§ If any person trespasses on any land forming part of an aerodrome licensed in pursuance of an Order in Council under Part I of the principal Act, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to both such fine and such imprisonment:
§ Provided that no person shall be liable to any penalty under this Section unless it is proved that, at the material time, unless warning trespassers of their liability under this Section were posted, so as to be readily seen and read by members of the public, in such positions on or near the, boundary of the aerodrome as appear to the court to be proper.—[The Attorney-General.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 7.33 p.m
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell)I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not think that this new Clause will prove to be contentious, and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Committee. It is in everybody's interest that people should not trespass on aerodromes and that there should be penalties somewhat similar to those for trespass on railways.
§ 7.34 p.m.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEI agree that there is not much of a contentious character in this Clause, but I would like to take the opportunity of obtaining an assurance from the Attorney-General in regard to a point that has arisen in connection with service aerodromes in the past. I refer to the position of trade union organisers in their relations with the maintenance staffs on aerodromes. In some cases there has been a difficulty at service aerodromes 290 in regard to the practice of certain trade unions in the building industry whereby building firms allow a trade union representative to be upon the works in order to discuss matters with the members of the union. Difficulties have arisen because aeroplanes on the secret list are sometimes on an aerodrome and the commanding officer has to be allowed to use his discretion. Where a commanding officer is rather unfavourable to trade unionism there has been friction. I merely ask for an assurance that this new Clause will not be interpreted to mean that difficulty is to be put in the way of reasonable trade union demands being agreed to in order to carry out the practice I have mentioned.
§ 7.36 p.m.
§ Mr. PERKINSMay I ask whether it would be possible under this Clause for owners of aerodromes, whether municipal or private, to close old-fashioned footpaths over aerodromes by the simple process of putting up notices at each end of the paths? Will it also be possible for owners of aerodromes to extend them and close roads in doing so? There are cases near London where the owners of aerodromes cannot extend because it would mean closing roads, and in order to close a road near London one has to go to a great deal of legal expense. Will it be possible for such an owner to close a road under this Clause by merely putting up a notice at each end of the road? Will this proposed Clause affect the old-established right of an Englishman to go seeking mushrooms? I have been informed that I am within my rights if I walk on any service aerodrome, and that they have no right to turn me off provided I say that I am looking for mushrooms.
§ 7.38 p.m.
§ Mr. SIMMONDSThe hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) and other hon. Friends of mine had a new Clause on the Order Paper in similar terms to this one, and, although I have not had an opportunity of discussing it with them, I feel sure that they will be grateful to the Under-Secretary for putting down a Clause to prevent a difficulty which was causing serious concern to many aerodrome owners. Such a provision is necessary not only for the sake of those who might trespass upon aerodromes, but for the sake of those who might be 291 passengers in civil aircraft. The presence of trespassers might lead to serious disaster by causing a crash or prejudicing the freedom of a pilot to select his landing or taking-off ground.
§ Mr. G. HARDIEDoes this Clause relate only to foot passengers If an aeroplane were forced down on to an aerodrome would it constitute trespass? If the Clause is to work smoothly, it seems to me that we must have provision to meet the case of aeroplanes that are forced down on to aerodromes so that they will be exempted from the charge of trespass.
§ 7.40 p.m.
§ Mr. EVERARDAs a new Clause on this point stood in my name, I would like to thank the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has met us. I appreciate the point of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), but I think that, in the case of an aeroplane which is forced down through engine trouble, anybody who has charge of an aerodrome would be only too pleased to allow him to make use of such facilities as exist. I am certain that there would be no question of trespass in a case like that. This new Clause is put down for only two purposes. One is to make more clear the position of the people on the ground. For people to gather mushrooms, or pick dandelions to make dandelion wine, or pick blackberries, is dangerous on an aerodrome, particularly when the weather is not good. Another reason is that if a pilot, in endeavouring to land, finds people on the ground who have no right there, their presence may force him to carry out some manoeuvre which may endanger the aeroplane and the passengers in it. I am glad, therefore, that my right hon. Friend has been able to introduce this provision, for it not only makes the position of people on the ground more secure, but it does something towards the security of air navigation.
