe your strictures with the usual health warning because we obviously do not want to incur your wrath in any shape or form.

We had literally 90 seconds to discuss the clause in our previous sitting before the bell tolled. Conservative Members wish to record their support for part 5 in so far as it applies to flight and cabin crew, air traffic controllers and licensed aircraft maintenance engineers in the United Kingdom. We also welcome the fact that it applies to the crew of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, wherever in the world they might be.

I referred to the Government's consultation. I shall deal with the definition of a person who is ''unfit for duty'' in relation to aircraft and to other modes of transport. The Committee will recall that I declared an interest in British Airways. It has come to my attention from the newspapers that the pilot who was under investigation at the start of our consideration has lost his rather well-paid—£100,000 a year—posting. That was because he consumed the equivalent of one glass of wine before he checked in to fly back from Sweden—that was an expensive experience for him.

The Road Traffic Act 1988, which we discussed this morning, sets out requirements governing offences involving the influence of drink or drugs on a person when using a motor vehicle. The blood alcohol limit prescribed is

''80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood''—

0.8 promille. Under the Act, the police may require a sample of breath, blood or urine for testing. We shall discuss limits in more detail later and we have tabled an amendment relating to that. A person is deemed unfit to drive if he or she is above the limit and drives, attempts to drive, or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place.

The Transport and Works Act 1992 covers offences involving the use of drink or drugs by those employed to provide public transport by rail, tram or other guided transport systems. As under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the prescribed blood alcohol limit is 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, although the rail companies have agreed an alcohol action level of 0.29 promille. The Act allows the police to require a sample of breath, blood or urine for testing.

Rail travel legislation applies to any staff with power to affect the movement of a vehicle, for example, a driver or conductor, but also covers maintenance staff. In addition, an obligation is placed on the operator of the transport system to exercise due diligence to ensure that drink or drug offences are not committed by the staff that the operator employs in those capacities.

Following the Marchioness disaster, drink and drug use in the maritime industry has been examined. We support the call for action. Research was undertaken on the scope of the problem, and the measures that could be taken to deal with it. In the view of the Government, the results were largely inconclusive. The way forward is still being considered. When we consider the other clauses flowing from part 5, the function or activity being performed by the member of personnel in question will be relevant.

In July 1996, some considerable time ago, the then Government undertook the initial consultation. It is important that the Committee ponder for a moment why it was felt that the consultation was necessary. It was the result of the safety recommendation of the aviation accident investigation branch and the joint aviation requirement on commercial air transportation that had recently been adopted by the Joint Aviation Authorities. The introduction of provisions on alcohol and drug testing of safety-critical personnel in civil aviation was deemed to be worthy of review.

As with the maritime industry, it is safety-critical personnel who are particularly important in relation to this matter. Under article 57 of the Air Navigation Order 1995, it is an offence for anyone to act as the member of an aircraft crew. Under article 85, it is an offence for an air traffic controller or a maintenance engineer to operate while under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair his or her capacity to act. However, the order did not set a blood alcohol limit or provide for testing people suspected of a drink or drugs offence. I am delighted that there is lot of common ground between the then Government and the present Government in that regard.

Following a light aircraft accident in 1991, the aviation accident investigation branch recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority initiate action to amend article 57 of the Air Navigation Order to require air crews suspected of an offence under the article to provide a sample for testing. The Civil Aviation Authority accepted the recommendation at that time, but could not make the changes under section 60 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, under which the order was made, unless it was amended to provide the necessary power to make provision for drink and drug tests.

I referred earlier to the Joint Aviation Authorities' adoption of the joint aviation requirement on commercial air transportation. I know that you do not, Mr. Hood, like me to use jargon, so I give the full title; it is called JAR-OPS in the jargon. It was adopted in, I think, 1996 and had to be implemented by 1 April 1998. In addition to imposing more general requirements, it stated that crew members should not commence a flying duty with a blood alcohol level. It set out what that level was. That provision was agreed after extensive consultation and it effectively represented a zero alcohol limit. I recall that on Second Reading the Liberal Democrats hinted that they would like a zero rate. We would not support that as it is totally impractical.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Although there are arguments that justify a zero limit, the hon. Lady will be aware, from the Order Paper, that we have submitted amendments in relation to drivers and other categories of people that would reduce the limit to 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres. We think that that would be the most appropriate level.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That will be a matter for debate. Nevertheless, I understand that a substanceperhaps ethanolexists naturally in the blood and that even legal medicines may contribute to a test registering above zero. That has a bearing on what the Liberal Democrats said on Second Reading.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

Does not my hon. Friend agree that a way around the conundrum would be to establish limits with a base in the evidence, not in empirical figures, although that is tempting, and say, ''Above that level your performance of this particular task is likely to be adversely affected''?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Answer.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I will not be accused of answering for the Government again. I shall leave that to the Minister. The debate comes back to how we would define being unfit for duty. While an alcohol limit can be set under the powers provided by the 1982 Act, such a limit has no practical use without the ability to test for blood alcohol levels when an offence is suspected. We welcome the fact that for the first time it will be possible to test.

What do the Government believe to be the scale of the problem? I understand that, as of 1996, the aviation accident investigation branch investigated on average 350 accidents and serious incidents every year. At that time, the last occasion on which alcohol was reported to be a causal factor was the light aircraft incident in 1991. That resulted in the recommendation that I mentioned earlier. However, in approximately 80 per cent. of cases, the branch uses a report form completed by the pilot. The Civil Aviation Authority firmly believes that alcohol is a contributory factor in a number of aircraft accidents each year, but in the absence of testing the true scope of the problem is hard to assess.

At any time, between 40 and 50 professional pilots are being counselled by the CAA for alcohol-related

problems. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether those figures are still accurate. Approximately 10 pilots per year are added to the programme, which balances the number of people who are removed. Reports of air crew reporting for duty in an unfit state through drink or drugs are very rare. I have already mentioned the pilot who recently lost his position. I do not know how that matter came to the crew's or the passengers' attention, but he was escorted off the aircraft because everybody believed that he was in an unfit state. That case was proved, but I believe that it was a rare occurrence.

Even when air crew are reported it is difficult to take enforcement action under the present arrangements, because there is no power to take and test samples from suspected offenders. The CAA has, since 1996, been able to mount only one prosecution for an alcohol offence. Can the Minister update us on the figures between 1996 and 2003?

In the past eight years the CAA has been notified of eight cases of drug use, all involving marijuana. There were five notifications from private pilots who declared a history of marijuana use prior to receiving their licences. Of those, three currently hold medical certificates. The other three notifications involved individuals who declared a history of drug use while holding a licence. Of those, only one—again, a private pilot—now holds a valid medical certificate.

Air traffic controllers and to a lesser extent maintenance engineers generally work under strict supervision and the scope for serious alcohol or substance abuse to go undetected is more limited than for air crew. That sets out the background. It would be helpful to have more up-to-date figures. I have a copy of the British Airline Pilots Association technical policy manual. As I mentioned just before we rose this morning, there is some concern about the time of testing and the time that a person is deemed to be unfit for duty. That goes to the heart of how successful part 5 will be. The BALPA medical study group says that the present situation with regard to professional air crew in the UK is not indicative of any general problems with drug use. Alcohol abuse, while not unknown, is fortunately rare.

