HC Deb 04 December 1961 vol 650 cc1038-54

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out paragraph (a) and insert:

  1. (a) by any person acting through legal process;
  2. (b) by a constable acting in the execution of a warrant.

On 24th November, when I was moving the Amendment and was cut short by the Adjournment, I had explained briefly the purpose of the Amendment as being that without it certain essential steps in civil litigation in which the Organisation set up by the Bill might be involved would be impossible. Those steps in litigation are the normal step whereby one litigant obliges another person to produce the relevant documents in the other's possession, and secondly, the power of one litigant to oblige a witness to produce relevant documents. I explained that the Amendment would restore those rights to litigants in cases in which the organisation is involved.

The organisation created by the Bill is a form of corporate body which is unknown to our law. There are several international organisations known to our law, but this is a legal body that can sue or be sued in our courts and is yet given certain immunities in the course of those proceedings. By subsection (3) of Clause 2, the organisation is granted an inviolability of its official archives, which, as I read the subsection, include any of its documents. Otherwise, the proviso to the subsection would not be necessary.

The proviso is that the subsection shall not preclude access to any premises, or the inspection of any document,—

  1. (a) by a constable or other person acting in the execution of a warrant or other legal process".
I would have no objection if the words "other legal process" stood on their own, but where they stand in the subsection after the word "warrant" one must interpret them as being something of the same kind as a warrant. An order for discovery of documents in the course of litigation has nothing whatever to do with a warrant. A subpoena to a witness to produce documents has nothing whatever to do with a warrant.

It may be said that we know this kind of immunity in the courts already. It may be said, for example, that the Crown has some immunity for process of this sort under the Crown Proceedings Act. I will return to that point presently.

It may be said that foreign diplomats and envoys are exempt in some way from the process in our courts. Indeed, they are exempt from action in the courts unless they submit to it; but if they submit to that action they submit to all the normal process of litigation and are subject to the ordinary procedure.

It may be said that there are other international organisations recognised in our law which have privileges in our courts. Indeed, there are. Those other international organisations are exempt from being sued in our courts. This new organisation, however, is not given that exemption. By subsection (2) of the Clause, it is given only part of the exemption which is given to other international organisations and it is allowed to sue or be sued in the courts here.

It may be said that we have to abide by the Convention on which the Bill is founded. Let me turn for a moment to the Convention and, in particular, to page 39. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 25 make the organisation fully liable both in contract and in tort. That is carried out in Clause 2 and subsection (1) of this Bill. The full intention and implications of this are clearly seen in Clause 7 by which the organisation can be sued even upon those acts which occur outside the jurisdiction of the courts here. So the Convention recognises in full the accountability of the organisation in our courts.

Now as to the procedure for enforcing that liability. Again I refer to the Convention and particularly Article 26. Paragraph 3 of Article 26 seems to permit exactly what I require by my Amendment. If the Committee will bear with me I will read out what it says: The provisions of this Article shall not prejudice access to the installations and archives of the Organisation by the competent authorities of the State in which the Organisation has its seat and of other countries in which those installations and archives may be situated, in order to enable judicial inquiries to be carried out and to ensure the execution of judicial decisions in their respective territories. What I am asking for by my Amendment is that the Bill should recognise Paragraph 3 of Article 26 of the Convention when it says that we should enable judicial inquiries to be carried out.

Let me take an example. Suppose that I am suing the organisation for negligence in its direction of an aircraft which has been involved in an accident. As another example, it might be an action on contract for services or goods supplied to the organisation. One can multiply the sort of circumstances in which the organisation might become involved as defendant in proceedings. In normal proceedings one would be entitled to require the organisation to produce any relevant documents. That is an essential part of litigation in our courts, but if this Bill stands as it is that cannot be done; and yet, in my submission, it is not contrary to the Convention. Paragraph 3 of Article 26 specifically authorises that.

Let me take another example. One can imagine two litigants entirely unconnected with the organisation, in an action between two private persons, and that the vital point in that action is the movement of some aircraft or messages transmitted to that aircraft. Those litigants could not exercise the normal rights of litigants in our courts to subpoena, say, an employee of the organisation to produce documents to prove what messages were given to the aircraft.

