CARRIAGE BY AIR (OVERSEAS TERRITORIES)

HC Deb 10 May 1967 vol 746 cc1423-46

10.25 a.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas)

I beg to move, That the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Overseas Territories) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved. I trust that in moving this Order I shall not do anything to add to the high temperature that the House was brought to by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger).

Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North)

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will join with me in agreeing that to some extent the temperature was raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Mr. Thomas

I have been brought up in the Methodist oath never to yield to temptation.

The draft Order applies to dependent territories and that is the interest of the Commonwealth Office in sponsoring it this morning. The provisions of the draft Order follow closely—allowance being made for necessary adaptations—the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967 which was approved in February by this House. What is now proposed is to apply to the dependent territories the same provisions as have already been agreed should apply as part of the law of the United Kingdom.

Three Conventions are relevant to the draft Order—the Warsaw Convention of 1929, the Warsaw Convention, as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955—or, in other words, the amended Convention, as I shall call it—and the Guadalajara Convention. The Warsaw Convention of 1929 was ratified by the United Kingdom both on her own account and in respect of the then dependent territories.

The Carriage by Air Act, 1932 gave effect in the United Kingdom to this Convention, which limited the liability of the carrier to £3,000 per passenger in respect of international carriage, as defined in the Convention; the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) (United Kingdom) Order, 1952, and its Colonial counterpart, the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) (Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories) Order, 1953, which were made under the provisions of that Act, apply the same limit of liability to domestic and other carriage not covered by the Convention. The former Order—that is, the 1952 Order—applies as part of the law of the United Kingdom and the 1953 Order as part of the law of those territories to which it applies.

The Hague Protocol of 1955 made a number of amendments to the Warsaw Convention and in particular raised the limit of liability to £6,000 per passenger in respect of international carriage. The United Kingdom has now notified the Government of Poland of its intention to ratify the Hague Protocol both on its own account and on behalf of the dependent territories mentioned in the draft Order. New legislation is therefore required not only for the United Kingdom but for these dependent territories.

The Guadalajara Convention, 1961, was given effect to in the United Kingdom by the Carriage by Air (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1962. We are concerned with this Convention because the draft Order applies its provisions. It does little more than define the expression "carrier" used in both the unamended and the amended Warsaw Conventions. The Guadalajara Convention was ratified on behalf of the United Kingdom in 1964.

Section 1 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, gives effect in the United Kingdom to the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955, thereby enabling the Protocol to be ratified by the United Kingdom. An Order in Council has now been made, the Carriage by Air (Convention) Order, 1967, which certifies 1st June as the day on which the amended Convention will come into force for the United Kingdom. With effect from that date, the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, which gives effect to the Warsaw Convention of 1929, will be repealed. When this happens, the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) (United Kingdom) Order 1952 will be revoked and replaced on 1st June by the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967.

This latter Order applies the principles of the amended Convention, with modifications, to carriage by air not governed by that Convention. It is also proposed to revoke the Carriage by Air Non-international Carriage) (Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories) Order, 1953, in so far as it applies as part of the law of the Territories to which the draft Order applies.

This draft Order, which it is proposed to make under Sections 9 and 10 of the 1961 Act and Section 5 of the Carriage by Air (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1962, is to replace the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) (Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories) Order, 1953. The Order follows as closely as possible—making allowance for the necessary adaptations for the needs of dependent territories—the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order of 1967, which applies in the United Kingdom. The House has already approved that. The Order will now apply to the dependent territories mentioned, that is to say, those territories on behalf of which the United Kingdom has ratified the Hague Protocol of 1955.

The main provisions of the Order are, first, that it applies to domestic and other carriage not governed by either the unamended or the amended Warsaw Convention the principles of the amended Convention, including the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, with certain adaptations and modifications, among which are the omission of the requirements as to documentation and of the restrictions of courts in which actions may be brought.

Second, of more general interest is the raising of the carrier's limit of liability to £21,000 per passenger, which, under the 1953 Order was only £3,000. It also applies the principles of the amended Convention to the carriage of airmail, with similar adaptations and modifications.

Third, as a transitional provision, it applies those principles to the diminishing amount of carriage which will continue to be governed by the unamended Warsaw Convention with adaptations and modifications which conform to that Convention, to which the United Kingdom remains a party and which limits the carrier's liability to £3,000.