I am sure that BALPA would wish to raise the timing. If the timing of the testing is to be on recruitment prior to taking up a position for the first time, that will be highly appropriate. If it immediately followed or was in connection with an accident, that would also be non-controversial. One category is described as giving due cause for concern. Can the Minister set out the circumstances that give due cause for concern? It is generally regarded that the testing should be non-invasive. There should be no need for any skin penetration or removal of body parts such as hairs, nail clippings and scrapings. That must be a basic tenet of any scheme. According to the BALPA handbook, drugs are generally tested from a urine sample and alcohol by breath analysis. Those are the currently acceptable methods.

I repeat the request that I made in connection to parts 2 and 3. I am very taken by oral testing by swab.

Was that discounted and if so why? Obviously the BALPA technical policy manual is very helpful in that regard. It shows the extent to which testing already takes place.

I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to confirm that in all probability there will not be random testing. That is a controversial area. If an airline wished to introduce random testing it would have to negotiate that with its employees, covering every category of worker and the airports, in so far as safety-critical staff are employed at airports too.

I am hesitant to include in the Bill a requirement for random testing. However, as the Minister will know, one Labour Member—I believe that it was the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman)—is on the record as saying that she would like an amendment to introduce random testing for airline personnel. I imagine that such an amendment will be tabled at a subsequent stage of the Bill. How would the Government react to that?

BALPA insists that any testing programme should be based on a written contract between management and employee representatives. I have some sympathy with that. It should include acceptance of a drug and alcohol-free workplace, which would include restaurants and all offices, at all times. Clearly, airline pilots and crew have time to eat lunch, which we no longer have; that is a source of envy for us. The spirit and intent of the programme must be accepted from the boardroom down.

It is especially important that the purpose and intent of the testing should be clearly stated and that concerns should be addressed. Confidentiality is essential. I applaud British Airways for the sensitive way in which it handled an incident with a pilot, which occurred in the past month or two. Results or information must never go to outside parties such as customers or the press. Drugs to be included in the testing programme and alcohol concentration levels should be specified. For alcohol, there should be a cautionary zone in which a failure is not triggered but flying duties are not undertaken. Apparently, that is the situation in the United States of America. The Government may see fit to extend it to this country. Office and shop floor workers should be sent home.

Those considerations go to the heart of what I said just before we rose this morning about whether the Government will narrowly define ''unfit for duty''. Obviously, if a passenger aircraft carrying 100 passengers or more is involved, there is not just the damage that could be done to the craft and, more important, its occupants but the damage that could be done to buildings and infrastructure on take-off, landing or at any stage of the flight. Such a situation does not bear thinking about.

The Bill could be more explicit on how the test results, rehabilitation and right to return to work will be handled, what possible appeal procedures will apply, what the frequency of testing will be and, more especially—this is something that we will return to in more detail later—who will pay for the programme of testing and underwrite any costs of rehabilitation subject to a person testing positive or

costs of compensation in the case of dismissal. Presumably, that is an internal matter for the airlines. I do not believe that the Bill deals with those issues.

The industry is concerned that testing should not be random. It should be at specified times, such as on the cusp of taking up employment, in connection with or in the immediate aftermath of an accident, when due cause is given, or when, as the BALPA manual indicates, someone has been part of a rehabilitation programme and is coming successfully out of the programme and back into work.

I understand that there were some positive reactions during the consultation from most of the industry as to the categories that should be specified. It is important in clauses 90 and 91 to specify the prescribed limits, particularly in connection with actual aviation functions. I hope that at the very least we can insist that everyone who will be subject to the tests will be perceived to have a safety-critical function. For example, in its response, the Civil Aviation Authority indicated that they should apply to all unlicensed maintenance staff, that it may be appropriate to have a higher limit for cabin crews and maintenance personnel, presumably referring to the different functions that they perform, and that there should be routine testing after accidents and more emphasis on drugs abuse. In its view, random testing should remain an option.

I hope that, if the matter that I am about to raise is not covered under clause 89, the Minister will indicate under which clause it will be covered. How will the Bill be enforced outside the United Kingdom? I think that the UK pilot who lost his job was about to fly from Stockholm in Sweden to the UK. At the time the CAA raised concerns about the reporting of suspected offences, which I have echoed.

The CAA also said that private pilots, cabin crew and maintenance engineers could be subject to less stringent alcohol limits than flight crews and air traffic control operators. We can probably have this debate shortly, when we come to discuss other clauses. In the interests of simplicity and ease of administration, it is my fervent desire that we have a one-size-fits-all definition of what constitutes being unfit for duty in terms of alcohol and drugs. That would make how the Bill is to be applied much clearer.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I want briefly to take issue with the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) about random testing. I assure Ministers that, if the Government choose to propose random testing, I will support it and I have no doubt that a number of other Labour Members will do so too. I speak from personal experience, not as a pilot, but as a passenger who once suspected that all the crew on an aircraft were drunk. Some 18 years ago, when I was flying back from Plovdiv by Balkan Air on a very old Russian aircraft, the cabin crew were openly drinking vodka in the cabin and were clearly drunk. When we arrived at Gatwick, the plane lurched vigorously up and down, which terrified all those on board. I strongly suspected that the pilot had also been taking vodka during the flight.

I feel strongly about the issue. In particular, random testing should be applied to pilots from countries where they are perhaps less scrupulous about drinking and flying aircraft. I am sure that BALPA members are sober on all occasions and thoroughly responsible, but on that occasion, the crew from Balkan Air were certainly not and there may be other countries in which crew are less scrupulous about not drinking before they fly their aircraft.

I just wanted to voice that view, which is opposed to that of the hon. Lady. If the Government choose to introduce random testing, I will certainly support it.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. Although there was no frequent-flier scheme on Aeroflot and Air Mongolia, I know exactly where he is coming from. I have only one point to make. We support the idea of alcohol and drugs being incompatible with flying, but I wonder whether the Government have done anything about pilot tiredness. Obviously, there are two pilots but, as we know from driving, tiredness is a major source of concern. The issue is probably not within the remit of the Bill, but I thought that I would take the opportunity to ask the Government about their policy.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Obviously, a number of Committee members have now learned the advantages of flying on British airlines. I wonder if my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) was going to put whichever undesirable regime he was visiting at the time on the register of interests.

A number of questions were posed about how the offences would be enforced overseas. The Air Navigation Order 2000 applies to all British registered aircraft wherever they are in the world. The current proposals will adopt the same approach. In many cases, that could involve testing a person once they have returned to the UK, but it may be possible to prove an offence, for example, of being unfit through alcohol or drugs while outside the UK by using the evidence of other crew members or passengers. On the question of tiredness, I understand that operators are required to have a flight and duty time scheme to prevent air crew from becoming fatigued.

On random testing, I draw the Committee's attention to the grounds in the table, which indicates that there has to be reasonable suspicion in order for a constable to take action. Oral testing by swab is not currently envisaged. However, were it to be introduced on the roads, clause 93(2) would allow it to be introduced in aviation.

