HC Deb 08 July 1946 vol 425 cc141-71
Sir T. Moore

I beg to move——

Mr. Ivor Thomas

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order for the Amendment to be moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman since his name does not appear on the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is within the Rules of Order although somewhat to be deprecated. In view of the absence of the hon. and right hon. Members who have put down the Amendment, I have called on the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore).

8.45 p.m.

Sir T. Moore

I beg to move, in page 14, line 25, at the end, to insert: but does not include any such journey undertaken for the purpose of carrying passengers to any place at which accommodation has been reserved for such passengers under a contract or agreement which provides for the carriage of such passengers to, and the reservation of accommodation for such passengers at, that place, at an inclusive charge of which the charge for such accommodation forms a substantial part. This is an obvious Amendment. But for the fact that hon. Members on the other side have shown such inability to understand the argument that we have been using during the day, I would not have taken the trouble to say anything about it. Such a large number of hon. Members who support the Government seem, however, to be unaware of the implications of this very important Clause, and of this even more important Amendment, that we must give the matter rather more time, and a rather wider explanation than I had at first intended. Hon. Members who look for further explanation had better get it from one of those hon. Members of the Committee who have studied this matter at considerable length, whilst I was busily engaged on studying other Amendments.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

It would very much facilitate my task if I knew exactly which Amendment we were discussing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is the Amendment to Clause 23, in page 14, line 25, at the end, to insert the words that are on the Order Paper.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not think it is irregular for such an Amendment to be seconded from the Front Bench.

Mr. Gordon-Walker (Smethwick)

On a point of Order. Is it possible for an hon. Member to speak relevantly if lie does not know which Amendment is before the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a question which the Chair should be asked to decide. The speech of the hon. Member will have to be relevant or it will be out of Order.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) who spoke earlier has perhaps done so under some misapprehension. I now know clearly which Amendment I am seconding, and I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary, to the House, and to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for any discourtesy which may have appeared to have arisen. There was an unexpected collapse of an earlier Amendment which I had thought the back benchers on the Government side would certainly prolong for at least another 10 minutes.

The Amendment, moved with great eloquence by my hon. and gallant Friend, deals with a point that causes some uncertainty in the minds of people whose interests this House should safeguard. They are, in particular, the various travel agencies, and many hundreds of thousands of people for whom we hope the agencies will cater in the future in respect of holidays by air overseas. We had a very long discussion upstairs on the subject of charter companies and scheduled services. I do not wish to be drawn into the subject at any length now, but one thing emerged from our deliberations. It was the great uncertainty from which a large number of people may suffer who might wish to take tickets from travel agencies, unless this matter is cleared up.

The House will remember from a knowledge of the Bill—certainly the Members of the Committee will remember—that if an air line operator advertises a regular service from the same place to the same place and advertises to the public seats upon that service, it is a scheduled service, and it is therefore reserved for the three corporations. Anybody who infringes that rule will be fined on indictment £5,000, and there are various other penalties. A number of travel agencies have this sort of project in mind. They want to run a regular service, for example, every weekend to various resorts in Switzerland or Northern Italy. That includes not only companies like Cooks, but the Workers' Educational Association and others. They want to advertise a regular service going possibly every Friday or Saturday to the same place. From comments which we obtained from the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, it is obvious that if they did so it would fall under the ban of being a scheduled service, and it would be illegal.

I think that is not what the House as a whole would like to see done. We should like to see the travel agencies, whoever they may be—private ones or the Workers' Educational Association, which is a perfectly orderly private company and has done admirable work in the past—free to advertise a regular service to places of historic interest overseas. We have put down this Amendment to protect the position of such agencies. We see that they cannot be permitted to impinge on the regular work of the corporations, and we have drawn up the Amendment in this way—that if there is a single figure for the ticket which includes the air travel, the hotel accommodation and journeys from one historic place to another by bus or anything else, and if the hotel accommodation forms a substantial part of the cost of the ticket, the service shall not be ranked as a scheduled service.

No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary or the Attorney-General may suggest in reply that this can safely be left to the corporation, but it is highly unlikely that the corporations will run the sort of delightful tours overseas that we hope hundreds of thousands of our people will enjoy in ever increasing numbers in the future. It would be outside the main purpose of the corporations, whose job is to run straight routes from one place to another and to speed up air travel. This is the sort of service in which the experience of the travel agencies will be extremely valuable, and we should make use of them in this new field of the air in order to give large numbers of our people the chance of having such a trip.

It is likely that the Government will say that these trips could be run by the charter services, but the cost for tours of that kind would be high and far beyond the reach of the large numbers of people we hope to see enjoying them. For all these reasons, I hope the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment which is not designed to sabotage the Government's three corporation fabric or to add to their difficulties, but to give legitimacy to what we think would be a highly desirable form of enterprise.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I told the Committee upstairs that I have an interest in an air charter company, and it would be fair to tell the House that also. Perhaps in time the Attorney-General will fly up North by Westminster Airways. He will get there very rapidly. The tourist industry of this country will increase, and once we get over our immediate difficulties, we shall have many Americans coming to this country, particularly to the parts where American troops have been. They will bring their wives and families with them, and will set off from this country to Germany, Italy, Austria and the whole of the Continent. There is a great opportunity for us to "cash in" on these Americans when they come over. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may not have been very successful in "cashing in" on the Americans, but the chances do exist and I submit that there is real business to be done if the private companies in this country are given the opportunity to carry out their form of trading. The charter companies are eminently suited for this type of work, which can be carried on by a small organisation of perhaps a dozen men running the whole company, giving that personal touch which makes passengers feel that they are being well looked after. They will probably be well looked after by the Government corporations but there is not that individual attention which is given by the smaller concerns. Unless these facilities are given I believe we shall lose this type of trade to the Dutch, the Swiss and the French, who are all ready to undertake it with their own charter companies. I believe the Government would be doing a good stroke of business in allowing this type of work, which can be defined quite clearly, say, once a week, or so many days on the Continent, hotel bills combined with the charges for flying, and the other services thrown in. Ti the Government do this they will have no regrets about it later on.