§ 7.43 p.m.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThe hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) raised the question of rights of way across the landing grounds of aerodromes. It will be a very serious matter if this Clause affects such rights of way. Rights of way are 292 something sacred and are not to be disposed of lightly by a new Clause in this Bill. According to the hon. Member's reading of the Clause all that owners of aerodromes will have to do is to put up a notice—
§ Mr. PERKINSI merely asked a question.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI am thankful that the hon. Member asked the question, because I am anxious to get it cleared up. All that owners have to do, according to the hon. Member's reading of the new Clause—and his reading is the reading of aerodrome owners—is to put up a notice at each end of the right of way, and it can be closed. Our forefathers have in many cases gone to prison in order to ensure that rights of way are maintained. Is all that sacrifice to go for nothing? I hope that the Attorney-General will make it clear that rights of way are not to be handed over to aerodromes. All our rights, our privileges and our liberties are at stake in everything we do now because of the war atmosphere that has been created. Everything has got to be sacrificed. I can see that this may be the thin end of the wedge in the sacrificing of rights of way. I hope the Attorney-General will be able to satisfy us that rights of way will not be handed away so easily to any aerodrome owner, whether a municipality or a private person. It ought to be made more difficult to close any right of way.
§ 7.45 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI can completely reassure the Committee on the point raised by one or two hon. Members and emphasised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). If there is a right of way or a road across an aerodrome a person using that right of way or that road is not trespassing, and this Clause applies only to persons trespassing on an aerodrome, that is to say, persons who are doing what they have no right to do. The point raised by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) is, I think, outside what one would regard as the general purview of this Clause. The presence at an aerodrome of trade union organisers watching work going on is a matter for negotiation and, one hopes, amicable agreement between the persons employing the men concerned and the 293 trade union. If the hon. Member has any special cases in mind my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary will be glad to consider them; but the general purpose of this Clause is not concerned with anything of that kind, but is to enable a penalty to be imposed with the object of preventing people from wandering over land where they have no right to go and where they may incur grave dangers. The point as to mushrooms is a somewhat new one to me. I did not know that there was a general right to pick mushrooms on anybody else's land, and, indeed, I hope that any mushrooms which grow in the small fields which I have the privilege of possessing belong to me and can be gathered by me alone.
§ Sir FRANCIS ACLANDNot unless you put up a notice that you cultivate them.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALIf that is so, and I accept the statement, I think it is in the general interest of the public that their mushrooming activities should be restricted to that very large part of the area of this country which is not used as aerodromes. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) raised a point as to aeroplanes making forced landings. Speaking for myself, it is very difficult for me to imagine anybody prosecuting an airman for trespassing if it is a case of a forced landing, whether on an aerodrome or anywhere else. It certainly is not the intention that this Clause should apply to that class of case. The Clause is to apply to pedestrians or, possibly, to motor cyclists. But I will undertake to look into the point and, if we think it necessary, to add words to make it clear that aeroplanes which are forced to make a landing shall not be subject to the penalties of the Clause.
§ 7.50 p. m.
§ Mr. A. BEVANI am rather puzzled to know what necessity there can be for this Clause. I thought the existing law conferred certain rights upon the owners of land, that a person who crossed private land was a trespasser.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALThe notice, "Trespassers will be prosecuted" is not strictly accurate. A trespasser on land can be proceeded against civilly for any damage which he may have done, but he cannot be prosecuted for being there. This Clause does enable a prosecution to 294 be undertaken against people who trespass, if the requisite notices have been put up on the aerodrome land.
§ Mr. BEVANYes, I always understood that one had to prove damage before a person could be sued for trespass; but it seems hard lines that someone who is gathering mushrooms in an adjoining field and sees a particularly luscious lot of mushrooms just over the hedge of the aerodrome should be liable to a fine of £5 and go to prison for a month, if he goes in search of those fruity-looking mushrooms. It is an excessive penalty for yielding to so strong a temptation. Ought not the penalty to be somewhat more limited? I appreciate the force of the argument that an airman who is going to land should be protected against the possibility of finding people walking about on the aerodrome and that the people who are walking about should be protected from the danger of being knocked down by the aeroplane, but ought we not to confine this penalty to trespassing on the actual landing field? The landing field is only part of an aerodrome.
§ Captain HAROLD BALFOURNo, the landing field is the whole aerodrome. You are lucky if you succeed in landing in the middle of the aerodrome. Very often an airman only just succeeds in pulling up at the very edge of the aerodrome.