The hon. Member for Vale of York quoted some figures on the Civil Aviation Authority. I am pleased to inform her that those figures are correct. I understand that referrals to the CAA currently run at about 12 to 15 per year. I commend the clause.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I come to the Minister's rescue, as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary clearly is not doing so? I hope that he is feeling better.

On random testing, I wonder whether I could interpret a nod or shake of the head into the official record. I heard what the hon. Member for Luton, North said, and I do not know what the attraction is that makes both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) go to these places in the Balkans using such interesting airlines. As the Minister said, there are many attractions in flying with more regular British carriers, which would certainly tempt me. If there is to be random testing, I should prefer it to be carried out on a basis agreed sensitively between the airlines as employers and their employees in whichever category they are employed. I imagine that because of the confidential nature of testing, to which I hope the testing laws will be sensitive, that would be difficult.

Will the Minister give a nod or a shake as to whether we will be able to discuss the timing of the testing when we have discussed the table?

Mr. Spellar indicated assent.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is marvellous. Perhaps I could hold my comments until then. I welcome the Minister's comments in response to the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that, as with drivers, we are sensitive to the fact that we do not wish pilots, air crew or anyone operating in a safety-critical way with an airline or Russian airport to be fatigued in any way. We welcome the provisions in that regard.

I am delighted that we are making some progress toward the acceptance of oral swab taking or, as I prefer to call it—it is a lovely expression—the oral mucosal transudate. I clearly understood the Minister to say that the Government might be minded to introduce that for road transport. As this is probably my last opportunity during these proceedings and since it is unlikely to be adopted before the Bill leaves this place, I point out that the taking of evidence by oral swab could have certain advantages to commend it taken in conjunction with the remaining tests.

We would prefer that only those who are deemed to have safety-critical functions should be declared unfit for duty. We will consider the matter further under clause 93, as the Minister of State said. I hope that we can return to the issue of random testing elsewhere in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90 - Prescribed limit

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in

clause 90, page 38, line 12, leave out subsection (3).

This is a probing amendment. For the sake of having a limit that is easy to understand and simple to administer, we would like the Minister to explain why a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer should, under

the provisions setting out the prescribed limit, be deemed to have a less safety-critical role than others involved. In my experience—I do not know how it relates to that of the hon. Member for Luton, North—the safety of an aircraft on take-off, flight and landing, is critical.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

One eastern European airlineI cannot remember whichhad such a bad safety record that it used to make the aircraft engineers fly on the aeroplanes that they had just serviced, which focused the mind greatly.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That makes my point extremely well. I join the Minister in wondering why one would wish to fly with such bizarre carriers when there are very good carriers on these shores. It may be because our carriers do not always fly to a particular destination.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Can the hon. Lady say how her amendment and contribution answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison)?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Which question was that?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The question on impairment of capability.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Clearly, an aircraft maintenance engineer who is over the limit prescribed in subsection (2) will be just as impaired as the others specified. A licensed aircraft maintenance engineer's role is as safety-critical as the others, and he should be subject to the same limit. I do not know the extent to which that will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

The Minister is being mischievous. My point was that any level should be not empirical but based on evidence. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree. There is no point in setting limits for the sake of it; we need to establish what blood alcohol levels would be adverse for a particular task.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Indeed. We can discuss that in subsequent clauses. I am trying to make a simple point without being distracted by the Minister. I am delighted to hear from his answer that he is recovering his voice. I cannot understand why in the view of the Minister, the Department and the Government, a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer is perceived to have a less safety-critical role and is therefore allowed to partake of more alcohol.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I think that we are trying to elicit from the Minister why, in simple terms, an engineer can have one more glass of wine than a pilot.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is why I said ''safety-critical''. The engineer should be just as sober as other personnel. [Interruption.] It gets better.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying but I find it difficult to hear her because hon. Members are chattering.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Thank you, Mr. Hood. The chattering classes seem to be on the move.

As I said at the outset—there might have been chattering then and the Minister may not have picked up the point—a higher limit might be appropriate for

cabin crews and maintenance personnel. However, I go with the Civil Aviation Authority. If it says that there should be a higher limit than that initially envisaged by the Government, why did the Government reject that? We believe that it is just as likely that aircraft engineers could be intoxicated or have their judgment impaired because they were allowed to drink more alcohol than other personnel before they were deemed unfit for duty, and I think that that was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury was trying to make. The measure is confusing and goes against the grain of the regulatory body—the CAA. The Government should set only one limit.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Lady rightly pointed out that the issue is confusing. I suspect that the Government's argument will be that the lower limit relates to response rates. The issue is especially confusing because on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:

''As fast reflexes are essential on the part of aircrews and air traffic controllers, a lower limit of 20 mg will be set for those engaged in such activities. For all other aviation workers, however, the limit will be 80 mg.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 774.]

Who are the ''all other aviation workers'' whom he talked about? Surely we should have a definition because there is clearly a wider range than that covered in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is absolutely right. In response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) in the same debate, the Secretary of State said:

''The principle has long been accepted that we ought to have measures to reduce the effect of drinking on the number of accidents . . . I shall speak about marine activities first . . . Aviation activities are slightly different''.—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 773.]

The consequences of accidents caused by people who are unfit for duty because they have taken alcohol and drugs are much graver in a big passenger airline than in a little recreational craft, and we have tried to explore that.

I am not talking about little general aircraft. I shall mention Bagby airport in passing because I always like to get on record the fact that it is in the Vale of York. We are immensely proud of that and we have several small two-seater passenger jets. I regret only that there is not the opportunity for the Committee to partake of a visit.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

For the benefit of the Committee and her constituents, is the hon. Lady in favour of expanding international facilities at the airport in her constituency?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I regret to say that, although the airport is called Bagby international airport, there do not appear to be any international activities. Runways cross farmland and aircraft take off over the A19, with consequences for drivers. As listeners to the Radio 4 weather forecast on the ''Today'' programme will know, although it is the most beautiful part of the country to represent, we endure some of the most

adverse weather conditions, and the Vale of York is mentioned three days out of four for that reason.

I am delighted to be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity. Despite its name, Bagby international airport regrettably has no international ambitions to speak of at the moment. It would be inappropriate to comment on whether I would want such facilities for the purposes of clause 90 and my amendment, tempting as it is to go down that path.

Dragging myself back, kicking and screaming, the two-seater planes that operate out of a small airport are light years away from the sophisticated carriers that now exist. I have an interest in BAE Systems, as the Committee knows. I am wedded to the Airbus with its magnificent engineering and sophisticated equipment. I must also mention Boeing, which I understand will be bringing jobs to South Yorkshire in the foreseeable future.

An aircraft maintenance engineer presumably has to put bolts and screws in the right place to keep the plane together. If his ability to carry out that maintenance and repair were impaired in any way, making him unfit for duty, I would prefer him to be subject to the lower limit.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Perhaps my hon. Friend will help me. Is she saying that members of the cabin crewstewards, stewardesses or trolley operativesare subject to greater restriction than the engineers, even though the engineers have a more crucial safety function?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was not expressing myself clearly. That was the very point that I was trying to make. Interestingly, when one reads adverts for Channel Express and easyJet cabin crew, it seems that, to be successful, one needs only to be able to swim more than 25 m in one go. I am tempted to apply, providing that age is no bar. However, I divert from the main theme before us.