Fourth, it applies the Warsaw/Hague system to gratuitous carriage by the Crown, carriage by the Crown for reward being already governed by that system.

Fifth, it gives the Governor of a dependent territory power to exempt in relation to that territory any class of carriage from the requirements of the Order; but this will be rarely used.

Sixth, it applies to the dependent territories mentioned in the Order so that the provisions of the Order become part of the law of those territories.

Finally, it confers on passengers and their dependants and on the shippers of cargo the reversal of the burden of proving the carrier's negligence, in exchange for which the carrier will enjoy a limit of liability. The carrier will not be liable if he proves that he took due care, but his liability will be limited, in the absence of wilful misconduct, unless he has contracted for a higher figure.

The Order will apply only to those territories listed in Schedule 5, that is, those on whose behalf the amended Convention has been ratified. In respect of the few territories for whom it would not now be appropriate for us to legislate, we have suggested to them that they may wish to consider bringing in their own legislation or, if they wish, having this Order applied to them. In the present state of their constitutional development, this can best be left to them. We have, of course, consulted all the territories, whether mentioned in Schedule 5 or not, about this proposal.

It is proposed that another Order in Council, the Carriage by Air (Overseas Territories) Order, 1967, will be made under Section 9 of the 1961 Act and will also come into operation on 1st June. It is not required by the terms of the 1961 Act to be laid before Parliament.

This Order is an international Carriage Order and its main purpose is to extend to the dependent territories mentioned therein the provisions of the amended Convention: the £6,000 limit of liability will apply. If, therefore, the Hague Protocol and the two Overseas Territories Orders come into effect on 1st June, there will be three classes of carriage governed by their provisions, of which notice can be taken in the courts of the listed territories.

First is carriage governed by the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol, where the £6,000 limit of liability will apply—for example, air journeys between Gibraltar and Paris, since both the United Kingdom and France will be parties to the Protocol. Second is the residual and diminishing amount of carriage still governed by the unamended Warsaw Convention, where the £3,000 limit will apply—for example, air journeys from Hong Kong to Delhi, until India also ratifies the Protocol.

Third is the carriage governed by neither the amended nor the unamended Convention, where the £21,000 limit will apply—for example, journeys between Suva and Nadi, both of which are in Fiji, between London and Gibraltar, since Gibraltar is assumed to be part of the United Kingdom, Bermuda-Bahamas nonstop, and Gibraltar-Istanbul, since Turkey is not yet a party to either the Protocol or the unamended Convention.

Carriage with the limit of £6,000 will be governed by the Carriage by Air (Overseas Territories) Order, 1967, and carriage with the limits of £3,000 and £21,000 by the draft Order. If the Order is approved, it will come into operation on the same date as that proposed for the coming into operation of the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967, that is, on 1st June, 1967, the date of the coming into force of the Hague Protocol in respect of the United Kingdom.

I have given this straightforward and simple explanation to the House in the confident belief that the House will be pleased to approve the Order.

10.40 a.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston)

On this memorable occasion it has been extremely useful to have in advance, in printed form, a copy of the Minister of State's speech which, so far as one can see, is word for word precisely the speech that was delivered in another place on Monday——

Mr. George Thomas

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What is good enough for the other place is good enough for the hon. Gentleman. Apart from that, if the House was to understand what I had to say, I had to stick closely to the speech that had been prepared.

Mr. Fortescue

It is indeed, most gratifying to recognise this Socialist approbation and approval of what goes on in another place. I hope that it will be a sign that hon. Members opposite will not in future be quite so enthusiastic in their criticisms of that venerable institution.

Fortified by this pre-knowledge of what the hon. Gentleman was to say, I find my task on this very matter much easier than I thought it would have been. There is one paragraph to which I should particularly like to draw the attention of the House. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for me to give the column number of the House of Lords OFFICIAL REPORT——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member may quote from a speech made in another place if it was made by a Minister expressing Government policy.