My hon. Friend will be familiar with the Crown privilege in these matters, but that is given by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. If a Minister certifies that the production of any Government documents would be injurious to the public interest, then the Crown is relieved from producing them, but that is very different from the proposition put into this Bill relating to this European organisation. The Crown privilege, after all, applies to our Crown and is exercised on the advice of our Ministers responsible to the House. It is not the decision of some foreign body. Furthermore, Ministers, if they are claiming privilege of this sort, must claim privilege by reference to a specific document. In this case the organisation is privileged for all its documents.

Lastly, the Crown privilege point is governed by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. I should like to quote Section 28 of that Act as an example of the sort of privilege which is granted in our courts and which might well have been granted to this organisation if the Bill had been appropriately drafted. The Section reads: (a) in any civil proceedings in the High Court or a county court to which the Crown is a party, the Crown may be required by the court to make discovery of documents and produce documents for inspection; and (b) in any such proceedings as aforesaid, the Crown may be required by the court to answer interrogatories: Provided that this section shall be without prejudice to any rule of law which authorises or requires the withholding of any document or the refusal to answer any question on the ground that the disclosure of the document or the answering of the question would be injurious to the public interest. Under the Bill the organisation is put in a better position as a litigant in our courts than is the Crown.

If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary fears that through some phoney civil action an order of the court may be obtained for the discovery of documents which would disclose the movement of military aircraft to some foreign Power, possibly he would be prepared to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment and himself at a later stage add some proviso which would enable Ministers to say that the production of documents is injurious to the public interest, and so put this organisation at least on the same footing as the Crown. As things stand, I am not at all happy at giving a foreign body a legal entity and then giving it immunity from process in our courts.

It would give rise to this sort of anomaly. The organisation could force an opponent in litigation to produce documents and yet refuse to do so itself. Even foreign diplomats and envoys are not in that position as plaintiffs. What I really fear is that this would be a precedent for further international bodies which may arise out of our greater co-operation with Europe.

For example. on Second Reading, my hon. Friend said: … this is the first occasion on which this country has joined a purely European institution as a founder member. In referring to the organisation, he said: This is, in a certain measure, a supranational institution. It will have powers of a kind that we have not conferred on a similar body before.… It is a good example of the right way to move into European partnership on practical grounds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 858–63.] I question whether it is the right way, to create a body which has all the advantages but not all the duties when it comes to judicial proceedings. Are other countries so interpreting Article 26 (3) of the Convention or is this just our own interpretation of it, which I submit is contrary to both the meaning and spirit of that Article? This is not an Amendment out of the woolly head of some stray back bench Member. This is a matter which has given great concern to the Law Society, which is anxious to preserve the rights of litigants when new bodies such as this are created with rights to sue and be sued in our courts.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin (Loughborough)

I should first like to thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for the very able and lucid way in which he moved this slightly complex Amendment. On this side of the Committee we feel disposed to give him some qualified support. I should like to reinforce some of his arguments by giving the background to the present situation.

Prior to 1948 it was not possible to sue a Ministry, unless a Statute specifically provided otherwise, except on matter of contract. This caused a lot of hardship. As a result, the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, was introduced by the Labour Government. That Act puts the Ministries in exactly the same position as a private person of full age and capacity, with certain exceptions such as the Post Office and the Armed Forces. Thus it is possible, as a result of this big advance in jurisprudence, to sue Ministers.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, under Section 28 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, there is specific power to obtain an order from the discovery of documents—in other words, in the early stages of the action to force the Ministry to produce documents which might be of value to the person taking action for damages. There is also, under the Act, the right to subpoena a witness from the Ministry and also to make sure that he brings with him such special documents as are helpful to the plaintiff.

The present situation is, first, that an aggrieved person can sue the Ministry of Aviation and at an early stage can obtain an order from the court to make the Ministry produce documents or records which would be available to his case, and, secondly, when the trial actually occurs, the aggrieved person, who is the plaintiff, can subpoena a member of the Ministry and also obtain an order that he should produce relevant documents or records when he attends court.

In the same way, if an aggrieved person were suing some other organisation, although he could not obtain an order for discovery of documents at an early stage, he could, however, still use the full power of subpoena to obtain someone from the Ministry in court for evidence and to obtain necessary documents and records at the time. But, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Minister retains certain important rights to waive the plaintiff's rights over the documents in certain cases, in that he can give a certificate to the court saying that it is contrary to the public interest for these documents to be produced. Indeed, as far as I know, the Minister's power goes a little wider in that he can decline to produce a document to the court if it is against the public interest to produce that class of documents.