It is not only a matter of putting the screws or bolts in the right place. Computers drive aircraft such as the Airbus. It is essential that the engineers who service and maintain those computers should be subject to the lowest level of blood alcohol—they should not be allowed to drink more than pilots or air crew. If one treats everybody as being part of the same workplace, from the boardroom down, which is the commendable philosophy of the pilots, why on earth should the aircraft engineers not be considered to be part of the workplace?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am slightly confused by the hon. Lady's argument; I am slightly confused partly as to whether it comes from the Conservative party. Also, I thought that she quoted with approval the response of the Civil Aviation Authority to the consultation. The suggestion of the Civil Aviation Authority was that maintenance engineers should be subject to less stringent alcohol limits than flight crews and air traffic controllers, for the perfectly sensible reason that there is no evidence that the ability of maintenance workers to carry out their duties safely is significantly impaired at blood alcohol levels below

80 milligrammes. The higher limit is considered appropriate and proportionate because speed of reaction is not as critical to the performance of duties as it is for air crew or air traffic controllers. The key requirement is to frame restrictions that make an appropriate and proportionate response.

I accept that the position is more difficult when it comes to cabin crew, so we weighed the arguments more carefully. In an emergency on board an aircraft, cabin crew perform an important safety role, so it was felt that they should be subject to the same limits as their flight deck colleagues. We believe that the procedures are proportionate and right for the aviation industry in order to maximise safety with the minimum of inconvenience for the individuals concerned.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We will have to beg to differ. I regard not speed but safety as the critical factor. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury eloquently explained, if the ability of an aircraft engineer were impaired through drinking to the higher limit, that would, in itself, be sufficient to make him unfit for duty.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Can the hon. Lady define which ability of individuals is so impaired that it impacts on the performance of their proper role? With driving, limits apply because we know from various investigations that alcohol significantly impairs the speed of response to events; that is precisely why the limits apply to drivers of motor vehicles. The analogy transfers across to jobs where rapid response is an important element, differentiating such jobs from others.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is where we differ. The speed of response is not the critical factor for me. All these jobs have significant safety implications. If an accident were caused because an aircraft engineer put a bolt in the wrong place or failed correctly to set the computer that drives the plane, it would be a critical part of what happened.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Is the hon. Lady awarethis should help her argumentthat research suggests that alcohol not only impairs the speed of reaction in an emergency on board an aircraft, but reduces the ability to perform two or more tasks at the same time and to see distant objects? Blurred and double vision can occur, and the ability to see what is happening peripherally is weakened. Alcohol can also create a sense of over-confidence, which results in people taking greater risks. All those factors will affect the people to whom the hon. Lady refers.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is precisely my point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury would agree that judgment is as important as reacting on time. The different people are performing different functions. Some are flying a plane, making speed important, but the others are servicing the plane to ensure that it takes off, flies and lands in one piece. Is it beyond the Minister's wit to understand that? Manuals such as the BALPA technical handbook clearly say that all personnel[Interruption.] Obviously, this is not viewed as seriously as it should be by[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I have already asked the Committee to listen to the hon. Member who is

speaking. I hope that all Members will observe the proper rules of procedure and give the hon. Lady the opportunity to address the Committee. We may have a Division, so it is important to know what we are voting for.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Hood. I do not want to be accused of repetition if the Minister does not hear what I am saying.

In the Government's explanatory notes, to which the Government are wedded, we are told that the offence will be

''of being 'over the limit' ''.

We believe that the limit should be the same for all safety-critical roles. We part company in saying that that person should be deemed to have a safety-critical role, even if their reaction times are not the most decisive factor, but if their work goes to the heart of whether a plane can take off, fly and land in one piece. It would have been preferable and much easier to implement the provision had the same categories of prescribed limit applied in each case.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I assume that the hon. Lady will not put her amendment to the vote.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Bearing it in mind that the Minister has given us certain assurances, we will not press the matter to a Division, although we may return to it at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I welcome the opportunity[Interruption.] I will not put that on record, Mr. Hood. One would wish to record that the Chairman, as ever, wants the common courtesies of the House and mankind generally to be respected.

Clause 90(1) establishes the offence of being over the limit while carrying out or preparing to carry out specified aviation-related functions. We tabled an amendment to the clause, but it would be helpful to have some further clarification. Subsection (4) says that the Secretary of State will have the discretionary power to make regulations. Are they Henry VIII regulations, and will they be subject to affirmative or negative procedure? Before we reach the relevant clause, it would be helpful to know which procedure will be followed.

As we mentioned on clause 89, which was about being unfit for duty, it is important to note that an offence is committed if

''he performs an aviation function at a time when the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit''.

I assume that that time is when someone presents themselves for duty. Will the Minister clarify exactly what that subsection means? The offence also applies if it is deemed to be

''an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function''.

I assume that the Minister will confirm that those functions are set out exclusively in clause 91. However, does that mean that the Government have rejected the

other functions that we may consider as falling within the remit of clause 90?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

As the hon. Lady rightly said, the clause makes it an offence for a person to perform an aviation function or ancillary activity while over the specified limit. It sets the maximum level of alcohol permitted in an individual's body for the carrying out of the functions of the crew of an aircraft or an air traffic control officer, and it addresses the additional question, which we discussed earlier, of a higher limit for aircraft maintenance engineers.

The hon. Lady asked whether the power to change the limits by secondary legislation was subject to affirmative or negative procedure, and I can confirm that any changes will be by affirmative resolution. I commend the clause, which suitably clarifies matters for those who work in the industry.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful for that clarification. If we have to have new regulations at the Secretary of State's discretion, we will prefer them to be passed by affirmative resolution. My only concern is that the Minister did not say whether this is a comprehensive and exclusive list of functions, but it is more appropriate to consider that later.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91 - Aviation functions

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in

clause 91, page 39, line 7, leave out

'in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking'

and insert—

'in accordance with the terms of an employment contract or other obligation'.

I assume that the Government intend the employers to police the functions, and that the airline or airport employer is likely to provide proof of an employment contract and line of control and command. That follows on from the fact that a new offence is introduced. The amendment seeks to be more specific about the terms of an employment or undertaking, and relates to my remarks on clause 90 about whether the list was prescribed, or whether the Under-Secretary may want to consider other categories later.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I support my hon. Friend, but I am not entirely sure whether our amendment replaces subsection (5), as subsection (6) is unnecessarily verbose and legalistic. Subsection (5) states:

''A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready to perform an aviation function if called upon shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function.''

If the Under-Secretary is not minded to accept the amendment—call me psychic, but I have a feeling that he will not be—perhaps he will explain what the subsection means in simple language.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

May I suggest a form of words that seems to work? If the hon. Gentleman says, ''Oh, all

right then,'' the Under-Secretary seems to be inclined to accept them.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am sure that that only works once in a while, which has probably already happened in the Committee.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I believe that the amendment seeks clarification of what is intended in subsection (5). This is the first time that my explanation will be marginally longer than the speech made by the hon. Member for Vale of York in moving an amendment.