§ Mr. BEVANBut an aerodrome will not be all landing field, yet this Clause will apply, apparently, to all parts of the enclosure. I should not have thought that a landing field was co-equal with the area of the aerodrome. I am astonished to hear that contention put forward. I could take hon. Members to almost any aerodrome and show them land which is not part of the landing field. The point I make is that this severe penalty ought not to apply to trespassers on the portions of the aerodrome where the danger from landing aeroplanes does not arise. It is a heavy penalty, and I ask the Under-Secretary whether some words cannot be introduced to limit the penalty to those who trespass on the landing field, leaving the existing law to deal with those who might be on other parts of the aerodrome.
§ 7.54 p.m.
§ Mr. H. G. WILLIAMSI feel that we ought to proceed a little carefully when 295 we are turning what is at present a civil wrong into a criminal wrong. The primary object of the Clause is not to harm the people who may be proceeded against, but to protect them; it is a safety Clause, and, therefore, we have to be sensible about it. But what is the practice of railway companies? They have powers to prosecute in case of trespass, and so also have authorities like the Port of London Authority and the Liverpool Docks and Harbour Board, and I think we ought to know whether these powers are analogous. Another point has been suggested to me by a private Bill which is being promoted by the Birmingham Corporation. The Birmingham Corporation are not only going to establish an aerodrome but to establish a protective area around that aerodrome. They are not buying that additional area of land but are limiting the rights of the owners of the land, subject to compensation, in certain eventualities. Is this protected area going to be treated as part of the aerodrome? If it is, then a much bigger issue is raised. The Birmingham Corporation's Bill is the first which happens to raise this particular issue, and on the Order Paper there is a notice in the name of a number of hon. Members, including myself, rather challenging the whole conception underlying this protected area; because if every municipality with an aerodrome is going to sterilise a whole lot of additional land we ought to take note of where we are travelling; and if one cannot trespass on that additional land without committing a criminal offence the position may become rather serious.
§ Mr. EVERARDThis Clause applies to a. licensed aerodrome. The Corporation of Birmingham are proposing to take a certain amount of land for which they will seek a licence from the Air Ministry. This Clause refers only to the part of the land which is licensed. If the area of that aerodrome is increased by licensing further land then that additional land would come within the scope of this Clause, but it will only come within it when it is licensed.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThe Birmingham Corporation are raising an entirely new issue. An aerodrome consists of the land which the aerodrome authority either own or 296 lease, but under the Birmingham Bill the corporation are going to take powers over land which is not part of the aerodrome, as we understand it, but may, nevertheless, be brought in under any licence granted by the Air Ministry. It raises an entirely new point which has actually not come before the House, because the Bill has not yet been submitted for Second Reading.
§ 7.57 p.m.
§ Mr. SIMMONDSI think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has omitted to notice that an aerodrome includes in addition to what we may call the landing area proper, another area which we may call the technical area, to differentiate it from any hotel or garden on the aerodrome and that it is important to keep trespassers away from that technical area. At a busy aerodrome there may be 40 or 50 aeroplanes standing out on the ground, unguarded. We all know the havoc that souvenier hunters can wreak, and there is the risk of a trespasser doing some small damage to an aeroplane which, though it is insignificant damage in his eyes may render that aeroplane completely unairworthy. Therefore, although there may be substance in what is said about not increasing the scope for prosecuting trespassers, it is important to recollect that in addition to the landing area there are other parts of an aerodrome from which it is important to keep trespassers.
§ 7.59 p.m.
§ Mr. BEVANI would press the Attorney-General to give us some satisfaction on this matter, because the speech of the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) rather emphasises the gravity of the step which it is proposed to take under this Clause. If someone wanders into an aerodrome and damages an aeroplane you can proceed against him for damage. The same thing might happen in a garage. An expensive motor car in a garage might be damaged by somebody, but you do not put a Clause into a Bill making it a criminal offence to trespass in a garage. That is the point which has been raised here. One reason why the Clause is put in is the danger arising from people wandering on to the landing field, and I want to know why we do not confine the operations of the Clause to the landing field? It is not right that the House of Commons should 297 expose the civilian population to criminal action for wandering on land which is exactly similar to all other kinds of land around it. It ought to be possible to put words in the Clause by which proceedings could be limited to persons who trespass on, the landing field only.