Mr. Fortescue

I will not quote it completely, but the paragraph begins, as it has just been repeated by the Minister: This Order will apply only to those territories mentioned in Schedule 5 to the draft Order; that is to say, the territories on whose behalf the amended Convention has been ratified. Then follows the sentence to Which I particularly wish to draw attention: In respect of the few territories for whom it would not now be appropriate for us to legislate we have suggested to them that they may wish to consider bringing in their own legislation or, if they wish, having this Order applied to them. I note from Schedule 5 that there are some very notable omissions from the list. One is Aden, and another is Rhodesia. It would seem to an uninformed Member of this House that in these territories particularly the risks, whether present or potential, of accidents or mishaps to aeroplanes approaching them might be higher than the risks to aeroplanes approaching other territories, such as the British Antarctic territory or the Central and Southern Line Islands—which must be an outstandingly important part of the Commonwealth, and about which I should like further information from the hon. Gentleman because I confess to having not the slightest idea of where they are. The Minister will probably be on more familiar ground if he answers that question than he is, perhaps, on aviation matters.

May we be told why the territory of Aden, for which this House is responsible, and the territory of Rhodesia, for which, as we hear over and over again, ad nauseam, from the other side this House is also responsible, have not been included in Schedule 5? In particular, may we please know whether the last sentence of this paragraph, which was repeated by the hon. Gentleman, applies to Rhodesia. It states: We have, of course, consulted with all the territories, whether mentioned in Schedule 5 or not, about what is proposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 1189.] Have the Government consulted the Governor of Rhodesia about what is proposed in the Order? If not, we would like to know why: if so, we would like to know the Governor's reply on that point.

An entirely different point is that of carriage of mail by air between the united Kingdom and dependent territories. Reference is made in the Order to the consignor and consignee of goods curried by air. In most cases this is completely clear, but who is the consignor and who is the consignee of a letter carried by air mail? Is it the member of the public who writes the letter, or is it the member of the public at the other end who receives it? Or is it the Postmaster-General in each territory, or is it the Post Office, the Government Department, which consigns the letter? Who is the consignee who is entitled to claim under the Order if something goes wrong? Is it just an additional protection for a Government Department, or is the writer of the letter protected by this provision? If we could have answers to these questions, we would be much happier about eventually approving the Order.

10.45 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)

The Minister of State told us that there had been a series of consultations with people in this country who are interested and involved in the Order. I want to refer to Section 3 in page 14, which deals with air waybills, and more particularly to those air waybills which describe cargoes of live animals. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been appalled over the last years by the endless tragedies resulting from the consignment of live animals by air. The House is familiar with the ghastly circumstances of the consignment of monkeys from Pakistan, most of which were found to be dead on arrival at London Airport. The House is also aware of reports in the Press some three weeks ago about a consignment of tortoises from North Africa, all of which died in transit.

Is the Minister of State satisfied that the description put in the air waybill before the cargo is loaded is sufficient for the crew to understand what they are transporting, how the animals should be handled and, if the flight goes wrong and is diverted, the procedure by which the animals are given a break, are fed and watered? I am not satisfied that in this Order we have gone far enough in making sure that countries involved in the carriage of animals by air provide sufficient safeguards in the descriptions laid down in Article 6—which is covered by Section 3.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken endless trouble over the question of the transportation of horses by air and the international standards that must be observed. He was most courteous in consulting our main livestock export companies, when it was made perfectly clear that everyone thought that when horses are transported by air, not only must the air waybill be very descriptive but that, where necessary, certain additional precautions must be taken in the form of alterations to the design and layout of the aeroplane.

It is most important, for instance, that horses should never be transported in the dark; the aeroplanes should always have lights on. Equally, it is most important that a member of the crew must always have a humane killer, so that not only can the horses be dealt with speedily and safely if they get disturbed but, if necessary, can be put down during transportation.

All interested parties in this country welcome these provisions and we all feel that they will be put into practice, but I see nothing in Articles 5, 6, 7 or 8 that assures us that not only will the cargo be correctly described in the waybill but that, where the cargo demands alteration in the structure and layout of aeroplanes, alteration will be enforced.

The Minister of State is probably aware of the enormous export trade we now have in dogs. The export of dogs from this country far exceeds that of all other livestock. I am advised by the Kennel Club that the bulk of dogs exported goes by air. With the precautions that are already being taken and the general experience of transporting these valuable cargoes to different parts of the world, it is now possible, employing the necessary packaging and proper boxing arrangements, successfully to transport dogs throughout the world.

Having done some of this exporting, what worries me is the fact that at no time, when filling in the waybill, need one say when the animal was last fed. Many dogs are exported to Japan, a trip of two or three days. It takes that time if they are not sent by express passenger service. Air waybills should include the times of feeding and, if possible, the types of feed on which certain animals thrive.