We seek to deter not only personnel from performing aviation functions while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but those personnel holding themselves ready to carry out those functions at short notice. They may hold themselves ready either under their terms of employment or under the terms of an undertaking. It may be that the word ''undertaking'' has been read by itself, when the intention is that is should be linked to the phrase ''the terms of'', so that we read

''in accordance with the terms of an . . . undertaking.''

The clause is intended to cover not only employees such as pilots, but recreational aviators such as members of a flying club. In the former case, we are all aware of the common practice of placing personnel on stand-by duty to cover for last-minute staff absences. Usually, staff will receive remuneration for the inconvenience of such a duty, but in return they are expected to be fit to carry out those functions that they are called upon to perform. They are employed on those terms—hence the phrase

''the terms of an employment''

in the clause. However, a person should not be able to endanger the travelling public by reporting for duty while under the influence of drink or drugs, using the excuse that they did not know whether they would be flying that day.

Stand-by duty is usually associated with an individual's terms of employment, but that is not always the case. Clause 91(5), therefore, does not restrict itself to employment contracts, but includes people—I hope that the hon. Lady is listening—who undertake to be on stand-by on any other basis. A recreational aviator, for example, may have given an undertaking to abide by the rules of the flying club. Those rules might provide that pilots' use of an aircraft on a particular day will be subject to the determination of the club on that day and that timings may be variable. In such circumstances the pilot should not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs during the time at which he or she is prepared to fly.

The amendment would make two changes. The first would change

''the terms of an employment''

to

''the terms of an employment contract.''

That would make little difference to the clause. However, the second change, which would replace ''or undertaking'' with ''or other obligation'' is

ambiguous, and potentially changes the sense of the clause. It could limit the obligations to those related to employment. Moreover, some of the terms of an undertaking that we want to cover in the clause may be less than an obligation. In the earlier recreational example, the pilot is not ''obliged'' to fly at the time offered by club, although he or she may have undertaken only to fly at that time, if at all.

I hope that my explanation is crystal clear, and that, on that basis, the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Before I give the Under-Secretary the accord of being crystal clear, I would like clarification of a few further points.

I presume that stand-by crew and cabin staff would stand by at the airport. However, I wonder what would happen if someone were telephoned at home and asked, ''Look, John, we are a bit short on the 9.30 flight going to Khabarovsk. Any chance of you reporting for duty?'' and John replied, ''I'm sorry, but I'm having a bit of a party over here.'' Would he be committing an offence? Presumably he would not, because at that stage he would be saying that he was unfit for duty. If someone were at home and unfit for duty, what would their contractual obligations be if they were eligible for stand-by? Do they, for example, have to be within the confines of an airport?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The person's contract would almost certainly set out what stand-by meant. It would probably mean prepared and ready to go on duty, so they would be in a place or locating themselves at a place where they could undertake that duty. If so, they would fall under the remit of the Bill. Someone who was not on stand-by and was having a party at their house could probably argue that they were not obliged by their contract to be on stand-by, and could say to their employer, ''I don't want to come in today. I don't want to undertake this particular duty.''

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

May I explore that matter a little further with regard to air crews abroad? Stand-by crews abroad might be at a hotel, for example. When asked to be on stand-by, if they say that they are unfit, that they have had a drink or, more likely, that they have taken cough medicine that will make them feel drowsy and unfit for duty, there may be a contractual problem that their employers may want to take up, but would an offence have been committed under the clause?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I want to be helpful. His point would be well made in the clause stand part debate, but not in discussions on the amendment. I understood that the Minister had invited the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

There is some confusion because the Library note refers to clause 91(2), (3) and (4), not to subsection (5) that carries the offence of being over the limit or unfit to a category that is specific to aviation crews on stand-by. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his full reply to the probing amendment, but it is generally believed that the clause is unclear and that the industry's view is that our amendment is clearer. He referred to a person who is understood to be on stand-by, because he has given an

undertaking. I am still not clear about whether that is because it is within the terms of his employment or because he has been given an undertaking on the one occasion that he will be on stand-by.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Perhaps the hon. Lady was preparing for the next clause and missed my point. I referred to a person being on stand-by along the terms of his employment, but I said that there could be other categories of people, such as those in recreational jobs, who had given an undertaking to take part in a flight. The two matters would be different. I hope that I have clarified the matter.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am not sure that the Minister has clarified the matter. It is probably better that we withdraw the amendment now, but we shall return to it. If we are confused about the meaning of an undertaking, the industry is confused. Such a problem will lead to curious decisions being made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has already made certain points about the clause. As for clause 90, I wish to place on record our reluctance to allow the Secretary of State to have more discretionary powers than he may be entitled to have. If he is to be granted special powers under the Bill, can we receive confirmation that they, too, will be arranged by an affirmative resolution of the House? That would be welcome.

We shall seek further guidance about what constitutes being on duty and what constitutes being on stand-by. There seems to be agreement between ourselves and the industry, if not with the Government, that that is not immediately clear from the Bill. I refer to the listing of functions. Given my knowledge of the industry, one or two functions are not listed that could be deemed to be safety critical. Are the Government minded to add to the list or is it to be inconclusive as set out in the Bill?

It is interesting to note that a rugby team that came over recently was deemed to be unfit to play because more than half of the team had gone down with flu. That is a little like the Committee—more than half of this team seems to have gone down with the lurgy during our proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge suggested that if a member of flight personnel—a navigator or a flight deck attendant—had the misfortune to take some rather strong cough mixture for such a lurgy or flu, that could tip them over the prescribed limit for the purposes of clause 90.

Clearly, given which people are deemed to satisfy the criteria of aviation functions, it is important that different possibilities are allowed for, rather than one course being enshrined in the legislation. Some scope could be left to the managers, employee representatives and others who administer internal organisations. Each airline and each airport wants to run a safe operation. I cannot believe that they would wish to employ anybody who might be in breach of the Bill.

I was slightly surprised at the Minister of State's response to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge on fatigue. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that a European flight time proposal is causing great concern in the industry, especially to pilots. The industry believes that that could lead to a regulation that is even more stringent than that which is before us here and perhaps even more stringent than the drink-driving provisions. We shall, no doubt, return to that.

We seek guidance on whether there are omissions here and whether the Government have considered including them. Do they intend to include them now in the aviation functions in subsection (1), or will they allow each airline and airport operating company some leeway to ensure that all those deemed to have a relevant aviation function will be included in the Bill's provisions?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I shall try not to repeat my earlier point. I am grateful for your help on that, Mr. Hood. Very briefly, if someone reports themselves as unfit, will they still be committing an offence? That was the gist of my remark.