The effect of Clause 2 is to provide that Eurocontrol can be sued by any British subject. The Ministry of Aviation hands to Eurocontrol more or less complete control of the air traffic in upper air space and possibly, to some extent, in lower air space, according to whether some other countries enter into an arrangement regarding lower air space. While handing over this control and while permitting the ordinary British subject to sue Eurocontrol, Clause 2 (3) precludes the aggrieved person from obtaining access to the records or documents which would help his case.

This is a very big change in the rights of the subject. Obviously, if one is suing Eurocontrol on matters dealing with what happens in upper air space, it will be vital to obtain the records. Hardly anyone can know what is going on in upper air space, and in any action involving upper air space the most important factor in evidence will be the records of the various tracking instruments which indicate what aircraft are doing in upper air space.

The Bill will completely deprive the prospective litigant of his ability to make good his case. It says that someone who is aggrieved and who has an action for damages against Eurocontrol can fight Eurocontrol just the same as he can fight the Ministry of Aviation, but that he must fight Eurocontrol with one arm tied behind his back. That is probably a fair assessment of the legal position. The same consideration applies when suing some other organisation, for instance, one air company suing another, or a private person suing an air company. Whoever is the plaintiff will obviously be grievously handicapped in not being able to produce documents or records referring to what has happened in upper air space and, in accordance with the Convention, possibly some parts of lower air space. It is clear that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crosby restores these very important rights of the subject to anyone who wishes to take legal action against Eurocontrol.

I shall attempt a small essay into clairvoyance and try to visualise what the Parliamentary Secretary will say as an objection to the Amendment. As the hon. Member for Crosby has pointed out, it may be suggested that there are security grounds for objecting to the Amendment. It is obviously possible for a fictitious civil claim to be made by the agent of some potentially hostile country and, as a result, for records to be obtained of the movement of military aircraft. That objection is not nearly as valid as it sounds. First, there is the time factor. I think that the hon. Member for Crosby, who has immense legal experience, will probably agree that it takes at least two months to obtain an order for discovery of documents.

Mr. Graham Page indicated assent.

Mr. Cronin

That is probably a figure which favours the Minister. Anyway, there has to be time for a statement of claim from the plaintiff and a defence from the defendant. It is rather difficult to visualise that movements of military aircraft could be of considerable consequence and that valuable information would be given to a potentially hostile country if those movements were known as much as two months later.

Leaving aside the question of the discovery of documents, the Bill as drafted would completely remove from the litigant the right to subpoena a person from the Ministry of Aviation and the appropriate documents. One can safely say that, if everybody moved with the maximum expedition, it would be at least six months before the case actually came to court. So, if one looks at it from the point of view of security, it is rather difficult to feel that there is a strong argument for rejecting the Amendment on the ground of security when the information that might be available to a potentially hostile country should come so very much later than the actual event if there was a fictitious civil claim for the purpose of obtaining such information.

I also suggest that even if this danger existed it would not be a very difficult matter for the military aircraft of the countries concerned to vary their movements a little in the course of their daily exercises. It is recognised to be an undesirable form of action from a military point of view constantly to use the same course, at the same times and using the same manœuvres. I should have thought that it would have been perfectly easy, therefore, for military aircraft to vary their movements and, to a large extent, to negative any useful information which could be obtained by a fictitious civil claim.

There is also the very important point that it would be perfectly possible to introduce some Amendment to the Bill which would enable Eurocontrol to withhold records from legal process if objections were made by the Ministry concerned.

Consequently, my hon. Friends and I feel disposed to welcome the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Crosby. We do not feel that there are sufficient grounds for rejecting it.

I wish now to refer to some other points in connection with the Amendment. First, the Amendment does not give a right of access to documents or records; it merely prevents the right of access being precluded, as would be the case if the Bill were not amended.

Another very important factor is that there is a large and constant increase of air traffic, and it is very likely that there will be a number of accidents in future with a number of aggrieved persons who will wish to initiate action for damages against Eurocontrol or an airline or some other organisation affected by traffic movements in upper air space. We have a real duty to protect, as far as is possible, the rights of those people.