The Attorney-General

I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) will not think me guilty of any discourtesy if I say that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) who moved this Amendment was perhaps rather more directed to the subject matter which the House has to discuss than that of the two hon. Members who succeeded him. Indeed, I am bound to confess that having listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs on a number of occasions, I have never known one when he was able to speak more concisely and more to the point than he did in the course of his speech on this Amendment.

The effect of the Amendment would be very largely to deprive the statutory cor- porations of the benefit of the tourist traffic, part of the "cream" of the service for which they are quite properly entitled to cater. It is, as hon. Members have said, a common and increasing and, I venture to think, desirable practice for travel agencies and transport operators to quote inclusive charges to cover both the transport to a holiday resort and the price of accommodation at that resort. No doubt that is a practice which has met and will continue to meet the convenience of a large section of the public. If private operators were allowed to come in and cater for that kind of service, not by way of ad hoc charter work but by way of providing a regular schedule service, it would mean that one would set up in this field a large scale and uneconomic competition with the statutory corporations on all the scheduled services which they might operate. They would run to places like Torquay or Switzerland or any of the holiday resorts to which people are more likely to go for the purpose of a holiday visit than for the purpose of business or permanent residence, and in effect provide a regular service for return passengers.

In our view, that is exactly the type of traffic which the statutory corporations ought to encourage and ought to cater for. There will be no difficulty—hon. Members seemed to envisage that there might be—in any of the recognised travel agencies arranging with the corporations to run scheduled services of this kind, and providing would-be passengers and holiday makers with an inclusive ticket covering the scheduled service and the holiday accommodation in Switzerland or in Torquay, as the case may be. To allow the private operator to come in there and to "cream" that part of the service, would be to destroy a very valuable part of the public monopoly which Parliament is creating and would, in the end, not in any way further the public interest or improve the accommodation available at holiday resorts, the transport services, or the air facilities available for travelling to them. I ask the House to say that this is a clear case where private operators should he left free to deal with ad hoc cases on a charter basis——

9 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Rich people.

The Attorney-General

Rich and poor. If they cannot afford to run charter services at a price ordinary people can pay, that says little for private operators. There-is no reason why private operators could not come in and run ad hoc charter services, but every reason why we should not make a general exception to Clause 23 and deny this right to the corporations.

Wing-Commander Robinson: I rise to support the Amendment. I think that behind it there is a plan which shows a certain amount of initiative and enterprise which we need. I am sorry that the Attorney-General should be afraid of this kind of competition. It is, indeed, a frail flower that cannot stand some of the gentle winds of competition in a sphere in which it may not be acting itself. The idea is not a new one. One can take the example of the motor touring industry. One may travel all over the country and an inclusive price is charged which sometimes includes a week's holiday. I do not see why something like that should harm any of the three corporations. Have the railway companies ever suggested that arrangements of that kind have taken the cream of their traffic?

The Attorney-General

If the hon. and gallant Member really asks that with the intention of getting an answer, the answer is that of course they have. The Ribble Company, an example which operates in his part of the world, has catered for this kind of traffic. It is a railway-owned company and has opposed other people who have come in and tried to cater for that traffic also.

Wing-Commander Robinson

They have tried to cater for it, and have been able to cater for it in the past by private enterprise. Both have been able to go on side by side under independent operators. I think the plan is very reasonable and sensible. The Attorney-General does not tell us that any of the corporations propose to operate tours of this kind. We are told that perhaps some travel agent may hire them to do the job. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will address himself a little further to the problem. Are the three corporations to have great masses of small planes available at any time to take on this kind of work? I do not for a moment believe that they are, as we know how small the output of aircraft is at present. They are engaged in producing bigger planes which will not be suitable for this kind of work. Why cannot the chance be given to the small man with some energy and inspiration to carry on this job? I do not believe that the idea behind the Amendment is to take away the cream of the traffic. There are many small resorts that are not adjacent to any of the main airlines. It may be that some hotel proprietor would wish to hire aircraft every third or fourth week end to bring out parties to his hotel. It is a chance of employment which could keep a small man going in this country. I beg the Government to reconsider the matter.

Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)

I wonder if we might have a little more information from the Parliamentary Secretary? I am rather struck by this fact, and would like the assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary on the matter. As I see it, these great corporations will be running scheduled services as economically as possible. Therefore, it seems to me that they will have the number of planes required to operate the services at any time, that is, throughout the entire year. When the summer months come, and there is a sudden rush of traffic, will the corporations be equipped to deal with that? If they are, will it not mean that during the greater part of the year they will have a lot of machines laid up? That is merely how it strikes me. I would like an explanation on that point from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Ivor Thomas

The corporations will be in a position no different from the charter companies. They also will have the problem of seasonal and non-seasonal traffic. It is more likely that three corporations, operating as a whole over the whole world, will have the aircraft than will a small charter company. In reply to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson), I do not know why he assumes that small aircraft will be used for this purpose. We believe, and I think that those who are proposing this Amendment believe, that there is a large traffic waiting to be taken in this way. Normally, I imagine that for services to holiday countries such as Switzerland, medium sized aircraft will be needed, and they are more likely to be in the possession of the corporations than of a private company.

Wing-Commander Robinson

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. Suppose a travel agency desires to develop such a week-end service, and goes to the one of the three corporations which covers that particular area, and asks if it can charter a plane. If the big corporation says "No, we have not got an aeroplane available," does that mean that the whole thing cannot be done, because if a private operator had that opportunity, it would mean a scheduled service for him, and enable him to carry on his activities and earn his daily bread?

Mr. Thomas

No, Sir. The possibility is not ruled out. We are not guided by any doctrinaire spirit in this matter, and at the present time there are certain arrangements between the corporations

and charter companies by which charter companies act as agents for the corporations, because the corporations are fully occupied in developing their main services. That method would still he open in the cases he has suggested, and also the carriage of mails for Christmas. I make no promises. Each case must be considered on its merits when the time comes. Clearly the suggestion in the Amendment would open a wide door to infringement of the Government's policy, which is that scheduled services should be reserved to the three corporations.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 260.

