§ 4.17 p.m.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
§ Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Beswick.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Clause 4 [Byelaws at certain private aerodromes]:
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull has put down an Amendment, and he mentioned his intention to do so on the Committee stage. I thought that the purposes of the Amendment which he indicated to me he proposed to put down were reasonable, and I have been looking at it to see whether I could help. I am advised that the words in the Amendment on the Order Paper which I thought the noble Earl would be moving first are not quite appropriate, and I have therefore distributed, as early as I could—and I have discussed this with the noble Earl—a Manuscript Amendment:
Page 4, line 20, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 25 and insert "The Board of Trade may by order designate for the purposes of this section any private aerodrome (that is to say, any aerodrome not owned or managed by the Board, the British Airports Authority or a local authority)".This would have the effect of extending to the club aerodrome owners the power to make by-laws. I feel that this wording 1394 would meet the purposes of the noble Earl. I hope, therefore, it will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 25 and insert ("The Board of Trade may by order designate for the purposes of this section any private aerodrome (that is to say, any aerodrome not owned or managed by the Board, the British Airports Authority or a local authority)").—(Lord Beswick.)
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for putting down this Manuscript Amendment. I think it entirely meets the point that we were trying to meet with our Amendment No. 1, which was to include the mixed-user airfield and also the flying club airfield. With his assurance that these two airfields are covered by this clause I am happy to welcome this Amendment.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I just ask my noble friend whether the Amendment would cover aerodromes which are under the control either of the Royal Air Force in this country or of the air force of the United States of America in this country—whether regulations would apply to them as well as to the privately-owned aerodromes and those under local authority control?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, no. It is not possible to extend civil authority over aerodromes operated by the United States Air Force or by the Royal Air Force.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 7 [Financial assistance for certain aerodromes]:
§ 4.21 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Subject to subsection (2) of this section". The noble Earl said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who was to have led the attack on this occasion with this Amendment, I beg to move the Amendment. I should perhaps explain to the House that this is exactly the same Amendment as was moved in Committee and was subsequently withdrawn. After looking at and examining most carefully, the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, we have put down the Amendment again in the same words. The reason is that we were not satisfied with the 1395 noble Lord's reply, for in our opinion it did not counter the main kernel of our argument; namely, what good reason is there why the British Airports Authority should be excluded specifically from the benefit of this clause?
§ The House will recollect that the clause gives the Government power to provide grants and loans towards expenses incurred in the development of aerodromes in Great Britain. The first major reason given for this Amendment when it was moved during the Committee stage was that the exclusion of the British Airports Authority from the clause would be in conflict with one of the main principles of the Government's White Paper on Nationalised Industries (Cmnd 3437). The noble Lord will recall that in that White Paper the Government specifically laid down that where nationalised industries were told by the Government to proceed on a certain basis which was not necessarily in their financial interest, they would receive a special payment. I will not read again what I said in the Committee stage. The second reason we gave was one of the inconsistency of the Government. The noble Lord at the time of the Second Reading debate admitted that any new development that the British Airports Authority took over would come within this clause, and it seemed quite illogical that the four major airports they at present control should be excluded.
§ The noble Lord's reply during the discussion on the Amendment on Committee stage was, I submit, a masterly smokescreen. He replied that the Government had already been given powers to extend loans to the British Airports Authority. This, of course, we already knew. But what we want to see is that in cases where, due to specific Government direction, the British Airports Authority are made to spend capital on improvements to the airports that they at present control, which expenditure, in the mind of the Authority, is contrary to sound commercial sense, then the cost should be clearly identified—"identified" is the word I should like to use—as a Government grant under this clause, and should not be swallowed up and lost in a Government loan under existing powers. I beg to move.
1396
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2) of this section").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Earl has reiterated the arguments which he used previously on the Committee stage in support of the same Amendment, and I am afraid I have little to add to what I said in reply to the arguments he then used. The Airports Authority Act, as I then said, was passed only recently. In that Act we fixed the capital debt of the Authority at a carefully considered figure, taking into account the assets which were being transferred. I say again that the careful accuracy of that calculation has been borne out by events so far, because the four airports taken over by the Authority, taken together, are profitable. As I have said, and as the noble Earl admits, the loan capital can be increased, and undoubtedly will be increased, for the development of the four airports as well as any other airport which the Authority may take over. I said then that it would be possible, under the Civil Aviation Act 1949, to make a non-repetitive grant, and it seems to me wrong to give the impression that we are prepared to make further grants to the Authority for work in connection with the four airports which they now operate.