§ 8.1 p.m.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI find, as the Debate proceeds, that dangers are being raised as a result of the question which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), and that the matter is becoming serious. I saw his reason for raising the question, and I do not think that the answer which was received from the Attorney-General is satisfactory from a trade union point of view. From the information which I have been able to glean from the Debate, it is possible that trade union organisers will not be able to get within a mile of those who are working about an aerodrome. Time and time again we have been denied access to works, factories and mines, where we wished to organise the workers. That was all right up to a point, because we had not the power to throttle that activity, but here they are, coming before the House of Commons and asking us to legalise, by this Bill, any petty officer who may be in charge of an aerodrome, in preventing the workers' organiser from getting into touch with workpeople at the aerodrome.
We consider that to be ridiculous and we are not going to stand for it. Wherever we have any power or say in the matter, we shall see to it that the workpeople are free for access by any organisation or organiser of labour at any time. When first I raised the question about the right of way, the Clause in question seemed very serious from that point of view, but this Clause proposes to empower officials or officers who may have control of an aerodrome to prevent organisers of labour from getting near the workers in that aerodrome. I again appeal to the Attorney-General to clear the air a bit more, so as to assure Labour Members that we are not throwing away any right which we have of access in other Government establishments, and that we have the same right here as we have elsewhere.
§ 8.5 p.m.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEMay I stress the point which has just been made by the 298 hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)? I do not think the Attorney-General quite appreciates the point in regard to trade union organisation. May I put it in this way? In the building industry particularly, and with the maintenance staffs who have to do building and repairs, it is the custom that trade union organisers attend the works and obtain conference with members of their unions engaged upon the job. The Clause seeks to make a criminal offence of what is a civil question of damage. Whatever arrangements may be made, by the firm doing the job after obtaining the contracts, with the trade unions of the men working there, it leaves it within the power, not of the contractor who understands the situation, possibly, and who knows what the usual arrangements are in the industry, but of the managers of aerodromes, to exercise their discretion, and probably to express their own feelings against trade unionism, in defiance of practice and with the assistance of a new criminal law.
§ Mr. MANDEROn a point of Order. Would it not be proper for the Attorney-General, whose speech was interrupted half an hour ago, to continue the same speech?
§ THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)The hon. and learned Gentleman has given way to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly).
§ Mr. KELLYI can assure the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that I have not the slightest objection to sitting down at this moment and to allowing anyone else to make a speech, if he will make the few points which I want to present to the Committee. I am surprised at such a proposal being made as that which we are discussing, particularly in view of the knowledge which the Department has of the difficulties of many of us in the past in reaching those in the centre of land owned by the Air Ministry, the Army or even by the Admiralty—although we are not discussing any of those Forces. We had the safeguard that, although a notice was put up with regard to trespassing, it was qualified by a statement about people having business on the ground. There is no qualification in the 299 present proposal, and any person trespassing on the land will be dealt with.
Some of us are probably not very pleasing to officers in the Forces because we have to negotiate in regard to wages And working conditions, and the proposal offers them an opportunity of preventing those of us who are engaged in that useful work, which is of advantage to the country even though it be not liked by the Department, from engaging in it. That will not be peculiar to this Department, except that the Air Ministry, for some reason, seems always desirous to go much further than the other two Forces. What is this secrecy? What is the justification for preventing citizens of this country associating with men and women engaged by the Air Ministry at the aerodromes? There is a desire to keep everybody away from aerodromes for fear that there might be an organisation through which those people could secure conditions which are denied to them by the Government, but which I hope they may be able, by means of organisation, to force the Government to give them one of these days.
§ Mr. SIMMONDSIs it not a fact that the Clause deals exclusively with civil aerodromes?
§ Mr. KELLYExactly, and I am coming to them in a moment. I may have appeared to the hon. Member to be a long time in reaching them, but if we permitted those in charge of the Air Ministry to see this power operating at civil aerodromes, I leave it to the imagination of the hon. Member to picture what would be done to us by air marshals and others, if they were given the opportunity. I hope that this proposal will not be pressed. There is no qualification in regard to those who have business on the aerodromes, and to whom it would be an advantage to reach people who were engaged in work there. If this matter is pressed, there will be but one thing to do. Those who really have business there in the interest of the working conditions and wages of the people, will have to defy the law, in order to reach the people.