Division No. 238.] AYES [9.10 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Hope, Lord J. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Astor, Hon. M. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Baldwin, A. E. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Pickthorn, K.
Bower, N. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Lambert, Hon. G. Prescott, Stanley
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Renton, D.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W Langford-Holt, J. Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Buchan-Hcpburn, P. G. T. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Bullock, Capt. M. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Ropner, Col. L.
Channon, H. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Ross, Sir R.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Linstead, H. N. Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)
Clifton-Brown. Lt.-Col. G. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Smithers, Sir W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lucas, Major Sir J. Snadden, W. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H- Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Dower, E. L. G (Caithness) Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Drayson, Capt. G. B. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Studholme, H. G.
Fraser, Mai. H. C. P (Stone) Manningham-Buller, R. E. Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Marlowe, A. A. H. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'ddt'n, S)
Gags, Lt.-Col. C. Marsden, Capt A. Teeling, William
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)
Gridley, Sir A. Marshall, S. H. (button) Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F
Grimston, R. V. Maude, J. C. Turton, R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Mellor, Sir J. Vane, W. M. T.
Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge) Molson, A. H. E. Walker-Smith, D.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Haughton, S. G. Morris-Jones, Sir H. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Hollis, M. C Nicholson, G TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant
Adams, Richard (Balham) Bing, G. H. C Cooks, F. S.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Binns, J. Coldrick, W.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Blackburn, A. R. Collick, P.
Allen, A. C (Bosworth) Blenkinsop, Capt. A Collindridge, F.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Boardman, H. Collins, V. J.
Alpass, J. H. Bottomley, A. G. Comyns, Dr. L.
Attewell, H. C. Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton) Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Austin, H. L. Braddook, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Awbery, S. S. Brook, D. (Halifax) Corlett, Dr, J.
Ayles, W. H. Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Crossman, R. H. S.
Ayrton, Gould, Mrs. B Brown, George (Belper) Daggar, G.
Bacon, Miss A. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Baird, Capt. J. Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Balfour, A. Buchanan, G. Davies, Harold (Leek)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Burden, T. W. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Barstow, P. G Burke, W. A. Davies, R. J. (Westhaughton)
Barton, C. Callaghan, James Deer, G.
Battley, J. R. Champion, A. J. Diamond, J.
Bechervaise, A. E Chater, D. Dobbie, W.
Belcher, J. W. Chetwynd, Capt. G. R Dodds, N. N.
Benson, G. Clitherow, Dr. R. Donovan, T.
Berry, H. Cluse, W. S. Driberg, T. E. N.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) McAdam, W. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Durbin, E. F. M. McEntee, V. La T. Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Dye, S. McGhee, H. G. Shurmer, P.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) McGovern, J. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Mack, J. D. Simmons, C. J.
Evans, E (Lowestoft) McKay, J. (Wallsend) Skeffington, A. M.
Evans, J. (Ogmore) McLeavy, F. Skinnard, F. W.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Macpherson, T. (Romford) Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Ewart, R. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Farthing, W. J. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Follick, M. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Smith, T. (Normanton)
Foot, M. M. Marshall, F. (Brightside) Snow, Capt. J. W.
Foster, W. (Wigan) Mayhew, C. P. Solley, L. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Medland, H. M. Sorensen, R. W.
Freeman. Maj J. (Watford) Middletan, Mrs. L. Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Mikardo, Ian Stamford, W.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Millington, Wins Comdr. E. R. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Gibbins, J. Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Stubbs, A. E.
Gibson, C. W. Monslow, W. Swingler, S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Moody, A. S. Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Gordon-Walker, P. C Morgan, Dr. H. B. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Moyle, A. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Grenfell, D. R. Murray, J. D. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Grey, C. F. Nally, W. Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Naylor, T. E. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Neal, H. (Claycross) Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Tiffany, S.
Gunter, Capt. R. J. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Titterington, M. F.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Noel-Buxton, Lady Tolley, L.
Hale, Leslie Oldfield, W. H. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Oliver, G. H. Turner-Samuels, M.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Orbach, M. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Hardy, E. A. Paget, R. T. Usborne, Henry
Harrison, J. Palmer, A. M. F. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Pargiter, G. A. Viant, S. P.
Haworth, J. Parker, J. Walkden, E.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Parkin, Flt-Lieut. B. T. Walker, G. H.
Hewitson, Capt. M. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Hicks, G. Pearson, A. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Hobson, C. R. Peart, Capt. T. F. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Holman, P. Perrins, W. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Porter, G. (Leeds) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
House, G. Price, M. Philips Wigg, Col. G. E.
Hoy, J. Pritt, D N. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Proctor, W. T. Wilkins, W. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Willey, F. T, (Sunderland)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Randall, H. E. Willey. O. G. (Cleveland)
Irving, W. J. Ranger, J. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Jeger, G. (Winchester) Rankin, J. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Rees-Williams, D. R Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Reeves, J. Williamson, T.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Reid, T. (Swindon) Willis, E.
Kenyon, C. Richards, R. Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Key, C. W. Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Wilson, J. H.
Kinley, J. Robens, A. Woodburn, A.
Kirby, B. V. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Woods, G. S.
Lang, G. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Wyatt, Maj. W.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Yates, V. F.
Lee, F. (Hulme) Rogers, G. H. R. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Leslie, J. R. Royle, C. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Sultan, T. Zilliacus, K.
Lewis, J. (Bolton) Scott-Elliot, W.
Lindgren, G. S. Segal, Dr. S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Lipson, D. L. Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A. Captain Michael Stewart
Lyne, A. W. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Mr. Popplewell
Sir T. Moore

I beg to move, in page 15, line 1, to leave out paragraph (b).