I quite accept the point which was made by the noble Earl about the White Paper doctrine. All I would say about that is that the White Paper applies to all nationalised industries, and it is not the case with the other nationalised industries that a special provision has been made in law so that the policy of the White Paper can be implemented. On balance, I should have thought that we ought not to accept the proposed Amendment; but I confess that I am not prepared to fight to the last man or to the last ditch against the Amendment. What I suggest to the noble Earl is that his arguments are on record, and if there appears to be any feeling at all in another place in support of what he has said then I give an undertaking now that it will be taken into account and the matter will be dealt with there.
THE EARL OF KLNNOULLMy Lords, I am grateful for that undertaking. I hope, and I am sure, that there will be 1397 support in another place for this issue, and on the undertaking which has been given I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 9 [Detention and sale of aircraft for unpaid airport charges]:
§ 4.29 p.m.
§ LORD BESWICK moved, in subsection (1)(b), to leave out "twenty-one" and insert "twenty-eight". The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a discussion on the Committee stage as to whether it was reasonable to have a period of 21 days within which an aircraft could be detained, and after which sold, in order to meet airport charges. There was some difference between us as to the merits of this period of 21 days. There was no argument as to the principle of the provision. In this Amendment I am suggesting a reasonable compromise between the 42 days which the noble Earl is suggesting in his Amendment, the 7 days which is in the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, and the 21 days which was originally in this Bill.
§ I would ask the noble Earl to bear in mind, before we decide whether it should be his 42 days or my 28 days, that the 28 days starts from the date when detention begins. That is provided for in the Bill. That does not mean that an aerodrome owner will immediately pounce upon an aircraft which uses the facilities provided at an airport. The circumstances no doubt will vary, but presumably in many cases if a charge is made a period of credit will be allowed. This is normal commercial practice. If then there appears to be some reluctance or delay in meeting the proper charge after the normal period of credit has expired, I have no doubt that there will be some correspondence or exchanges of one kind or another, so the time taken may be quite considerable. It is only then, when the aerodrome owner sees that there is no further purpose to be served in continuing the exchanges, that in the majority of cases he will give notice that the aircraft is detained and that he proposes, after the period of 28 days, to sell the machine in order to pay for the charges which have been properly made. In real life I should have thought that a reputable aerodrome authority 1398 would be reasonable about this matter, and that when he reaches the point where he feels detention is justified 28 days is a reasonable period of time to elapse. I think that the noble Earl on reflection might agree with me. My Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 22, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight").—(Lord Beswick.)
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, perhaps the difference between the noble Lord's case and ours is that we have consulted aerodrome owners over this problem and they have advised us that 28 days is not a reasonable period of time. The noble Lord mentioned that the period starts from the time of detention. As I understand it—and perhaps the noble Lord could confirm this—the time of detention is governed by the bylaws of the aerodrome. Under this Bill there would be a number of differing by-laws for private airfields, and therefore the time of detention would alter. However, if the feeling in another place is that it should be extended, we have perhaps made a useful contribution in getting it extended at present to 28 days, and I should be happy to leave the matter on this occasion.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I would simply make the point that although the noble Earl has consulted the aerodrome owner, it is not really the aerodrome owner who is concerned at all with this.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLI am sorry, I meant the aircraft owner.