§ 8.11 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI must apologise to the Committee for speaking the third time, but there are one or two questions with which I would like to deal. 300 The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) raised questions of the scope and area of the Clause. I will ask the Committee to read the words as they are:
If any person trespasses on any land forming part of an aerodrome.Most part of an aerodrome is either actual landing ground or potential landing ground, and it is much simpler and more satisfactory not to carve out small portions which might never be used for that purpose. In regard to the mushrooms of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, I should think that a good crop of mushrooms will undoubtedly be growing on land which is part of the landing ground. The hon. Member for South Croydon mentioned the case of land around an aerodrome. In the absence of any express words, the land around would not be part of an aerodrome within the meaning of the Clause, but I suggest if there were any doubt about it, the proper way to deal with it is by putting in express words making it clear that the land was not to be part of the aerodrome for the purposes of the Clause. There was the reference by hon. Members to trade union organisers having access to men who were working. The railway companies have, of course, exactly similar powers as that which is proposed by the Clause. They have the power to put up notices and to make by-laws.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI sit for a railway town, and I have never had any complaint that trade union officials have difficulty in carrying out the important work which they do on behalf of their members.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALNotices are put up all the way down the railway line. [Interruption.] I will look into any special case. It should be dealt with by arrangement. Part of the object of the Clause is that nobody has a right to go on another person's land unless by the usual licence from him, and surely the proper way to deal with this business is by arrangement between the parties concerned. If any owner is unreasonable in refusing access, it would be perfectly 301 legitimate to proceed through the proper channel.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEThe power of prosecution is being given into the hands of other people entirely.
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERALThe power of prosecution is being given into the hands of those people who have the right to say when anyone shall go on their land. The function and scope of the Clause is, as I have already explained, simply to prevent persons trespassing on land to trespass on which will be a danger to them, and might be a great danger to persons on aeroplanes who were wanting to land. That is the general intention and scope of the Clause, and I hope we may now pass it. Any further points which hon. Members may desire to raise will be looked into.
§ 8.17 p.m.
§ Mr. HARDIECases may arise in which there is a right of way through an aerodrome, and I want to be sure that any such right of way will be protected. If a right of way runs right through the centre of an aerodrome, will it follow that the right of way will be closed altogether? I believe there is a right of way across the aerodrome at Croydon. Is that to be closed because it is a danger to people to be on that land? Is the aeroplane to be the first consideration, and not the right of way; or will the right of way remain, and will the responsibility be on those traversing the right of way as to whether they are hurt or not?
§ 8.18 p.m.
§ Mr. CASSELLSI assume, from the speech of the Attorney-General, that we may take it that the qualification of trespass is to be found where persons actually impinge upon the territory of an aerodrome on which particular notices have been placed giving specific information. It is, however, the penalty that troubles hon. Members on this side. There is not only a monetary penalty, but a penalty of imprisonment together with a monetary fine. I would ask what is the Attorney-General's interpretation of the word "trespass"? Is it necessary that it should be done wilfully? I have listened with the greatest attention to the points which have been made my hon. Members on this side of the Committee with regard to the questions which will 302 arise when persons might, unwittingly in many cases, impinge upon this sacrosanct space, and questions with regard to forced landings. If the Attorney-General is sincere in his suggestion that these particular cases should be protected, there is no reason why he should not without more ado add the word "wilfully" after the third word on the first line, making the Clause read:
If any person wilfully trespasses
§ 8.20 p.m.
§ Mr. BEVANDid I understand the Attorney-General to say that he is prepared to consider, through the usual channels, suggestions for the modification of the Clause on Report? If that is what he means, we can pass from the Clause, but I did not quite understand that to be his meaning. We are frightened by this penalty. It seems to be a very drastic punishment for wandering on a, piece of land. I think the Attorney-General himself has made it clear that the purpose of the Clause is to protect the lives and limbs of persons who may be on the landing ground, but he must realise that we are concerned with other aspects of the matter. If I wanted to talk with some man employed at an aerodrome, I need not go on the landing ground; I could go to other places, such as the office or the hangar. The Attorney-General says that first of all I must get the permission of the employer in order to be able to talk to the workmen, but does he not realise that the whole experience of trade unionists is that the employer will not listen to you until you can make him? You cannot make him listen until you have enough men in your union, and it is to get men in your union that you want to go there. It seems very hard that, if I want to organise a man inside my union under the British law, I am liable to be sent to prison for a month. It is all very well for the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) to smile, but he dare not go to South Croydon and say that on a public platform.