The Second Schedule of the Order is somewhat obscure. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that this Schedule applies to the unamended Convention, whereas the Order as a whole applies to the amended Convention. The Minister has been under pressure to get this Instrument through and I asure him that I do not wish to delay its progress. Nevertheless, I must complain at the slipshod drafting of the Order. Those involved in the transportation of goods by air cannot be expected to have the text and reference books which are available to hon. Members. I suggest that no Order has been as muddled in its drafting as this one. I hope that the Minister will not bring such an Order—drafted in such an incomprehensible and difficult-to-understand way—before the House again.

It is not clear what will happen in respect of the increase in fares which the airlines will have to charge as a result of our ratifying this Instrument. Insurance premiums will be going up considerably and this is bound to involve the airlines in a considerable increase in expenses. What consultations has the Minister had with the Prices and Incomes Board? Are the domestic airlines in Britain to be allowed to put up their fares immediately to meet the increase in the insurance cover? Can we have an undertaking that the increase in fares for which application has recently been made takes into consideration the increased insurance premiums which the companies will have to pay?

In introducing the Order the Minister did not deal sufficiently with the problem of the insurance cover which people take out, literally out of a slot machine, at airports. One can put money in a machine which is linked to a time-scale and obtain additional insurance cover over and above that contained in the Order. What will happen if an exemption under Article 8 is invoked—that is to say, if one is going on a flight where the basic £6,000 insurance liability of the company carrying one no longer applies?

I understand that in certain cases, by Ministerial licence, there may be an exemption from liability if a company fails to get one safely to one's destination. If one decided to take out an additional premium from a slot machine at an airport, one should be informed whether the Minister has invoked a special licence so that an exemption applies. In such a case the person going to the slot machine would need to take out an additional £6,000 insurance cover. Has the Minister had consultations about this? The matter was raised on Second Reading. This surely means that these insurance slot machines will have to be divided into two sections: one dealing with cases where the Convention has been ratified and is applied and the second where an exemption arises.

I trust that the Minister appreciates that this is a more complicated matter than it may at first appear. I trust that before disposing of the Order we will be given a satisfactory answer to my three questions—about the air waybill, the insurance principle and the fact that many of my hon. Friends and I regard this Order as having been extremely incompetently drafted.

10.57 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

The House will have noted on the Order Paper the comment that The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Minister asked the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments to meet to consider this Order. The Committee fixed a meeting for this afternoon, but, thereafter, the hon Gentleman placed the draft Order on the Order Paper for this morning. It is regrettable that this happened, for the Select Committee now cannot report to the House either to the effect that it has nothing to say about the Instrument or that it has some comment to make about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) raised one draft-rig difficulty in connection with Schedule 2. I wish to refer to a more constitutional point which arises under Article 6, in which power is given to the governor of overseas territories to apply the Order with certain conditions and limitations. As the House knows, a Minister or the Crown by Order is not permitted to sub-delegate legislation unless the parent Act allows. Here the Order is being made carrying out certain matters in connection with these Conventions and then a governor is given a sort of sub-delegated power to legislate.

That is contained in, and sanctioned by, Section 10 of the 1961 Act. My recollection of that provision may be wrong, but I trust that the Minister will confirm that what I say is correct, remembering that Article 6 states that The Governor of an Overseas Territory may … by writing under his hand … apply the Order. What form is this to take? How is this to be promulgated in the territory itself and how are we in this country to know whether any territory has been brought in by a governor under Article 6?

I am not sure how "writing under his hand" is to be published—whether it is to be published officially in the territory concerned or published here. Will hon. Members be able to see it in the Library of the House or are we to be left in the dark?

One can see from the example given by the Minister that, when considering flights between one place and another, it does not only matter whether the flight started from this country because the various limits apply according to where the flight is routed. It is, therefore, important for us to know whether a governor has exercised his power to extend it to a particular territory "by writing under his hand".

If this Order can delegate the right to legislate in that way, can it delegate so far as it does in this Article to give the Governor the right to impose con- ditions and limitations? It does not say that the Governor may apply this Order or not apply it, but that he may apply it with conditions and limitations, or rewrite the Order altogether. I should like an assurance that Article 6 is valid in accordance with the parent Statute.