§ LORD BESWICKThat is different. Of course, it is the aircraft owner who will be concerned here. I am not quite sure which aircraft owner the noble Earl has consulted. Obviously, as it is the aircraft owner who is likely to be behind in his payments, I should not have thought that he was the man to whom one should go for consultation in order to ensure that we have a reasonable period embodied in the Bill. I simply say again that the date of detention will be determined by the aerodrome owner, and that the aerodrome owners with whom we are dealing are reputable people. They are not bound by any by-law, and will themselves determine, after the exchanges about which I have spoken, when the period of 28 days will 1399 commence. In those circumstances, I feel that my proposed Amendment goes a good way to meet the arguments which the noble Earl and his noble friend originally put forward.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can give any information, beyond the consultations which the Government have had, about the position on the Continent, in France, Germany and so on, in this type of case.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, we have not gone on the precedents there. I indicated during the Committee Stage the precedents which we had consulted; namely, the Harbours Act, and the experience which we have had in connection with marine cases and the impounding or detaining of ships. In drafting this particular clause, we have drawn on our experience there. I cannot give any hope that in this case there will be a change in the other House.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was kind enough to say in Committee that the point we had raised about private aerodromes not being included in this clause should be reconsidered. I note that Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 will probably cover the point. However, I shall be interested to hear whether the noble Lord has in fact reconsidered this matter. The purpose of the Amendment is to bring private airfields within the scope of the clause. My Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, leave out from ("aerodrome") to ("and") in line 9 and insert ("for which bye-laws have been confirmed by the Board of Trade in accordance with sections 2, 3 and 4 of and Schedule 3 to the Airports Authority Act 1965").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Earl is quite correct in saying that I indicated on Committee that I thought that he and his noble friend were on a good point and that I would try to meet it. He was rather quicker off the mark than we were and his Amendment appears on the Order Paper first, but the Amendment which I have submitted, Amendment No. 7, is intended to meet the argument which he has advanced. If it is convenient to the House, I might at 1400 this point refer to Amendment No. 7. I agree that there was a case for extending the provisions and it is a question only of defining the aerodromes. The wording which is to be found in Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 is designed to meet the case which the noble Earl had in mind, and I hope that the House will agree to those Amendments when they are put.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, Amendment No. 7 is intended to meet the case which the noble Earl has put so well both to-day and on Committee stage. It seemed to us reasonable to recognise that the private aerodrome owner was just as liable as the public authority aerodrome owner, to encounter the defaulting aerodrome user, and this Amendment will have the effect of extending to him the protection which is already contained in the case of the other publicly owned aerodromes. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9. after ("authority") insert ("and any aerodrome designated for the purposes of this section under the next following subsection").—(Lord Beswick.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, the purpose of this Amendment, too, was raised on the Committee stage of the Bill. The problem as we saw it at the time was that under Clause 9 the owner or the manager of a single airfield could be termed the "aerodrome authority" and this could quite easily be two different people. So we have suggested by this Amendment that the administrative muddle which might ensue should be stopped up, and this Amendment would define quite clearly who is the aerodrome authority for the purpose of this clause, It is, of course, to deal with a possible ambiguity. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 11, leave out ("owning or managing it") and insert ("designated an aerodrome authority in bye-laws confirmed by the Board of Trade.")—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Earl has said that he thought his wording was designed to make definition clearer, but I am advised that in fact there are certain ambiguities which would 1401 be left by the form of words which he uses. In our view, it would be undesirable to link the two clauses in the way this Amendment does, as the reasons for affording the power to make by-laws are by no means those for giving power to detain aircraft. There is a further difficulty about this Amendment in that it would be acceptable to the movers only if their Amendment on Clause 4 above had been accepted. I would therefore suggest to the noble Earl that the form of words which I am proposing, in my Amendment at page 8, line 24, to insert the words on the Marshalled List, would cover the case he has in mind, and cover it more effectively.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, I think this is another case of a private Amendment being put down which obviously would not satisfy the Parliamentary draftsmen. I therefore beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9, to which I have just referred.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 8, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The Board of Trade may by order designate for the purposes of this section any private aerodrome (that is to say, any aerodrome not owned or managed by a government department, the British Airports Authority or a local authority) at which it appears to the Board that there is a substantial amount of air traffic; and any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under this subsection.")—(Lord Beswick.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 11 [Power to provide for the mortgaging of aircraft]:
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, this Amendment deals with another point which I raised during the Committee stage and which I think I probably got wrong. But I hope that on this occasion, when it is set down in Amendment form, the point will be more clear to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. As I understand it, under this Bill the system of mortgages merely provides a system of priorities as between the mortgagor and the mortgagee inter se. The purpose of this Amendment is to strengthen this system, 1402 not only to protect the registered mortgagee against all other claimants, but also to act as a notice to all persons as to the existence and validity of the mortgage. I am advised that under the U.S.A. Federal Aviation Act 1958, Section 503(d) this protection is given. If the wording of this Amendment is not satisfactory to the noble Lord, I shall naturally be prepared to reconsider it further. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 10, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Mortgages created and duly registered in accordance with any Order in Council made under this section shall be valid as respects all persons without further or other registration.") —(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I hope to persuade the noble Earl that in this case his Amendment is not necessary. I understand the objectives which he hopes to secure, and I hope to show that they will be secured, but by other means. Section 95 of the Companies Act 1948 provides that certain charges created by companies registered in England shall be void against the liquidators or creditors of the company, unless registered with the Registrar of Companies. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that mortgages on United Kingdom registered aircraft, if duly made and recorded in the aircraft register, shall be valid against liquidators and creditors of the company even though not also registered with the Registrar of Companies, thereby avoiding the necessity for the same mortgage to e registered in two separate registers. As has been explained, the Amendment n ay also he intended to ensure the validity of the mortgages against aerodrome authorities who may detain or sell the aircraft under Clause 9, against purchasers of the aircraft under Clause 9, and against holders of other liens for work done or similar cases.