§ Mr. H. G. WILLIAMSI only thought that it might be a good idea if one particular hon. Member went to gaol. I was not thinking of hon. Members in general.
§ Mr. BEVANAt the, moment I am concerned to elicit from the Attorney-General, if I can, some assurance that 303 this point will be considered on Report. I hear hon. Members say "No," but we attach so much importance to this point that the only answer we can make is that we must continue the Debate. We are entitled to say that a man should not be made a criminal because he has wandered on to a piece of grass land, or has attempted to speak to people who are employed there, with the object of organising them in a trade union. If hon. Members want to be fair, they ought to make some sort of concession. Does the Attorney-General mean to consider this matter on Report?
§ 8.24 p.m.
§ Mr. GARRO JONESI would ask the Attorney-General, while he is considering some modification of this Clause, seriously to consider whether the Clause is really necessary. Even from the point of view of the flying man I consider that it is totally unnecessary. Its salient characteristic is that it creates a new criminal offence, and it ill becomes the House of Commons to create a new criminal offence without the most careful consideration. In whose interests is it supposed to be that we are creating this new criminal offence? It is supposed to be in the interests of the criminal himself; that is to say, the person who wanders on this land must be prevented from doing so for his own safety. The peril of the roads is infinitely greater than the peril on any aerodrome. The occasion when peril to civilians occurs on an aerodrome on any considerable scale is when there is some great spectacle, such as a trans-Atlantic aviator landing, when no notice boards will be any safeguard at all.
The Attorney-General has told us that when we see these boards with "trespassers will be prosecuted," that is a, false threat. If we pass this Clause we shall have those boards put up on aerodromes and they will not be a false threat, but for the first, time we shall know that they have substance behind them. It would be far more effective if, instead of putting up these boards which have become familiar to everyone who frequents the countryside, and which no longer deter anyone from going on land if he is not intending to commit a trespass, proprietors of aerodromes put up 304 notices warning people that it is dangerous to wander on to them. It would be a far more effective deterrent and would avoid all the objections to creating a new criminal offence. Moreover, there are greater dangers than civilians on aerodromes which the Clause will not meet or prevent. This will not prevent animals wandering.
§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir C. MacAndrew)I do not think animals come under the Clause.
§ Mr. GARRO JONESIt is suggested that the Clause is justified on the ground that it will ensure the safety of aviators against wanderers on the land. I am pointing out that, though it may in part ensure the safety of aviators from a lesser danger, it leaves unprevented the greater danger of animals and other obstacles on the land, such as trees. The Attorney-General did not favour us with any explanation as to the restrictions on licensing aerodromes in general. Can he assure us that this power of licensing aerodromes will not be exercised in opposition to any public easements or rights that may exist on the land? We have said enough to show that the Clause is wholly unnecessary and that it creates a new criminal offence on grounds which cannot be justified, and the Attorney-General would be wise to consider not only a modification of the Clause but whether it is, in fact, necessary to put it into the Bill.
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ Mr. KELLYI was hoping the Attorney-General would tell us the real object of the Clause. I can hardly believe that it is necessary to inflict a month's imprisonment and a fine of £5 in addition in order to save life or prevent personal injury. It is suggested that even cattle do not come under it. I suggest that they do.
§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANWe certainly cannot discuss cattle.
§ Mr. KELLYI am not discussing cattle. I am discussing men. If cattle stray on to an aerodrome, the people who look after them must go on to bring them back. Then they are liable to a fine of £5 and a month's imprisonment. They would have difficulty in proving that they are not trespassing in the endeavour to find out the secrets of the aerodrome and 305 that they have not allowed the cattle to get on to the land to provide them with an excuse for trespassing. There is a great deal more behind this than the reason that we have been told. Why should we require a special Clause when the general law of trespass is good enough for other purposes?
§ 8.33 p.m.