I should like clarification on what constitutes ''during flight''. Presumably that does not mean only when an aircraft is up in the air? From what point does it apply? I know that the pilot is not actually given a set of keys to the aeroplane, but from what point is he, or any person under subsection (1), deemed to be actually in flight? I imagine that that is at some point in the airport or the terminal. I was going to mention that if someone happens to be asleep in their car, with the keys in their pocket, they could be deemed to be in control of the vehicle. I think that that is probably not applicable, but it might apply in the case of small light aircraft.

I have another concern, although perhaps the Minister will tell me that it does not need to be included. There are increasing calls to have on board security personnel—I think that they are being called sky marshals, in the dramatic terms that the papers like to use. That is happening on quite a lot of airlines. The idea that an armed person who has just overdosed on Benylin or worse still just found the miniatures cabinet is unnerving. I wonder whether such people are encompassed by the provisions or whether they would be covered by the Secretary of State's powers.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause defines those safety-critical aviation activities that will become subject to the offences under this part of the Bill. The defined functions mirror those set out in the Air Navigation Order 2000 as being carried out by the flight deck crew, air traffic controllers or licensed aircraft maintenance engineers.

Those personnel, together with the cabin crew, are already prohibited from carrying out their aviation functions while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The carrying out of those functions while impaired by intoxicants endangers both the individual and others, including passengers. It is entirely right that such personnel should be subject to a maximum alcohol limit, not only while carrying out those functions but while preparing to carry them out.

It is equally important that personnel on stand-by duty holding themselves ready to perform an aviation function at short notice should be included in the legislation. It should be no excuse for a person endangering the public to argue that they were uncertain whether they would be flying that day. Stand-by duty is usually associated with an individual's contracted conditions of employment, but that is not necessarily always the case. The clause is not therefore restricted solely to arrangements made under an employment contract, but includes any person who is available to perform an aviation function.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked about people who report that they are unfit for duty. If a person reported that they were unfit for duty, they would absolve themselves from their contractual arrangement, which they must have made. That is like phoning in to say that one is unfit and cannot undertake one's work because, like most members of the Committee, one has a cold. The circumstances of each case would have to be looked at. The hon. Gentleman alluded to a group of people in a hotel on stand-by in a foreign place. They might well commit an offence if they were contracted and had not absolved themselves of the contract.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Let me set out the sort of example that I had in mind. The stand-by crew have seen a crew going off in a bus. Something happens on the bus, but in the meantime the crew have had a glass of Scotch. When the phone call comes saying that the stand-by crew have to go the airport, they state that they cannot do it. The airline, which could take disciplinary action against which none of us would argue, would be rightly annoyed that the stand-by crew had broken its contract. I am interested to know whether a crew that said that it did not consider itself fit for duty would be deemed to have committed an offence.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That would depend on what was in the contract. If the contract said, ''When you see the bus moving off and the crew going along the road, you can consider yourself no longer on stand-by'' an offence would not be committed. However, the contract of employment would not say that. I should have thought that if someone were on stand-by for a four-hour period, they could not absolve themselves of their responsibilities on the basis of having seen the crew move off. When a person is not on stand-by would depend on their contract.

The hon. Gentleman asked about when an aircraft is in flight. I refer him to the Air Navigation Order 2000, a document with which I am sure that he is familiar. It states that

''An aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing.''

I hope that that is clear enough for him.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

The Under-Secretary is very patient with me; I am but a simple man from Uxbridge. The definition that he gave implies that the clause applies only when the aircraft starts moving. People might be

at the airport about to go through with all their gear on when someone notices that one of them is suffering. Under clause 91, would that count as ''during flight''?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I have given the hon. Gentleman the definition of clause 91(1)(a). I hope that it is helpful to him.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about affirmative revolutions.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Revolutions?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Indeed, we have had enough of those. If she reads on a little in the Bill, she will see that clause 96 sets out that any regulations under part 5 will be subject to affirmative resolution, which will give the hon. Lady and the rest of the Opposition opportunity to discuss them.

In his second point, the hon. Member for Uxbridge asked about the meaning of ''during flight''. The crew would be covered under clause 91(6) if the aircraft were not in flight. I hope that that answers his point.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I was waiting for an answer to my question about sky marshals.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can repeat his question, as I did not hear what he said on the matter.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I do not want to be accused of repetition.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am on the verge of doing so.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Under the scope of 91(1), are sky marshalssecurity personnelcovered?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

No. I am advised that they will not be covered.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Does the Minister think that they should be?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

No. Sky marshals are a new concept, which is why the Bill contains clauses to allow the Secretary of State to take action later should she or he think it appropriate. There is the facility to return to examine issues against the background of the changing security and safety situation.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

May I say something?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

The hon. Gentleman may speak if he has a new point.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I assure you, Mr. Hood, that I have a new point. I woke upnot that I was asleep; I have been particularly attentive as the Government Whip will confirmwhen I heard reference to the Air Navigation Order 2000, which as the Under Secretary indicates is a matter of great interest. An order will be made under clause 91. Can the Minister confirm whether under clause 91(1)(g) the licence that is issued to NATS to provide air traffic control services in the United Kingdom is permanent or temporarythat is, time-limited?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am sure that inspiration will come to me eventually that will provide a reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It would be timely to remind the Committee that we were promised several written

notes during last week's proceedings on points that could not be answered in Committee on part 3. Will the Minister give us those answers by lunchtime tomorrow? That will be almost a week since we asked for them. I could laboriously go through each question, some of which relate to the police clauses. My understanding was that we were promised a written answer from the Under-Secretary and the Minister of State.

We have established that some categories have not been included, and I can quite understand why the Government might not want to list sky marshals. We have given the matter some thought. We hope that the sky marshal, who may well be armed on some flights, particularly El Al flights, will be subject to the same prescriptive limits. We will want to return to the point later.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92 - Penalty

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 91, in

clause 92, page 39, line 25, leave out from 'conviction' to end of line 26 and insert-

'(i) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or

(ii) to have his licence suspended and be required to undertake a course of treatment and rehabilitation.'.

I suspect, as I look elsewhere in the Room, that our consideration of this important amendment may be interrupted. It brings us back into the territory of ''Oh, go on then''. At least I hope it does.

It is important for us to be aware that in addition to the penalties that would be meted out to people found guilty of offences under this part of the Bill, other penalties might be imposed by their employers. Under their terms of employment, action over and above anything that is proposed here might be taken against an individual found guilty of an offence under this part of the Bill. The awarding of licences to pilots is an additional issue. Clearly the Civil Aviation Authority has its own regulations on the awarding or removal of licences, which may impinge upon offences created under this part of the Bill.

I am also aware that when we debate penalties or enforcement of this part of the Bill we have relatively little evidence to go on. Until the Bill is enacted we have no prescribed limits or a testing regime. There is no history on which to judge the appropriateness of penalties. However, because the Bill draws on parallels with drink-driving offences, we have a body of evidence on which we can draw. The amendment seeks to add an additional and alternative form of enforcement, which provides for the individual's licence to be suspended and for that person to be required to undertake a course of treatment and rehabilitation.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Presumably, if the Bill is in line with the Road Traffic Act 1988, a person would have to get his licence back again.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I was going to come to that point. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That occurs in some countries where similar measures already exist. Clearly, the person would have to demonstrate that he met the various requirements to have the licence returned. The licence is not simply stopped; he must take positive action to get the licence back.