I now come to one of the most monstrous proposals in this ill-conceived Bill —[Laughter]—and if the hon. Members who giggled just now will read the title of the Clause, they will see what a menacing character it has—"Reservation of certain air services to the three corporations." My intention is to show the House exactly how the Government proceed to reserve these services and to protect their chil- dren, the corporations. When one looks at the paragraph which this Amendment seeks to exclude—[Interruption]. I was just wondering, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if this House had any subject of conversation beyond this Bill, because, if so, hon. Members might let me know about it and I will join in it. I do not want to miss anything good that is going on. I imagine that my remarks would be more intelligible and more interesting to many hon. Members opposite if they were heard, and I would suggest to them that they should listen to me. We are trying-to eliminate from this Bill the paragraph which imposes a fine of £5,000 and/or two years' imprisonment on any subject of His Majesty who unwittingly or unknowingly breaks this provision.

How, I ask the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, can he possibly justify such a savage penalty? I have asked him the same question before, and he has been unable to answer it. Unfortunately, we were not in a position to put down an Amendment on the Committee stage and, therefore, this is the first opportunity on which he can be challenged to give any real explanation of this outrageous penalty on an unwitting breaker of the law. It must be remembered that the vast majority of the young men who will be engaged on charter services will have come out of the Forces with their blood still running hot and high in their veins, and that same blood will not yet, I presume, have been watered down or dried up by the acts of the present Government. Therefore, it is to be presumed that they will have the spirit of adventure still so strong in their hearts and minds that they will naturally seek to take to the air.

Every hon. Member knows that the number of Regulations passed by the Government during the last year has so bemused the public that very few people know whether they are criminals or not. In fact, I would hazard the suggestion that every one in this House and every member of the public outside is a criminal and an offender against some Regulation issued by the Government. We in this House presume to know something about Parliamentary phraseology, but how is the member of the outside public, with little opportunity to delve into Dr examine the verbose and difficult phraseology used by the Parliamentary draftsmen, able to understand it? I regret to have to bring in the Parliamentary draftsmen, because it is not their fault. They are merely the interpreters of a bemused Front Bench, and they do their best with very poor material. The point is, how are these young men who are just out of the Forces, eager and anxious not only to earn a living but to serve the public, to understand when and where they are breaking the law? We have found it almost impossible sometimes to get an explanation of the word "charter" which would satisfy us. We tried it for two hours in Com- mittee, and could not get a satisfactory explanation.

How are these young men to find out what "charter" means, when they are breaking the law, and when they are offending against one of these sacred corporations which may be brought down into disrepute and bankruptcy it too many of these charterers get to work? The Government are taking an improper and unfair advantage of their power and strength of a two to one majority in this House to frighten off these young men from competing with these cherished corporations. I cannot remember in all my 21 years in this House an Act of Parliament of quite such a monstrous character. I cannot remember on any occasion in any Bill that has been discussed in this House the proposal that a servant of the public should be liable to a fine of is£5,000 and/or two years' imprisonment for serving the public. The whole thing seems almost the tale of an idiot, and, looking round at some of those who framed this Bill, I would not go so far as that, but pretty near.

In moving this Amendment, I am speaking for a body of young men who look to this Government to prepare a pleasant trail to glory and honour. They voted for them; there is no question about that. They believed in a grand new world in which every man might rise to the highest levels by his own unaided efforts, but supported by this great, new, vital, young Government. This is the answer they get. This is the reward they get—a fine of £5,000 and/or two years' imprisonment if they dare to touch these sacred, treasured corporations which mean the success or failure of the Government's policy of nationalising civil aviation. That is why the Government are so careful. They do not want these young men to get into the charter service. They want to reserve everything they possibly can for the corporations. They know their reputation will stand or fall—and it will more likely fall —according to whether these corporations are a failure. We on this side of the House know that they will almost inevitably be a failure. Therefore, in order that there shall not be vital, young, healthy, active competition, the Government wish to put every possible obstacle into the way of these young men having a fair chance.

It is a disgrace to a man for whose friendship and character I have the highest regard—the Parliamentary Secretary. I cannot believe that he ever wittingly and of his own free will allowed himself to be a party to this Clause. I feel that the learned Attorney-General sitting beside him, whose cold, icy brain is immune to any human emotion, has unduly influenced him, or possibly he has been deluded into being a party to this Clause.

I know what his answer will be. His answer will be: "Yes, but that is the maximum penalty." Thank goodness, the Socialist Government do not breed judges; they are outside the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary will say, "No judges will ever impose such a fantastic penalty unless it is well and truly earned." But can he expect to be the arbiter of what the judges will do? To me it seems to be an act of criminal folly to put such a high ceiling on penalties which might be imposed on young man who are unaware that they are committing a felony or infringing the law. Therefore, I know that I will have the general support of the House and that, at any rate, Members on this side of the House will press this monstrous thing to a Division, so that we can establish for all time our determination that, our young men who have returned safely from this war will have an opportunity of putting their lives to some use.

9.30 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has, in spite of his eloquence, missed the real point.

Mr. Mikardo

Not in spite of, because of:

Air-Commodore Harvey

The Government are very frightened about the by-'elections coming off in the next two months, and they see, by bringing in this Act of Parliament, a possibility of three or four more by-elections by bringing about the imprisonment of Conservative Members who may infringe this law. It is very subtle. I feel extremely sorry for the young men who are trying to start off in this business, who, if they are prosecuted and fined even half this amount, will go into bankruptcy. To the average individual £100 is a very severe fine. I ask the Government to reconsider this matter and to modify their views. It is monstrous that people should receive this term of imprisonment or a £5,000 fine; it is out of all proportion to reason.

The Attorney-General

I wish I could share with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) the confident, not to say the complacent satisfaction, he has in the interest and intelligence of his own observations. I cannot help thinking—and in this I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey)—that on this occasion, he was perhaps addressing his mind to one of the previous Amendments on which he had intended to speak but had forgotten. The hon. and gallant Gentleman professes to think, if indeed he thinks at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—the hon. and gallant Gentleman professes to think that this Clause will impose excessive, monstrous, wicked and unjust penalties on comparatively innocent people. Of course, it does nothing of the kind. In point of fact, the speech of the hon. and gallant Member was a scarcely veiled attack on the integrity, common sense and justice of those who are appointed in this country to administer our laws. I am bound to say that I resent the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member. I consider it most unfortunate that he should have thought it right, in a serious discussion in this House, impliedly to suggest that His Majesty's judges, or those who may be responsible for administering this Bill, would administer it in a way which involved the slightest injustice to those who may find themselves in breach of its provisions.

