HC Deb 25 May 1936 vol 312 cc1792-3

11.59 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, to leave out from "Section" to the end of the Clause, and to add: 12a. Any Order in Council, order, or regulations made, under this Act in relation to aircraft may provide for the detention of aircraft to secure compliance with the Order in Council, order, or regulations, as the case may be, or with any provisions of this Act in connection with which the Order in Council, order, or regulations is or are made, and, in the case of any Order in Council under Part I of this Act, provide for the detention of aircraft to prevent aircraft flying when unfit to fly, and may make such further provision as appears to His Majesty in Council or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, to be necessary or expedient for securing such detention. Clause 6 simply makes more convenient provision for the use of powers which already exist under the Act of 1920; it does not add to the substantive effect of those powers. The addition that we propose in this Amendment is in substitution of Section 14 (3) of the Act of 1920, which is included in the Sixth Schedule to this Bill among the enactments to be repealed. Section 14 (3) of the Act of 1920 applies Section 692 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to the detention of aircraft under the Air Navigation Act. Obviously that procedure is not a very suitable one, and it is thought desirable to substitute the provision on the Order Paper.


There is a brief point on which I should like smile information. I am not very hopeful of getting it, but I am going to ask for it. His Majesty by Order in Council is given power to provide for the detention of aircraft and the power to secure such detention. What is the distinction between the two, and whit is the reason for making it?


We have the benefit of at least three distil guished counsel—the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General—and there may be one or two more knocking about in odd corners of the Treasury Bench. Surely we are to get an answer to the point so clearly put by my hon. Friend, apparently in great friendliness to the Government, in his endeavour to clarify the Bill.


It is simply that we are seeking to provide for securing the detention as well as making regulations to provide for the detention. The detention is both to be provided and to be secured. I agree that the Amendment looks formidable, but actually it is no more than drafting. It adds no powers that do not exist at present, but only makes them more convenient to use. A learned judge provides for the detention and a policeman secures it.

Amendment agreed to.