When we discussed proposals in this area with various bodies, it was interesting to note that Alcohol Concern accepts entirely, as we do, that the legislation in part 3 must be backed up by a remedy in law. However, it questioned whether imprisonment for what can be recognised as a society illness was counter-productive. There is quite an important debate to have on that. Alcohol Concern suggests that anyone so identified should have their licence medically suspended and should be required to undertake a course of treatment and rehabilitation, as the amendment proposes. That organisation goes on to say that the aim of the rehabilitation should be the return of the licence and job, and allowing the recovered individual to return substance-free.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Do I take it, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman has said about Alcohol Concern and the question of the appropriateness of imprisoning people, that the amendment would not remove the Government sanction of imprisonment?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

No, that is right. That is why I said that Alcohol Concern too acknowledged the need for the back-up of a remedy in law. The hon. Gentleman is right: in some circumstances, a period of imprisonment may be deemed the right course of action. In others, a fine might be deemed the right course of action, in addition to any other action that the person's employer might take.

The British Air Line Pilots Association it is of a similar view that non-malicious alcohol or drug abuse is a disease, not a crime, and that we need to amend the Bill to allow the possibility of licence suspension and rehabilitation, rather than addressing the issue inappropriately through imprisonment. Again, however, I am sure that that body would accept the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) that imprisonment would be appropriate in some cases. That said, far too often, as the evidence from other countries increasingly suggests, we rely on punishment rather than on the other side of the coin, which is rehabilitation.

With all that in mind, I want to draw attention to some detailed research on drink-driving. As I said, there are parallels that we can bear in mind when we consider the impact of this part of the Bill. The evidence is building up that a very large proportion of people found guilty of drink-driving offences have an alcohol problem, whether or not we want to call them alcoholics. The same is true in respect of drugs.

Back in 1993, the previous Government recognised the value of at least considering rehabilitation, and courses were established to provide rehabilitation opportunities for people convicted of drink-driving. Much more recently, the present Government, having evaluated those trials, concluded that they had had a

high degree of success and had reduced the likelihood of reoffending. The Government have therefore expanded the number of such places. Although they have not placed that in the Bill, they certainly recognise the importance of providing opportunities for rehabilitation.

The purpose of the amendment is to give us the opportunity to hear the Government's thinking on rehabilitation as an additional weapon that can be used in respect of enforcement of part 3. It also gives us an opportunity to seek to persuade the Government, if they are not yet minded to develop in the area of aviation that which they have already developed in relation to motor vehicle driving, that they should do so.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I wanted to quiz the Minister. My understanding is that rehabilitation programmes already exist, so we do not need the amendment. I think that it is understood that drug rehabilitation in most circumstances will be achieved by a professionally recognised drug treatment agency meeting the standards of the Civil Aviation Authority medical branch, that recommendations will be taken into account, and that treatment following a positive alcohol test should be graded in accordance with any underlying problem, but treatment of a long-term persistent drinker should be viewed in a different light from that on someone who has been foolhardy on an isolated occasion.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reading out the briefing note that most of us have seen. Does she accept that in the particular case that she is talking about the practice is voluntary and there is no requirement on the individual to undergo rehabilitation? Under the amendment, we are discussing not the merits of rehabilitation, which I hope are well accepted by all Committee members, but a possible weapon in the armoury of enforcement when there would be a requirement on the individual to undergo rehabilitation.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My point was precisely that. I am reading not from a briefing note, but from BALPA's technical policy manual, which I presume the hon. Gentleman has also studied.

I seek clarification from the Minister. The Bill creates a new offence, and I hope that we can discuss the penalties in a brief clause stand part debate, if any of us are able to talk through the lurgy by then. My understanding is that the role of the medical review officer is paramount and that that is already the case, but perhaps the Minister would be good enough to confirm that.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I thought that I should say a few words because, for some four years, I was chair of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said. People with alcohol problems are good at disguising them and often, if they are not caught by random testing, they can avoid being discovered for many years and that is very serious if the people concerned are airline pilots, engine drivers, long-distance lorry

drivers and so on. That is one reason why random testing is important to identify such people, and to persuade them to face up to their problem and to go into rehabilitation so that they can not only overcome their alcohol problem but save their jobs and livelihoods and drive, fly and steer boats safely.

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I am sure that the Government want to ensure that alcohol problems are treated as a disease and not a deliberate criminal act. Treatment is often more appropriate than imprisonment.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North said, which reflects, to some extent, the comments of the hon. Member for Bath, who said that alcoholism is a disease, not a crime. That is true of a pilot or the driver of a car if they are abusing alcohol in their own time and have no intention of flying an aircraft or driving a car, but if they attempt to do that, their alcoholism, rightly, becomes a crime. In the other circumstance, when it could be seen to be a disease, it should be treated as such, but we have a duty to protect the safety of people whose lives could be lost in large numbers because someone who is under the influence of alcohol attempts to fly an aircraft.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I entirely agree with the Under-Secretary. The other point, with which I hope he will agree, is that we are discussing offences that may be caused not by alcoholism but by people who have simply had a couple of pints of beer. They would be irresponsible and, therefore, committing a crime, but they would not necessarily be suffering a disease.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

There are gradations. People may be alcoholic, or they may simply have had too many drinks on a rare occasion and made themselves unfit to fly an aircraft. The law would apply equally in both circumstances if they attempted to fly an aircraft or to be part of the cabin crew.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The hon. Member for Bath can correct me if I am misreading the amendment, but would its effect not be that only those whose licences have been suspended would receive the course of treatment and rehabilitation? Those who have been fined or sent to prison will not receive that, because there is an ''or'' in the amendment rather than an ''and.'' If we are going to treat people with this illness, we should treat not only the people whose licences are suspended, but those who are sent to prison or fined. Is that not a flaw in the argument and in the wording of the amendment?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

My hon. Friend makes a sound point, and I wish to reinforce it, as I am sorry to say that I am opposed to the amendment.

The amendment provides for the suspension of an offender's licence and requires him or her to undertake treatment or rehabilitation on conviction. I understand the sentiments behind the amendment: its intention is good, but it would have only limited application. It does not extend the power to suspend a licence to convictions on indictment. In addition, the

courts would not have jurisdiction to suspend a licence issued outside the United Kingdom—which is probably of relevance to the example of the Balkan airlines, which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North raised a long time ago. Aviation is an international industry. Many pilots flying in UK airspace hold licences issued by overseas aviation authorities. Cabin crew would be unaffected because they are not required to hold a licence to perform their duties.

On the principle behind the amendment, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath agrees that there are many issues of fitness with regard to an individual continuing to hold an aviation-related licence, and that the specialised Civil Aviation Authority is much better able to address them than a court. It already has procedures in place to deal with reported alcohol and drug misuse among personnel who require a medical certificate to validate their aviation licences: those personnel are pilots, flight navigators, flight engineers and air traffic control officers. Once the results of a failed test have been confirmed, the CAA will, on medical grounds, temporarily suspend the individual's medical certificate. The aim of this review is to determine whether the incident was the result of a long-term problem or—as the hon. Member for Uxbridge said—an isolated lapse. Once the assessment has been carried out, a decision can be taken as to the most appropriate course of action, which may include an agreed recovery or treatment programme.