What is the position here? The position is that Parliament, when this Bill becomes law, will have decided that the reservation of certain scheduled services is in the public interest, and that the private operator who, for purposes of private gain, chooses to defy the provisions laid down by Parliament should be criminally responsible for what he does. Of course, there are degrees of guilt in any such contravention as may occur. Some of the offences under this Clause may he comparatively insignificant. There may be cases in which there is a substantial degree of innocence; cases in which, perhaps somebody has not understood what a scheduled service is—though heaven knows one would have thought anyone who was fit to conduct air services in this country would be capable of understanding the very clear and simple definition of a scheduled service, contained in Clause 23 of this Bill. There may be cases in which owing to some innocent mistake, or some inadvertence of that kind, a private operator may find he has unwittingly and unintentionally broken the law. That is one class of case.

At the other end of the scale is the serious kind of case, where an operator, intending to make private profit so long as he is able to do so, has deliberately and by some calculated scheme set out to evade the plain purpose of this Measure, and to run scheduled services in defiance of the statutory provision that such services are to be reserved for the statutory corporations. It may well be that an operator who has set out to do that, who has prepared a careful scheme to do it, may get away with it for some little time, and by securing the cream of the traffic on some particular route make a considerable sum by way of profit before adequate steps could be taken to stop him. In such a case a fine of £500, which is the maximum penalty which would be left if this Amendment were adopted by the House, would be completely and entirely inadequate I ask the House to say——

Wing-Commander Robinson

I am sure the right hon. and learned Attorney-General would not wish to mislead the House. He said that a fine of £500 is the only penalty left. The wording of the Bill is: to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

The Attorney-General

The great difficulty which the hon. and gallant Member will have experienced in his extensive practice at the Bar, as I have in my more modest way, lies in sending companies to prison. That is the difficulty one is up against. One has to deal with the possibility of an offence by a limited company, and the possibility of an offence by a private individual where the penalty of £500 or three months' imprisonment might still be totally inadequate for a person who, in a period of some months, as could easily happen in such a case, had made a profit of £5,000.

Commander Galbraith

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to explain how this enormous profit will be made in competition with the great air corporations? How would this wonderful "cream of the traffic" arise if the corporations were actually doing their job?

The Attorney-General

I do not propose to help hon. Members to develop schemes for evading the provisions of this Bill, but one can contemplate it as a possibility that some private operator, by running a scheduled service which was not immediately put an end to, and not in direct competition with an existing service over the same route, would be able to make considerable profits. It is to deal with that kind of case that one has to make provisions. If such cases cannot arise, if nobody will be able to make £5,000 profit, or a substantial profit, by a contravention of this Clause, then there is no danger in this penalty. Do hon. Members opposite say that any of His Majesty's judges will send a man to prison for two years or fine him £5,000, or both, unless he has committed some serious offence which is worthy of a punishment of that kind? I do not know if hon. Members opposite are inviting the House to take that view; my own experience of these matters in a small way—and hon. Members opposite will have an opportunity of saying whether they agree with it or not—is that on the whole, those who administer the criminal laws of this country take a just and reasonable view of the laws which they have to enforce, and if they err at all, err on the side of mercy. What danger is there, then, in giving the judges power to impose a penalty of two, years' imprisonment or a fine of £5,000 if in fact, in the opinion of the judge who has to try a particular case, such a penalty has not been justly merited?

Sir T. Moore

Why then limit any penalties?

The Attorney-General

The practice in dealing with these matters, as the hon. and gallant Member probably knows, is to set what is considered the maximum limit beyond which it would not be reasonable to go, and to give the judge the discretion, within that maximum, what sentence he should award in a particular case. I invite the House to say that, with the experience we have in this country of the proper, fair and merciful administration of criminal justice, this is a perfectly proper provision, and that to suggest otherwise is to cast a most unfortunate reflection on those whose business it is to administer the criminal law.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I should like at once to answer the charge which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. His jokes having fallen singularly flat, and the effectiveness of one not having even produced a cheer from the disciplined ranks behind him, he now thinks the best thing to do is to accuse the Opposition of suggesting that the judiciary cannot be trusted to arrive at proper decisions. I can rebut that accusation at once. We are not in the least frightened of the impartiality of our judges. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health recently referred to what he called "judicial sabotage," thereby showing, presumably, that the threat to the judiciary comes from His Majesty's Government and not from the Opposition. We are not frightened of the impartiality of the Bench or of the judges.

We know the object of this Clause, the object of this particular proposal. We are not frightened of justice being done, if ever a defendant gets to the courts; but we know that the purpose of this Subsection is to frighten off any possible chartered competition of scheduled services, so as to prevent that competition arising. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) said, if any should fear making a mistake for which they might find themselves liable to a fine of £5,000, about 25 times their gratuity, they would say, "This does not seem to be the sort of business into which we ought to venture." So people would be penalised for providing the yardstick by which the right hon. and learned Gentleman's corporations could be measured, to see whether they were being properly run. They are frightened off.

This is a penal fine. No one can deny it. It is a most interesting development, that the party which once called itself the party of the "forgotten man" is now coming round to legislating for penal fines and penal punishment. We know that so often in the past, certainly when President Roosevelt called himself the leader of the "forgotten men," the name was taken up by a large number of Labour candidates all over the country, who said that the Labour Party was the party of the "forgotten man." We have heard a good deal about the wicked old days when grotesque and fantastic penalties were exacted for small breaches of the law, and we have heard it suggested that they were co-terminus with the Tory Party. Now we find that, day by day, this Government are indulging in fines so large as to put any others to shame. A fine of the kind proposed here is not only large in itself, but certainly calculated to frighten off possible competition.