Like the hon. Member for Crosby, I have also been in touch with the Law Society. The Law Society is very anxious in no circumstances to be involved in anything to do with politics, and one may feel some sympathy with that attitude. Nevertheless, I understand that the Law Society feels some really grave disquiet about what will happen if the Bill goes through un-amended. It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to take very careful note of disquiet expressed by such an authoritative organisation in English law.

Another important point is that, as the hon. Member for Crosby mentioned, the Bill will establish a very important precedent. This is the first occasion on which this country has entered into a European organisation as a founder-member. It may be that this country will become a member of other European organisations. At present hon. Members know the Government are in the process of active negotiations about entering the European Economic Community. I do not intend to refer to the merits or demerits of that proposal, but if we are negligent of the rights of the subject on the first occasion on which we enter a European organisation as a founder member, one wonders what is likely to happen on future occasions. It seems that we are establishing a very important precedent, and we must be careful how we do it.

9.0 p.m.

I suggest that Clause 2 seems to open a very serious breach in the rights of the subject as regards the ability to take legal action about events in upper air space. I am sure that the Minister, with his great dialectical skill, will give us a helpful reply, but I warn him that we on this side of the Committee are disturbed by the present situation with regard to this Bill and that if he cannot give us some satisfactory explanation or assurance we will have to think seriously about dividing the Committee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse)

I assure the Committee that I will take careful note of everything that has been said. I hope that I shall be able to give satisfactory assurances to the Committee, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for producing, out of the far from woolly head of a far from stray back bencher, an Amendment which, although I am unable to accept it, has nevertheless given the Committee the opportunity to consider this important question of the inviolability of the new Organisation.

I stress at the beginning that the extent of the inviolability and immunity of this organisation is very limited, and in the drafting of the Bill it has been our intention to make sure that nothing more is given away than is strictly necessary. For instance, out of the thirteen privileges which can be conferred on international organisations under the Schedule to the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, only four are being conferred on Eurocontrol. Inviolability extends only to the installations and archives of the organisation, and "installations" are defined later in this Clause, again in a very restrictive phraseology. I will return to archives in a moment.

The organisation is being denied what is normally conceded to international organisations, and that is immunity from suit. I have here a list of about fifteen other international organisations which enjoy immunity from suit, which is not being conferred on Eurocontrol. As my hon. Friend pointed out, one would expect, on the face of it, that if immunity from suit was not conferred, then a person who was entitled to sue the organisation would also be entitled to two further things, discovery of documents, and the right to serve a subpoena; otherwise the conduct of his case would be hampered.

But this argument is not exact, as I think my hon. Friend pointed out in showing that under the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, the Crown can be sued but it can claim privilege to withhold documents. The organisation is not, of course, the Crown, but its position is in one respect similar to that of the Crown under the Convention, and that is that Article 25 allows suit against it, whereas Article 26 confers a degree of inviolability. As the hon. Member has pointed out, it is an unusual organisation which, so far as I can say, has not hitherto been known to our law.

In this unusual situation—and it is bound to be unusual from the nature of our undertaking in signing the Convention—we have considered carefully with the Foreign Office and the Law Officers the exact extent of immunity which should be given to the organisation. We have been anxious neither to go beyond what is required nor to fall short of it. What is covered by "inviolability", in Article 26 of the Convention? It refers to installations and archives. The advice that I have been given is that archives, as referred to in Article 26, include—as we have already mentioned in an earlier stage of the Bill—not only documents but tape recordings, films and similar objects which are mentioned later in the Bill.

I am advised that these could not be considered inviolable under the terms of Article 26 if any litigant, including not only litigants in this country but, for instance, representatives of foreign airlines, and even airlines outside Eurocontrol countries altogether, could obtain discovery and serve a subpoena on the organisation.

Paragraph 3 of Article 26, which my hon. Friend read out, limits access in these circumstances to the competent authorities for purposes which are defined at the end of the sentence. We believe that the phrase referring to competent authorities would not justify a Clause in the Bill enabling a litigant in a civil action to obtain discovery and to serve a subpoena.

Mr. Cronin

Will the hon. Member make clear, for the record, whether we are to understand that an order of the court for discovery of documents, or a subpoena, would not be considered to apply to the phrase "access by the competent authorities"? The suggestion seems to be that a court is not to be regarded as a competent authority of the State, under the terms of paragraph 3 of Article 26. Can the Minister clear the position up?