Another point concerns the form of the Order. I am sure that the House was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation and his summary of the three different kinds of case or category of flight with which we are concerned. He gave them as three categories: one, the £6,000 limit; two, the £3,000 limit; and three, the £21,000 limit. He informed the House that the £6,000 limit comes under a separate Order altogether and the £3,000 and £21,000 limits come under the draft Order we are debating. There is a precedent for combining Orders of this sort even though they have different Parliamentary procedures.

It would have been possible for what I call the £6,000 limit rule to be included in this Order even though this Order has to come before the House in draft. There are precedents for combining in one Order a subject which requires Parliamentary procedure and a subject which does not require it. It is convenient in a case such as this to have the whole subject in one Order. It would have eased the hon. Gentleman's job very much in explaining it had it all been combined in one order. I think that the Ministry of Transport has done this on occasion in connection with powers the Minister has some of which have to come before the House and others of which do not.

I raise those two points: first, the powers which give the Crown the right to make an Order containing such a provision as is in Article 6, and, secondly, the form of the Order in which it might have been convenient to combine powers which do not need Parliamentary procedure and those which do.

11.2 a.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I wish to thank the Minister for the musical way in which he read out to the House the careful explanation which he told us he had written for his noble Friend to deliver in the House of Lords on Monday. It would have been an advantage to the House as a whole if he had told us that we had this advance notice of the speech he has made. Hon. Members will find it a useful innovation if they can study the verbatim text in advance, because not all Ministers are so articulate as the hon. Gentleman.

Having congratulated the hon. Gentleman on that, I welcome the aspects of this Order, and first its relative promptness. It has come forward much earlier in time than the similar Order made in 1953, which has been in force hitherto. Secondly, I welcome the improvements in some of the layout in the text of the Order. Here, I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). It would be churlish not to welcome this because when we were debating in February the provisions of the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967, I suggested that some important improvements should be made. I am glad to see that much improvement has been made. but that leads me to ask why it could not have been made before.

Broadly, the Order we are considering has much less application and less importance than the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967. It seems that we are now in an unfortunate situation in which the document which is more clear to those concerned with this subject is the document of lesser importance. I wonder whether there is a possibility of producing a revised version, perhaps a combined version, following the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) so that we have the best available text on this subject and so far as possible have it within one set of covers. It would seem that one of the purposes we are here to serve is to make life easier for those who have to interpret the regulations which we pass into law and not to make them more complicated or difficult. I should be interested to know if the Minister has any comment to make on that.

I must confess that there are still some obscurities about the effect of this Order. The first concerns the question of the exemptions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and other hon. Members. When this matter was debated on the previous Order it was explained that, broadly, these exemptions would fall into two categories The first con- cerned the activities of genuine flying and gliding clubs and the other concerned certain types of gratuitous carriage in Crown aircraft, particularly Transport Command carriage of the forces. Those two classifications have been explained to me in a letter I had from the Minister of State, Board of Trade.

I should like to know whether it is the intention that the exemptions which governors of overseas territories may apply will fall precisely into those categories or whether there will be extra discretion to exempt exceeding that existing in the United Kingdom and, if so, what that discretion is. This should be known. The discretion which is being granted to the governors should be understood before we pass this Measure into law.

There also must be some greater provision and stipulation concerning the publication of the exemptions which may be made. It is not yet satisfactorily resolved in this country whether a flying club is obliged to display a notice and, if so, in what form, saying that these provisions do not apply to a certain type of flight undertaken by that club. This should be known. This is just as true in dependent territories with which we are concerned this morning as it is in this country. There needs to be some precision on this of which so far there is no sign.

Another point I make was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) concerning the carriage of airmail. He asked, as I did when we were debating this matter in February, for a definition of the consignor, who is mentioned in this Order, but who is not defined. I suggested that it was important that he should be defined because certain rights are involved and the prospect of much litigation depends on the absence of certainty in the definition of who the consignor is.