We had no answer, not even from the experienced and learned Attorney, to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) just now. What are the Government frightened of, if they have got the best corporations in the world, giving the best service, and showing private enterprise how to do the job? Why do they want to equip themselves with a penal provision of this kind? The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that some operator might secretly operate I scheduled service for some time before he was caught out. It is not saying much for the assiduity of the Government, whose snoopers far outnumber an army. A scheduled service has to be an advertised service; we were told so. It has to be advertised in some way to the public who are to travel by it. If it were advertised, it should be known even to His Majesty'', Government.

9.45 p.m.

Wing - Commander Robinson

I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, and I do not know whether we were more amazed than dissatisfied. His suggestion that we were making an attack on the integrity of His Majesty's judges was very wrong, especially coming from one in his position. The Attorney-General knows very well that it is the job of a judge to administer the law and it is the job of the House to make the law, and that is all we are discussing. It is my contention that the penalties are savage. The Attorney-General has spoken about a fine of £5,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, but if we read the Clause to the end, we find it says: or to both such fine and such imprisonment. The Attorney-General rather passed it off by saying that this might be a long continuing series of offences, but the words are that a fine and imprisonment can be applied to each offence committed. I regard the matter this way. By indicating this maximum penalty, the House is showing the severity of the offence, and in consequence, when the courts come to consider the matter, they must regard an offence in relation to the severity of the penalty laid down. I believe that the Government are taking us back almost to the Middle Ages, when a man could be hanged for stealing a sheep With enlightenment, through the centuries, we came to the idea that the punishment should fit the crime, and penalties became much more reasonable. This Government are now taking us back to the Middle Ages, by having severe penalties for offences which many of us do not think are so serious. We are now saying that £5,000 and two years imprisonment is to be the penalty of enterprise which may have been mistaken It is easy for the Attorney-General to say that anyone can read and understand the Bill. I read through the whole of the Debates, and I observed that the Committee upstairs took a long time to make up its mind on the difference between a chartered service and a scheduled service. Even the Parliamentary Secretary was at times not at all sure of his position, and the Attorney-General had to come along and give a ruling on what was meant. I vigorously oppose the idea that young men returning from the Royal Air Force, and trying to play some part in developing civil aviation in this country, should be made liable to penalties of such severity.

Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale)

I wish to ask the Attorney-General a question. It arises out of what seems to me to be a very curious doctrine, which he introduced, as to the basis on which a penalty or fine may be imposed. Apparently if you make a profit you are to be fined more than if you do not make a profit. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make clear whether that is the basis which, it is intended, judges should have in mind. In the case of an offence relating, for instance, to the sale of food in the black market, we have passed Statutes whereby the fine imposed is related to the profits made. In connection with evasion of Customs duty and smuggling, the fine is related to the amount of tax which was sought to be evaded. It is a new thing to me, however, that we should base the amount of a penalty upon the profit made out of the offence. Surely, the crime of running an illegal service over a scheduled route is the same whether you make a profit or not. If I am wrong I should be glad to be put right, but it seems to me a rather curious suggestion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is importing into our law.

I want to emphasise the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson). It is not enough for the Attorney-General to say that the judges will deal leniently with small offences. The measure of the maximum penalty put into the Clause by Parliament must surely impress upon the judges the importance of the crime; not the amount of profit that is made out of it. There is surely a distinction there. Is it really suggested that it is a crime to run a service knowingly, cunningly and cleverly or do we not want people to be enterprising and take a chance? Do we or do we not? [Laughter.] Hon. Members seem to think that we do not want people to take a chance. Are we entering a period when the dead hand of the State is to he laid on one industry after another and private persons are to be forbidden from going out to try to render service to their fellows and make money; and are they to be fined in relation to the profit they make? Is it a crime to make a profit? It almost seems that that is being written into our law. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that if they go on with the policy shown in this Measure, in the Finance Bill, and in their speeches up and down the country of making it known that it is the view of His Majesty's Government that to make a profit is a crime, and that the larger the profit the greater the crime, they will kill private enterprise on which the bulk of the work of this world continues to be based. I consider this is a penal fine, and I submit that something more reasonable ought to be substituted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

It is a somewhat new experience to hear the learned Attorney-General of England justify the inclusion of heavy penalties into a Bill by saying that His Majesty's judges can be relied upon not to impose penalties which Parliament has seen fit to include in the Bill.

Mr. Mikardo

He did not say that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

That was the whole tenor of the learned Attorney-General's reply. Of course, it is somewhat gratifying to hear the learned Attorney-General taking a somewhat different attitude towards His Majesty's judges than he saw fit to take on the Trade Disputes Bill, and we can welcome perhaps that change of heart. It is no argument whatever for the inclusion of severe penalties in a Bill to say that they will never be imposed. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] I can assure the hon. Gentlemen behind the learned Attorney-General that he is quite capable of looking after himself. The learned Attorney-General intervened during the speech of one of my hon. Friends to justify these penalties by pointing out the profoundly analytical proposition that it is difficult to send a company to prison. That would have been relevant had the Subsection covered by this Amendment related solely to financial penalties, but it is no argument whatever for the inclusion of a penalty of two years' imprisonment, and that is surely far more important than the fine.

I do not wholly agree with the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that if a large profit is made by illegal activities that should be disregarded from the point of view of financial penalties, but what is surely material is the very serious sentence of two years' imprisonment for this offence which is included in this Subsection. Can the learned Attorney-General describe the circumstances of any case under this Subsection in which it would be reasonable or humane to impose a penalty of two years' imprisonment. Unless there are some such facts which leap to the fertile and resilient imagination of the Attorney-General, I submit that is quite monstrous to include these penalties in the Bill. This House, during the last few months, has manufactured an enormous number of criminal offences of great severity. I do suggest that we should not in this easy way create yet another. I submit we are entitled to have from the Government a statement of the facts, the extreme facts if you like, upon which it is permissible and right and even conceivable to impose a penalty of two years' imprisonment for a breach of Clause 23.