With that in mind, it would seem that the Amendment prejudges the provisions which may be made under Clause 11(2)(b) and Clause 11(2)(c) as respects the operation of Statutes, including the Companies Act and Clause 9 of this Bill in relation to aircraft which are mortgaged under Clause 11. It would also prejudge the provision to be made under Clause 11(2)(b) as to the relationship of the registered mortgage to other rights in or over aircraft, including possessory 1403 liens. These provisions will require consultation with all the interests concerned, and can best be examined when we have the specific Order before us. As the noble Earl knows, there must be a draft Order laid before the two Houses of Parliament. That will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure and if, when he has the terms of the Order before him, he feels that the points he has made have not been covered, I suggest to him that then will be the moment when we may discuss what he has in mind. But, as I have indicated, all the interests concerned will be consulted, and I hope that there will be no necessity for him to raise the matter again.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us a powerful, though fairly complicated, reply, which I hope he understood more than I did. It is a very complicated subject, and I agree with the noble Lord that one should look at this again, if necessary. On that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 14 [Extra-territorial regulation of certain British-controlled aircraft not registered in the United Kingdom]:
§ 4.49 p.m.
§ LORD BESWICK moved to leave out "chartered by demise to a person who, or to" and to substitute: "under the management of a person who, or of". The noble Lord said: My Lords, here again I am endeavouring to meet a point which was made by the noble Earl on Committee stage. He then suggested that the words in the Bill "chartered by demise to" were not widely recognised in the aviation world. That may or may not be true, but the words which he then proposed to insert, and which he has in his Amendment No. 13 to-day, "operated by", are not entirely satisfactory. "Operated by" leaves open the question of who an operator is, and I am suggesting to him that the words—
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? "Operator" is defined in the Bill in subsection (7) of Clause 9.
§ LORD BESWICKYes; but not, my Lords, in this context. I am putting it to the noble Earl that the effect of this 1404 Amendment, as of the Amendment which he himself has down, will be that the Order in Council under Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 will be able, but not required, to apply to foreign-registered aircraft when operated by a person qualified to own a United Kingdom-registered aircraft. This will enable two cases to be taken care of, the first of which is the case of a foreign aircraft interchanged under a demise charter to a British operator who takes possession of the aircraft and uses it for providing his own airline services. It will also meet the case of the foreign aircraft which remains in the possession of the foreign airline, for whom a British airline undertakes to act as an operator. Here we are moving over into a somewhat different field, but I would suggest to the noble Earl that the definition to which he has referred does not cover the case of this situation, where we have a British organisation operating a foreign aircraft from a foreign base. If the noble Earl, as I understand, wishes to cover these cases, then I feel that the draft which I am suggesting would cover them much more effectively. My Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("chartered by demise to a person who, or to") and insert ("under the management of a person who, or of").—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, as I could understand it, the noble Lord is arranging that Orders in Council which would be applicable to British aircraft will be applicable to foreign aircraft if they happen to be operated by other nationals, and so on, even if those aircraft are overseas. Will not those same aircraft be subject also to foreign aircraft law; and, if so, which law will prevail?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Lord said "operated by other nationals". Here, I am talking only about British nationals. If there are British nationals who come under British law—
§ LORD BESWICKYes, my Lords; we are here talking of a situation in which a foreign aircraft would be operated by British nationals. Effectively, it is their actions that the Bill is designed to cover. The answer to the noble Lord is that 1405 this Bill, if it goes on to the Statute Book, will cover, with the consent of the foreign State concerned, the actions of those British nationals. They will be responsible to British law.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, the purpose of this Amendment, of course, one welcomes. It was the very point that was raised at Committee stage. I very much hope that the noble Lord's wording is correct. Perhaps it would be unkind to remind the noble Lord that at Committee stage his advisers advised him against this Amendment. His words on this very question were:
It seems to me that his fears are not justified and that the present wording in fact carries out the intentions of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7/12/67, col. 805.]He did not in fact mention that. I do not know how this conflicting advice occurred. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain that.
§ LORD BESWICKThis is true, my Lords. I did say that the present wording covered the intentions of the Bill, but on further consideration it was seen that there were these operators who were possibly not covered by the Bill as originally drafted. We covered most cases, including the case of a foreign aircraft operated by a British company based in this country, but the case of a foreign-registered aircraft operated by a company with a base abroad was not covered. I am now saying that we are meeting the noble Earl's argument rather more effectively than the original words did.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.