We consider the use of criminal sanctions under this part of the Bill to be wholly appropriate. As I said in my initial remarks, railway workers, professional drivers and—under part 4 of this Bill—mariners, are or will be subject to such sanctions. I cannot see any compelling reason to treat those in the aviation sector any differently. Representations have been made suggesting that peer intervention would be a more appropriate way of dealing with alcohol and drug misuse in the aviation community, and I take on board the points of the hon. Member for Bath about rehabilitation, but the CAA already operates a support service along the lines of the peer intervention programme that has been suggested. Such a system complements, rather than imposes an alternative to, this legislation.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Would the Minister elaborate on what is a peer intervention system?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Peer intervention is an intervention by one's peers: assessments are conducted by people who are on the same level of competence

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

May I say how unusually pleased we are to see you back in Committee this afternoon, Mr. Hood. Random testing for tea drinking might be appropriate. [Interruption.] It is also lovely to see the hon. Member for Vale of York here.

The hon. Lady asked me about peer intervention. The United States human intervention and motivation system describes such intervention as a pilot confronted by colleagues, managers and family members and encouraged to admit his or her problem. The individual surrenders his or her licence and enters a recovery programme. I hope that that helps the hon. Lady.

This is not a witch hunt, but the travelling public must ultimately be protected from those individuals who can buy alcohol or drugs and who are responsible for flying aircraft. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will withdraw his amendment in view of its limited application and the fact that the procedure is already in place to meet its aims.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I, too, am delighted to see you back in Committee, Mr. Hood.

I am grateful for the Minister's response. Nevertheless, he was not especially helpful on a couple of points. For example, he said that it was inappropriate for the courts to determine whether someone should be entitled to a licence. The exact parallel occurs in relation to driving where the courts do have the power to take licences from people. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and other bodies are responsible for awarding licences, but the courts can remove them. It does not strike me as illogical for the courts to have the opportunity to remove a pilot's licence in certain circumstances.

The Minister also said that the difficulty with the amendment was that it could not apply to those people who were given licences by other awarding bodies outside the United Kingdom, and that clearly it would not apply to those people who did not hold licences, such as cabin stewards. He is right. However, I must say to the hon. Member for Luton, North that the amendment adds an extra piece to the armoury of the courts in dealing with this issue. The Minister rightly said that the rehabilitation work continues, which I acknowledged from the beginning. However, the difference is whether someone who is convicted is obliged to undertake rehabilitation.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Gentleman draws a parallel between the provisions in the clause and those that relate to the road. In the case of a road offence, there is no equivalent of the Civil Aviation Authority. I dare say that it is entirely possible for courts to ban someone from driving in a motor vehicle for a fixed period of time, but the CAA may hold back part of the medical certificate for longer, until it thinks that the person is medically fit to undertake their duties.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister is right. Of course procedures are in place. I am suggesting that the court's armoury for dealing with these matters should include this provision as well. He and I are not in significant disagreement about it. However, I hope he will bear it in mind, when we consider the issue at a later stage, that all the research shows that a high percentage of those convicted of drink-driving offences, and even of those below the drink-driving level, have serious alcohol problems. We are not dealing here with the many people who have a couple of pints once in a blue moon, as he puts it. The

evidence shows that a high proportion of those who are caught and convicted for drink-driving offences have alcohol or drug-related problems.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I have some sympathy with the general thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but if that is what the research shows, why would his amendment limit the requirement

''to undertake a course of treatment and rehabilitation''

to those whose licences have been withdrawn and not extend it to those who have been fined? Presumably, those who have been fined may have committed a more serious offence and may be in greater need of such treatment. The hon. Gentleman seems to reserve the requirement for the lesser categories, not the more important ones.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. Were he to work with me at a later stage in our proceedings to table a slightly more all-encompassing amendment, we might persuade the Minister to support it.

The issue arises as to how severe a penalty it is to be forced to undertake such a course of treatment, and probably have to pay for it. Certainly in Sweden, which already has similar legislation, it is the one penalty that most people do not want. It is considered a severe penalty because of the financial implications and the length of time that one is without a licence. That is in respect of drink-driving. As the Minister rightly said, the circumstances are different in the aviation industry, but there are some parallels. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde might, therefore, rethink his argument, which seems to be that the removal of a licence and the requirement to undergo a course of treatment is the lesser of the two parts of clause 92.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that medical intervention of the sort he is describing should be used in a punitive way. If he is, I suggest that he pick up one of the excellent little books that are available in the exhibition area. I have just been scanning through it, and it gives a good résumé of the role of medical practitioners in this area. It might help the hon. Gentleman better to understand their role in ensuring aviation safety.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Without having had an opportunity yet to look at what I am sure, as the hon. Gentleman says, is an excellent booklet, I cannot comment immediately. When I have had a chance to look at it, perhaps I may get back to him. He will be aware that, as the Minister has told us, general practitioners and other medical experts already do such work in relation to airline pilots, and certainly did so in respect of drink-drivers in the various trials initiated by the Conservative Government in 1993. If the hon. Gentleman is critical of what that Government did, he is entitled to that view; he can argue that he was not a member of the Government at the time. However, again there is not as much disagreement between us as he suggests.

Keen as I always am that we should make progress on this important Bill and given the discussion that we

have had, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

As you will be aware, Mr. Hood, on the amendment paper there is an amendment in my name, which quite rightly you have chosen not to select[Interruption.] I have jumped ahead of myself. I apologise to you, Mr. Hood, and to the Committee.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Apology accepted.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was wondering what was going on there, Mr. Hood, but I was prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. That was certainly much kinder than what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said to me about me.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the hon. Lady remind the Committee what her hon. Friend said about her?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

No, I would not like to place it on the record. It is offensive to both the hon. Member for Uxbridge and myself, and I am sure that he would not want it to be repeated.

I was very taken—or not—by what the Under-Secretary said in response to the hon. Member for Bath. The Under-Secretary wondered whether criminal sanctions were appropriate. Surely he would agree that that debate has been and gone. The penalties set out in clause 92 are fixed at the same level as those currently applying to air crew and air traffic controllers under article 122 of the Air Navigation Order 2000. I am not questioning the accuracy of the explanatory notes; I would not like to make such a serious allegation. The clause will bring the penalty for licensed maintenance engineers under the influence of alcohol or drugs into line with those other aviation staff.

Since the Minister of State did not seem to think that licensed aircraft maintenance engineers have anything like the same critical safety function to perform, will the Under-Secretary explain why they would be covered by the imposition of a criminal sanction in clause 92? Playing devil's advocate—a role that seems to fall naturally to me during our proceedings—it seems that the Government are saying that licensed aircraft maintenance engineers do not have as critical a safety function as a pilot, navigator, flight engineer or flight attendant. However, they are subject to the same criminal sanction. As the Germans say, that is inconsequent, and I am sure that we would not want to include any illogical conclusions in clause 92.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.