Squadron-Leader Fleming (Manchester, Withington)

I rise to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), because it seems to me, from my experience after the 1914–18 war, than the very men who will be hit most by these penalties will be the ex-pilots. It is a well known fact that some of these men attempted to earn their living by flying service after they left the R.F.C. I see no reason why they should not be given the opportunity to do so again. They will have certain opportunities in the big corporations, but that is only for a limited few. Are we to condemn the vast number of these men to run the risk of what I look upon as savage penalties for anyone who infringes Clause 23? It refers to: A person who carries a passenger. etc. The words to emphasise are "a passenger." That is one offence. Supposing, as the learned Attorney-General pointed out, somebody has a scheme for skimming the cream of the scheduled services—I do not know how it could be done, but let us asume it for one moment—many passengers would have to be carried. How many offences would that be, because each represents a separate offence? At least that is my interpretation of the Clause. The pilot would be liable under Subsection (b) to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or two years' imprisonment or both. I look upon that as very savage indeed. To say that the judges of the High Court would not be influenced by such penalties is beside the point. What we must take into account is that there are some Members of this House who think that such penalties should be imposed or they would not put it in the Bill. I am not suggesting that that would particularly influence any of His Majesty's judges, but this is the point. If one of these ex-pilots dared to run the risk in a desire to earn his own living, are there Members who would suggest that he should be penalised to the extent of a £5,000 fine or two years or both for carrying every single passenger? I for one would never agree to it. I would look upon myself as being disloyal to my own comrades. I sincerely hope the House will not allow this Subsection to remain in the Bill.

Captain Crookshank (Gains borough)

The penalties in this Clause are certainly very savage and nothing that the Attorney-General has said is considered by us on this side of the House as an adequate defence for them. We shall, therefore, wish to make our protest against it in the Division Lobby. I know that there are a great many more Clauses to be discussed, but I hope the Attorney-General will tell us something further In any event, it will be done under the assurance that we are going to divide to express our protest in the best way in which we can.

Mr. C. Williams

I should like to say one or two things on this Amendment from this point of view. I have listened to a great number of discussions on the fixing of fines in other Acts of Parliament, and I have heard a great number of learned Law Officers on both sides of the House laying down, whether they have been in opposition or in office, that it is a bad thing for the House of Commons to put a fine into a Bill unless they think that these powers, maximum fines though they be, are the standard type of fines that are going to be imposed. No one in the House wishes to attack the judiciary. But in laying down such penalties we are laying it down that the opinion of the House of Commons is that they are the penalties which should be inflicted. The Attorney-General, using vivid powers of imagination, drew a picture of a person who, for some time, has continued to run a service, has advertised it, and has got away with a profit of £5,000. That is unlikely to happen. The whole of the tendency of modern thought —and especially among Members opposite—has for a long time been that savage and excessive penalties do not stop crime. I agree with that. It is true that the penalties may not be inflicted, but the Socialist Party intend to lay it down that they wish these penalties to be put into the Bill. I appeal to the Government on this matter. In matters of this kind we should level the penalties through all our legislation.

10.0 p.m.

Would it not be better for the Government to see whether they could put into the Bill something more in keeping with modern thought and outlook? Members of the Government, when in opposition, often made this kind of appeal, and almost always it was met. I honestly believe that it would be far better, in the interests of this Clause and of the community in general, if the Government would make a concession and lay down penalties far more in keeping with the ordinary outlook at the present time. I do not justify for one second the breaking of the law. It is no good the Attorney-General getting up and snarling at me that I want to be a law-breaker, because I do not. I thought Members on the Government Front Bench were kindly well-meaning people, who did not wish to inflict savage penalties on their fellows and, that being so, I ask them to think again.

The Attorney-General

The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has hardly encouraged me to say anything further about this matter, because he said that whatever I might say, would be said under the assurance that the House would divide on this Amendment; but I venture to suggest that hon. Members are disturbing themselves unnecessarily about this not very dangerous and not very harmful provision. It really is rather beside the point to talk about this provision being an attack on private enterprise. The most enterprising person with whom I ever had any professional association, and the most private also, was a cat burglar. He got seven years for it. Of course, a person who sets himself out, as the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said, knowingly and cunningly to take a chance of breaking the law, may be a very enterprising person——

Sir I. Fraser

I do not think I said anything about taking a chance of breaking the law. I referred to taking a chance at legal evasion.

The Attorney-General

That is a subtle distinction which may not appeal so strongly to other hon. Members as it does to the hon. Member for Lonsdale and to myself, as a lawyer. People who set themselves out, knowingly and cunningly, to take a chance at legal evasion are no doubt engaged in a very high form of adventure, and of course, if the penalty at the end of it all is two years' imprisonment or a fine of £5,000, I suppose that makes the adventure all the greater; but, after all, if people do set themselves "cunningly and knowingly to take a chance at evading the law" they must expect, if eventually they get found out, that the law may impose its penalties upon them. All that this provision does—and in doing this it follows the normal tradition in criminal legis- lation of this kind—is to provide that His Majesty's judges, in dealing with this particular type of case, shall have regard to what is the maximum penalty for the worst possible offence. It is not for me to imagine what that particular case might be. It might be the case of a man who, for the fourth time, was convicted of some offence. Perhaps every season he had come along and, for a month or so, had creamed the traffic. The first time he was fined £50, but that was not enough—he did it again. The next time, £500—but that was not enough—he did it again. What, then, is the judge to do? Let it be remembered that the judge can do nothing until a jury of the twelve men in the Clapham omnibus has convicted the prisoner of having committed a criminal offence. What, then, is the judge to do? Is he not bound, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case before him, to impose what he considers to be a proper, just and reasonable penalty, always with this limitation, that however serious a view he may take, he is not to give more than two years' imprisonment, which is, although a long term, a comparatively small term, when one looks at the provisions on the Statute Book in regard to sentences of imprisonment? He is not to give more than two years' imprisonment, or to impose a fine of £5,000, or, if he thinks right, both.