I received a letter from the Minister of State taking up this point, but he did not actually answer my question. He said: On the point you made about airmail the owner of the cargo (who is likely to be the poster or an addressee) is not, I am advised, necessarily precluded by the Convention from bringing an action against the carrier, but if he does so Article 24 as applied to airmail by the Order will restrict him to the conditions and limits of the Convention. The Post Office will be in a similar position. That does not tell me who the consignor or the consignee is and it is important that his should be established, because the possibility that there will be difficult litigation has been borne out by a case which has recently come before the courts. That was the case of Moukataff v. B.O.A.C. I understand that Mr. Moukataff was a Lebanese businessman who asked Barclay's Bank, in London, to send £20,000 in £5 notes to his agents in Kuwait by registered airmail uninsured. Unfortunately, the money was stolen at Heathrow by one of B.O.A.C.'s loaders who was subsequently tried and convicted of the offence.

Mr. Moukataff was entitled to £2 18s. per packet compensation from the G.P.O. and managed to recover a small part of the balance from the convicted thief. Then, in an action which I am told has no precedent in G.P.O. history, Mr. Moukataff sued B.O.A.C. for the un-recovered balance of over £17,000 and obtained judgment for the full amount, plus costs. In his judgment, tthe judge made it clear that, although the law was clear on the subject of the G.P.O. liability, there was no statutory provision dealing with the carrier's liability.

This is a case of carriage by air, and it is the sort of case which may happen again. It is clearly a case where it is rot adequate to say, "Let us see what the courts make of it", because, if we are to pass legislation and say, "We are not quite sure what we mean, but the courts will decide", we shall be abdicating one of our functions.

I reiterate to the Minister of State, and, through him, to the Board of Trade, that there is a strong and urgent case here for some precise definition of what the words "consignor" and "consignee" are intended to mean. If we do not have such a definition, there will be litigation. This, since it will derive from uncertainty in the terms of the Order, will mean that we are not discharging our proper function.

I turn now to the question of the territories covered by the Order. I can perhaps help my hon. Friend the Member for Garston a little, perhaps a little more than the Minister of State will be able to help him, because my researches do not reveal that the Central and Southern Line Islands are mentioned in the 1966 edition of the C.R.O. Yearbook. However, I learn from another publication that these important islands, which fall within the scope of the Order, come into two categories. There are three Line Islands, I am told—Fanning Island, Washington Island and Christmas Island—which are part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony and, therefore, covered under that heading in Schedule 5.

This leaves five islands which are administered direct by the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific. Two of those Islands—Flint Island and Caroline Island—were in 1951 leased to commercial interests in Tahiti. I know no more about them than that. Of the other three, Starbuck Island, which has an area of one square mile, is uninhabited. Vostock Island, whose area I do not know, is uninhabited. Maiden Island, which has an area of 35 square miles and which contains deposits of guano of doubtful value, is also uninhabited.

Mr. Fortescue

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this educational lecture. It is fascinating. Could he tell me, in furtherance of my education, whether any of these islands have airports or aerodromes?

Mr. Onslow

My researches have not revealed that. Perhaps that question might be more fairly addressed to the Minister of State. I should be grateful for any information which he can provide.

On a slightly more important note, I ask the Minister of State to cover the question of Aden, because, apart from anything else, the security of flights into and out of Aden at this moment causes some anxiety. The situation with regard to Aden Airways itself appears to be obscure. It seems odd that we have a lacuna of sorts here. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us a little more about it and if he would enumerate what he called in his speech "the few territories" which are omitted. It is very important that somewhere it should be placed on record which are the territories which fall outside the scope of the Order. I suppose they will be published in the other Order which the hon. Gentleman told us is to be made, but at least it is important that there should be a consolidated list somewhere so that the position is known.

This applies particularly to one territory which I note has also been left out—that is, the condominiun of the New Hebrides. I am not quite sure whether there are constitutional developments in train in the New Hebrides which make this an inappropriate moment at which to bring them within the scope of the Order. There are certainly airports there, and, indeed, airlines flying into the New Hebrides from Fiji. Fiji Airways and the Union de Transports Aériens fly in. There are two internal airways having scheduled and charter services—New Hebrides Airways and Hebridair. At present, I am advised, no one knows under what provisions carriage by air in that territory is governed, whether this be under French law or under British law and, if so, under what British law. This is an obscurity which should be cleared up.

I should like the Minister of State to comment briefly on the question of possible increases in fares. It is clear that, if the provisions of the Order increase the liability which airlines may have to accept, it is likely to lead to some increase in their insurance premiums. The precise effect of this may be difficult to calculate, but I hope that the Minister can give us some idea of the kind of increase he expects to occur.