Mr. Woodhouse

We understand that under paragraph 3 the competent authorities refer to the authorities specified in the Bill as we have drafted it, and the insertion of the hon. Member's Amendment would extend that access beyond the range of the competent authorities as defined in Article 26.

Mr. Graham Page

Is my hon. Friend telling the Committee that a constable is a competent authority but that a High Court judge is not? That is what seems so peculiar to me.

Mr. Woodhouse

No, Sir. I cannot pronounce on the relative competence of constables and High Court judges. I can only assure my hon. Friend that the advice which we have received would limit the interpretation of the phrase "competent authorities" to those that we have inserted in the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Charles A. Howell (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I am very interested in this point. The authorities at London Airport take a tape recording of the words passing between the control tower and the pilot of an incoming aircraft. Do I understand that it is the deliberate intention of the Government that any individual who may wish to sue the air line for negligence shall be deprived of access to that tape recording? Does it mean that the authorities referred to in the Bill are the only competent authorities who will have access to these tape recordings? It seems that an individual, through his solicitor or counsel, will be deprived of access to such documents.

Mr. Woodhouse

I hope to elucidate that a little later, but under the Convention the power to obtain access to documents of that kind, were they within the control of the Eurocontrol organisation would not automatically be conferred on anyone other than the competent authorities included in the Bill. But it would be within the power of the organisation of which we are an important and an integral member to waive the right to withhold such documents.

Mr. Howell

Surely this is a contrary to British practice in the past where the right of the individual is absolute. In this instance the individual would have no right, unless somebody else conferred that right on him by seeking to obtain the evidence which he or she absolutely needed. If there is a question of neglect; if an individual has received some injury; if, for example, he or she claims that the pilot made too steep a drop and therefore there was a bounce which was greater than it should have been, due to the negligence of the pilot; if someone wished to protect the pilot they could deny that right to the individual. Surely we should go by what was said by a Lord Chief Justice, that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done, and the Government should think carefully before taking away the rights of the individual.

Mr. Woodhouse

In a situation such as was described by the hon. Gentleman I see no reason whatever to suppose that the right of the organisation would not be waived for the purpose of such a case, and we, as a leading member of the organisation, with a heavy weight in the voting in the organisation would always use our influence to see that it was waived.

If I may pursue my argument further. I think it will become clear to the Committee why it is not possible to write into the Bill a right of access applicable to such cases. The point in my argument which I had reached was that the Amendment of my hon. Friend would extend the right of access to Eurocontrol archives beyond the terms of the Convention. He argued that the purpose of his Amendment was to bring the Bill into line with the Convention. My understanding is that that is incorrect; that the Bill as drafted is in line with the Convention and that the Amendment would put the Bill in conflict with it.

That, of course, is not the end of the matter. The Committee may well ask why we should accept a Convention which limits litigation in this way. I explained when I spoke during the Second Reading of the Bill that certain shifts of sovereignty margins were involved. We gained certain rights over the organisation and the organisation gained certain rights over us. One of the rights which it gained under the Bill is the right which is implicit in the Convention at many points. It is the right to protect military security.

If hon. Members will look at the Preamble they will find reference to due regard being paid to the requirements of national defence. This recurs in Article 6, Paragraph 2 (a) … having regard to the requirements of national defence … and again in Article 2 of the Statute, I need not recite all the examples. The point is that the organisation is to be responsible for movement in the upper air space not only of civilian aircraft but also military aircraft of the member Powers operating under I.C.A.O. procedures. That is, broadly speaking, military transport aircraft, but it includes a number of others as well. In the lower air space it might be still more widely extended.

9.15 p.m.

Eurocontrol will have to work very closely with the Military air forces of this country, of our allies, and of other countries which may join Eurocontrol without being in the formal sense our allies. Much use will be made in operating Eurocontrol of military equipment, both in this country and in other member countries. Article 28 of the Convention provides for the use of national technical services already installed in different member countries. In our own case, the national technical services, which are already very elaborate, are in the process of becoming closely co-ordinated between military and civilian use.