In providing a standard for the worst kind of offence which may arise, one must trust those who administer the law —the juries who have to find a person guilty before he can be sentenced, and the judges or magistrates who have to

sentence if the jury have brought in a verdict of guilty. One must place confidence and trust in their sense of justice, and assume that they will not impose penalties which do not appeal to them as being proper and just in the circumstances of the particular case. In reply to the specific question which the hon. Member for Lonsdale put to me, I must say that one of the purposes of a penalty is to deter, and obviously, in the particular class of offence which is likely to result in considerable profit, a penalty which is much less than the profit likely to be made will not deter a person from the commission of that type of offence. Consequently, there has to be the possibility of a heavy fine to guard against the chance that people may think it pecuniarily worth while to do what the hon. Member for Lonsdale regards as a fitting form of private enterprise—knowingly and cunningly to take a chance of evading the law. Do not let hon. Members think that this provision is really directed against the proper private enterprise of the honest ex-pilot seeking to make a living. The people who will find that the heavy penalty may be imposed on them, are not the ex-pilots who have made a mistake but the financiers, the crafty, cunning financiers who are shielding themselves behind the anonymity of some company in the city and using the ex-pilot, in order to make illicit profit.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 85.

Division No. 239.] AYES. [10.10 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Blackburn, A. R. Corlett, Dr. J.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V Boardman, H. Crossman, R. H. S.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Daggar, G.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Alpass, J. H. Brook, D. (Haifax) Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Attewell, H. C. Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Davies, Harold (Leek)
Austin, H. L. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Awbery, S. S. Buchanan, G. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Ayles, W. H. Burden, T. W. Deer, G.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Burke, W A. Diamond, J.
Bacon, Miss A. Chamberlain, R. A. Dobbie, W.
Baird, Capt. J. Champion, A. J. Dodds, N. N.
Balfour, A. Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Driberg, T. E. N.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Clitherow, Dr. R. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Barslow, P. G. Cluse, W. S. Durbin, E. F. M.
Barton, C. Cocks, F. S. Dye, S.
Battley, J. R. Coldrick, W. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Bechervaise, A. E. Collick, P. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Belcher, J. W. Collindridge, F. Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Benson, G. Collins, V. J. Evans, J. (Ogmore)
Berry, H. Comyns, Dr. L. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Bins, G. H. C. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Ewart, R.
Binns, J. Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Farthing, W. J.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Simmons, C. J.
Follick, M. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Skeffington, A. M.
Foot, M. M. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Skinnard, F. W.
Foster, W. (Wigan) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Medland, H. M. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Freeman, Mai. J. (Watford) Middleton, Mrs. L. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Mikardo, Ian Smith, T. (Normanton)
Gibbins, J. Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. Snow, Capt. J. W.
Gibson, C. W. Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Solley, L. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Monslow, W. Sorensen, R. W.
Gordon-Walker, P. C. Moody, A. S. Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Stamford, W.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Grenfell, D. R. Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.) Swingler, S.
Grey, C. F. Moyle, A. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Murray, J. D. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden Nally, W. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Gunter, Capt. R. J. Naylor, T. E. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Guy, W. H. Neal, H. (Claycross) Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Hale, Leslie Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Thorneyoroft, H (Clayton)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R Noel-Buxton, Lady Tiffany, S.
Hardy, E. A. O'Brien, T. Titterington, M. F.
Harrison, J. Oldfield, W. H. Tolley, L.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Oliver, G. H. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Orbach, M. Turner-Samuels, M.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Paget, R. T. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Hewitson, Capt. M. Palmer, A. M. F. Usborne, Henry
Hicks, G. Pargiter, G. A. Vernon, Maj. W F.
Hobson, C. R. Parker, J. Viant, S. P.
Holman, P. Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Walkden, E.
House, G. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Walker, G. H.
Hoy, J. Pearson, A. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Peart, Capt. T. F. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Perrins, W. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Irving, W. J. Platts-Mills, J. F. F. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Popplewell, E. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Janner, B. Porter, G. (Leeds) Wigg, Col. G. E.
Jeger, G. (Winchester) Pritt, D. N. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Proctor, W. T Wilkins, W. A.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools) Randall, H. E. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Ranger, J. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Kenyan, C. Rankin, J. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Key, C. W. Rees-Williams, D. R. Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)
Kinley, J. Reeves, J. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Kirby, B. V. Reid, T. (Swindon) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Lang, G. Richards, R. Williamson, T.
Lee, F. (Hulme) Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Willis, E.
Leslie, J. R. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Wilson, J. H.
Lewis, J. (Bolton) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Woodburn, A.
Lindgren, G. S. Rogers, G. H R. Woods, G. S.
Lynn, A. W. Royle, C. Wyatt, Maj. W.
McAdam, W. Scollan, T. Yates, V F.
McEntee, V. La T. Scott-Elliot, W. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
McGhee, H. G. Segal, Dr. S. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
McGovern, J. Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A Zilliacut, K.
Mack, J. O. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Shawcross, C. K. (Widnes) TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Maclean, N. (Govan) Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) Capt. Stewart and
McLeavy, F. Shurmer, P. Mr. Hannan
Macphorson, T. (Romford) Silverman, S. S (Nelson)
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Drewe, C. Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Astor, Hon. M. Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L. Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Baldwin, A. E. Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Lipson, D. L.
Baxter, A. B. Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Bossom, A. C. Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Lucas, Major Sir J.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Grimston, R. V. McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Bullock, Capt. M. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Carson, E. Haughton, S. G. Marsden, Capt. A.
Channon, H. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Clarke, Col. R. S. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Hollis, M. C. Maude, J. C.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J. Mellor, Sir J.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'brgh W) Moore, Lt.-Col. Sit T.
Cuthbert, W N. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Neven-Spenee, Sir B.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Lambert, Hon. G. Nicholson, G.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Langford-Holt, J. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Drayson, Capt. G. B. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Pitman, I. J. Snadden, W. M. Walker-Smith, D.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Prescott, Stanley Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) Williams, C, (Torquay)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Renton, D. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'ddt'n. S.)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland Teeling, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Ropner, Col. L. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F Mr. Studholme and
Ross, Sir R. Turton, R. H. Major Conant
Smithers, Sir W. Vane, W. M. T.