§ Mr. T. JOHNSTONMay I make another appeal to the Attorney-General to give us a clear undertaking that between now and Report he will consider the various objections of substance which my hon. Friends have raised. No one has told us why this Clause should be in the Bill. If it is for reasons of State, we might be told. Surely the Attorney-General and the right hon. Baronet might consider the advisability of considerably modifying the Clause if it must be retained. There is no harm in giving such an undertaking, and it would probably save dividing the Committee.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI thought I made it perfectly clear why the Clause has been brought forward. If I lacked clarity or courtesy, I apologise to
§ the Committee, but I thought I made it abundantly plain why we suggest that the Clause should be read a Second time. If hon. Members think it should not be read a Second time, much as I regret unfortunate divergencies of opinion, there must be a Division.
§ 8.35 p.m.
§ Mr. HARDIEWill the Attorney-General be good enough to give an answer to the question that was put last? If the Clause is wanted, the way to get it is for the representatives of the Government to try to answer questions which are sincerely put. If this Clause goes through, will that part of the ground which will become the centre of an aerodrome be closed or not? I do not want to delay the Committee or to irritate anyone, but I want an answer to that question. I know places where this sort of thing is likely to happen.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALIt will not be closed.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 115.
307| Division No. 228.] | AYES. | [8.38 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke | Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. | Leech, Dr. J. W. |
| Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) | Duggan, H. J. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. | Duncan, J. A. L. | Liddall, W. s. |
| Agnew, Lieut-Comdr, P. G. | Dunglass, Lord | Lindsay, K. M. |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman df (B'kn'hd) | Emery, J. F. | Little, Sir E. Graham- |
| Apsley, Lord | Emrys- Evans, P. V. | Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Erskine Hill, A. G. | Loftus, P. C. |
| Ballour, G. (Hampstead) | Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
| Bailout, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet) | Everard, W. L. | Lumley, Capt. L. R. |
| Balniel, Lord | Fildes, Sir H. | Lycns, A. M. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Fleming, E. L. | McCorquodale, M. S. |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) | Furness, S. N. | MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.) |
| Bernays, R. H. | Ganzoni, Sir J. | MajDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross) |
| Birchall, Sir J. D. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. |
| Blindell, Sir J. | Gibson, C. G. | McKle, J. H. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Gluckstein, L. H. | Maitland, A. |
| Briscoe, Capt. R. G. | Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. | Mander. le M |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) | Guinness, T. L. E. B. | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. |
| Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) | Guy, J. C. M. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Hanbury, Sir C. | Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) |
| Campbell, Sir E. T. | Hannah, I. c. | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. |
| Cary, R. A. | Harbord, A. | Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) | Nall, Sir J. |
| Cautley, Sir H. S. | Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) | Neven-Sponce, MaJ. B. H. H. |
| Channon, H. | Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh |
| Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) | Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. |
| Christle, J. A. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) | Orr-Ewing, I. L. |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Holmes. J. S. | Owen, Major G. |
| Colfox, Major W. P. | Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. | Palmer, G. E. H. |
| Colman. N. C. D. | Hopkinson, A. | Perkins, W. R. D. |
| Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. | Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L. | Petherick, M. |
| Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) | Honbrugh, Florence | Pickthorn, K. W. M. |
| Cooke. J. D. (Hammersmith. S.) | Hudson, R. S. (Southport) | Pilkington, R. |
| Cooper, Rt.Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh. W.) | Hume, Sir G. H | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Courtauld, Major J. O. | Hunter, T. | Radford, E. A. |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Raikes, H. V. A. M. |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) | Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. |
| Culverwell, C. T. | Kerr, K. W. (Oldham) | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Davies, C. (Montgomery) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Ramsden, Sir E. |
| Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. | Reed, A. C. (Exster) |
| Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) | Shute, Colonel Sir J. J. | Titchfield Marquess of |
| Reid, W. Allen (Derby) | Simmonds, O. E. | Turton, R. H. |
| Remer, J. R. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. | Wakefield, W. W. |
| Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) | Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A.L. (Hull) |
| Ropner, Colonel L. | Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) | Ward, Irene (Wallsend) |
| Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Warrender, Sir V. |
| Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) | Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H. | Waterhouse, Captain C. |
| Rowlands, G. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd) | Wells, S. R. |
| Russell, A. West (Tynemouth) | Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) | White, H. Graham |
| Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) | Stourton, Major Hon. J. J. | Williams, H. G.(Croydon, S.) |
| Russell, S.H. M.(Darwen) | Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G. |