The organisation is, therefore, bound to have cognisance of military information of a fairly extensive kind. I assure the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) that such information would certainly still be of value two months, six months or even longer after the date of the operations to which it referred. The Amendment, if it were written into the Bill, would give any party to the suit, whether or not the organisation were also a party to the suit, the right to secure from the organisation information on matters which might be prejudicial to our own national safety and also to the safety of others, including our allies.

I do not think it is right to say that the Bill would completely preclude access to the sort of information hon. Members have in mind.

Mr. Cronin

I am not going to press him on this, but can the Parliamentary Secretary give us an approximate idea of how valuable information about movements of military aircraft are likely to be to a potentially hostile power two months after the movements have taken place? It is rather difficult to visualise this.

Mr. Woodhouse

I do not think that it is possible to quantify these values exactly. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that any country which was considering joining the organisation would certainly consider its security liable to be prejudiced by the revelation of movements of military aircraft even quite a long time afterwards. I shall return to this point.

I assure the Committee that there wilt be no question of completely precluding access to documents legitimately needed in civil suits. Eurocontrol, like any other foreign or international organisation, could waive its immunity and should, we hope, readily do so in reasonable cases. The influence of Her Majesty's Government would always be used in the direction of ensuring that it did so in reasonable cases.

I turn lastly to the point which has been made once or twice about claiming Crown privilege in relation to documents which might prejudice security. There is no question that a Minister can claim Crown privilege by a certificate declaring that it is not in the public interest that a particular document should be disclosed. My hon. Friend put his finger on the spot, and in a sense on the weakness of his own case, when he said that this referred to Government documents. It is certain that such a certificate would be decisive in respect of any document in the organisation's possession which originated with Her Majesty's Government. I believe that this has been tested in the courts and was finally settled in the House of Lords about twenty years ago. But it is not certain whether it would cover a document not originating from Her Majesty's Government but originating, for instance, from a foreign country which was a member of the Organisation or from an airline whether or not it was in the organisation. There would be very many such documents in the control of the organisation. I do not think that this point can be taken care of, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Loughborough suggested, by an Amendment to the Bill.

There has never been a case to determine whether Crown privilege extends to documents emanating from other Governments. If such a case arose it would have to be decided in the courts. It would probably have to be fought at great expense up to the House of Lords with an uncertain outcome, especially as the trend is towards restricting Crown privilege. Meanwhile, we should have discouraged friendly Governments from joining the organisation. One of our objects is to see if the organisation can be more widely extended in Europe, and we do not, of course, wish to discourage our allies and other friendly countries and put ourselves in conflict with the wording of the Convention.

I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby may see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Cronin

In spite of the Parliamentary Secretary's assurances, we still feel considerable doubt as to the desirability of letting the Bill continue on its way unchanged. There seems to be no doubt that there may be some hardship to persons involved in accidents, possibly to children, widows and even to pilots. If a pilot is involved in an air crash possibly the only records which could clear him would be the records available in the archives of Eurocontrol.

At the same time we appreciate that there are certain difficulties. It may well be that the expression "competent authorities" in paragraph 3 of Article 26 may not necessarily be an expression which would include a solicitor armed with an order for discovery or a solicitor armed with the subpoena. There may be some difficulty of interpretation here. The Government must be under some censure nevertheless for not having attempted to make this matter perfectly clear in the course of the negotiations.

Article 26 could easily have been drafted in such a way as to make the position clear beyond all doubt. There now seems to be a certain amount of ambiguity that may preclude acceptance of the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), although it is far from certain that it would. I am glad to have had the reassurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that the Ministry of Aviation will have considerable influence in the organisation on this matter. I believe that it has ten votes out of 37. I hope that it will use that influence to see that the right to withhold records is waived wherever possible and whenever it may cause hardship.

Another factor of considerable importance is that this Clause will have some further consideration in another place, where there will be some very formidable legal talent to carefully investigate the matter. It may even be that the Government may have second thoughts. Bearing those considerations in mind, although my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends and I feel considerable doubts and reservations about the position, I do not feel disposed to advise them to divide.

Mr. Page

I hope that my right hon. Friend will give the greatest consideration to the arguments which have been put forward in connection with the Amendment, especially since they have come from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope that I can rely perhaps on his finding a compromise between the arguments which he has put forward and those which hon. Members of the Committee have adduced, some compromise which can he introduced at a later stage. In that hope, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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