| Salt, E.W. | Strickland, Captain W. F. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham) | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-(N'thw'h) | Wise, A. R. |
| Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Withers, Sir J. J. |
| Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Scott, Lord William | Sutcliffe, H. | Young, A. S. L.(Partick) |
| Seely, Sir H. M. | Tasker, Sir R. I. | |
| Shakespeare, G. H. | Tate, Mavis C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) | Thomas, J. P. L.(Hereford) | Sir George Penny and Commander |
| Shepperson, Sir E. w. | Thomson, Sir J. D. W. | Southby. |
| NOES | ||
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Hardle, G. D. | Oliver, G. H. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Paling, W. |
| Adamson, W. M. | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Parker, J. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Henderson, T. (Tradeston) | Parkinson, J. A. |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. | Holland, A. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Banfield, J. W. | Hopkin, D. | Potts, J. |
| Barnes, A. J. | Jagger, J. | Price, M. p. |
| Batey. J. | Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) | Pritt, O. N. |
| Bellenger, F. | Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Outbell, D J. K. |
| Bevan, A. | John, W. | Riley, B. |
| Broad, F. A. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. | Ritson, J. |
| Bromfield, W. | Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Brooke, W. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Rowson, G. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) | Kelly, W. T. | Sexton, T. M. |
| Buchanan, G. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. | Shinwell, E. |
| Burke, W. A. | Kirby, B. V. | Short, A. |
| Cassells, T. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. | Simpson, F. B. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lathan, G. | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Cripps. Hon. Sir Stafford | Leach, W. | Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) |
| Daggar, G. | Lee, F. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Dalton, H. | Leonard, W. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Leslie, J. R. | Stephen, C. |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Logan, D. G. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Dobble, W. | Lunn, W. | Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | McEntee, V. La T. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Edwards. Sir C. (Bedwellty) | McGhee, H. G. | Thorne, W. |
| Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) | McGovern, J. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. | Maclean, N. | Willkden, A. G. |
| Gallacher. W. | Marklew, E | Walker, J. |
| Gardner, B. W. | Marshall, F. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Garro Jones, G. M. | Mathers, G. | Watson, W. McL. |
| Gibbins, J. | Maxton, J, | Westwood, J. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Messer, F. | Williams, D. (Swansea, E.) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Milner, Major J. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Grenfell, O. R. | Montague, F. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) | Moreing, A. C. | Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) |
| Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Muff. G. | |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Naylor, T. E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ 8.44 p.m.
§ Mr. BEVANI have handed in a manuscript Amendment to leave out all the words from "or" in the first paragraph of the new Clause. The Amendment will have the effect of destroying—
§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir C. MacAndrew)That is not the Amendment which the hon. Member has handed in.
§ Mr. BEVANIt is to leave out the words:
or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThat is not what the hon. Member said.
§ Mr. GARRO JONESMay I draw attention to the fact that the first "or" is in line 3, and the second "imprisonment" is in line 5.
§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThat is not what the hon. Member said at first.
§ Mr. BEVANI do not want to be at cross purposes. I wish to propose to leave out all the words after "or," in line 3, down to "imprisonment" in line 5. It means that we leave out the imprisonment.
§ Mr. H. G. WILLIAMSIf the hon. Member does that there will be no reference to imprisonment in line 3, but later there will be reference to "such imprisonment." The hon. Member ought to move to leave out from "pounds" to the end of the paragraph in line 5.
§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe Clause says:
he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding, one month or to both such fine and such imprisonment.The hon. Member wishes to leave out the reference to imprisonment.
§ Mr. BEVANThe purpose of the Amendment must be clear to the Committee. If not, the matter can be put right on the Report stage quite easily. The purpose of the Amendment is to destroy the imprisonment part of the penalty, and I understand that the Front Bench is not unfavourably disposed towards it.
§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANI do not think that the way the hon. Member put it will meet the point. He will need to move to leave out all the words from "pounds," down to the end of line 5.
§ Mr. BEVANI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, to leave out from "pounds" in line 3, to the end of line 5.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALAs the hon. Member has indicated, we are prepared to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. The real point of the Clause is that there should be criminal procedure available, but we think that a penalty of £5 is adequate to secure the purpose of the Clause.
§ Mr. KELLYI am glad to find that there is to be some improvement of the Clause, but I am not satisfied with the Clause even with the Amendment, and I hope that at some later stage we may be able to knock out the whole thing.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
310§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir C. MacAndrew)The next Clause (Regulations for persons making a temporary visit with aircraft) is unnecessary, and the following Clause (Penalties) is not selected.