Although this may not be the appropriate moment, I wonder if the Minister of State can say anything about flights into and out of Gibraltar. There is some public anxiety on this score. Gibraltar is covered by the Order. Parliament could perhaps be notified officially as to what the position of Her Majesty's Government now is with regard to services into and out of Gibraltar.

I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said about the question of animals and the inadequacy of the air way bill in this respect. I do not suppose that there is any way in which the Order could be amended to meet this inadequacy, because the conditions set down there are part of the Conventions. But there does seem to be a very strong case for improving the conditions under which animals are transported by air. There was a disturbing case reported in the Press only yesterday of some animals which had been shipped into this country from Singapore and which arrived in a very distressed condition.

Ordinary inanimate cargo and the condition in which it arrives is, presumably, a matter between the consignor and the consignee, whoever they may be, and the carrier. However, the carriage of animals is of more general and public concern, because we simply cannot be content to treat them as lumps of inanimate matter whose ownership is vested in an individual and whose wellbeing is of no concern to anyone else.

We are, rightly, horrified and disgusted by some of the reports which we see. Perhaps there is nothing that can be done on this occasion, but I put it to the Government that there may be a need for a further convention in the realm of carriage by air which covers the conditions under which animals are to be carried.

It would be singularly appropriate if the initiative here were to come from this country, because we have a major trade in this respect. We are major importers of pets. We are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough reminded us, a significant importer of various animals for other reasons. We are a nation of animal lovers. It would be a good and appropriate thing if some initiative towards the creation of a convention covering this aspect of carriage by air were to come from the United Kingdom.

The only other point I want to make concerns that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby about the fact that the Order comes before us having not yet been before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. If the process of going before the Select Committee is thought to be of any value, there may well be occasions on which it is impossible, for one reason or another, for the process to be completed before the Government have to bring an order before us.

I note that the Government have brought this Order before us on this Wednesday morning, the last morning sitting before the Order is to come into force on 1st June. Therefore, I suppose it was either a question of bringing it on this morning or of bringing it on tomorrow night. There may be good reasons in the Government's mind why they think it necessary to bring the Order on this morning, but at least the hon. Gentleman might have said that he was sorry that it had not been before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I did not hear him say that he was sorry.

Mr. George Thomas

I hope to speak again.

Mr. Onslow

I am delighted to know that the hon. Gentleman proposes to speak again and, no doubt, will say that he is sorry; but he might have volunteered an apology.

Mr. Thomas

The hon. Gentleman is losing his sense of proportion and getting unduly excited. He is being quite unreasonable. He must not anticipate what I shall say to the House. I shall reply in courteous terms to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). The hon. Gentleman must not accuse me of discourtesy because I did not apologise in advance of a complaint which his hon. Friend was about to make.

Mr. Onslow

The Minister of State is himself falling into the temptation of getting heated. Perhaps I may be allowed to finish the complaint which I was putting.

My complaint is that the Minister of State, having been able to read the Order Paper just as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby can read it, and having, presumably, noted thereon the statement that the Order has not yet been considered by the Select Committee, did not volunteer an apology. There is nothing to be ashamed of in having to apologise to the House, and it is much better to apologise before being called upon to do so.

The hon. Gentleman has put himself in an unfortunate position. He is in charge of this business. He knows that the Order has not been before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. It would have been better if he had said that he was sorry that it had not proved possible to have it considered by the Select Committee, and then, no doubt, no more would have been said about it. As it is, he will have to say that he is sorry after being pressed to do so.

Otherwise, I commend the Order. I hope that we shall have satisfaction on the questions which my hon. Friends have raised about certain of its provisions and applications and that we shall have a full answer on the more important points which have been raised in debate.

11.22 a.m.

Mr. George Thomas

I am not often annoyed in this Chamber, but I confess that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) did annoy me. I have been here too long to take exception to anything that is said, but the hon. Gentleman was so ungracious and niggling, and that always annoys me. I have been in the House long enough to know that I should treat everyone with courtesy, and I have a strange habit of expecting the same myself.

Of course, I apologise to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that, owing to the time factor, we had to put this Order down for this morning and it has not been before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I am a great believer in the authority of the House and its Committees being fully observed. It is always better if an Order comes before the House after having been before the Select Committee of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is such a distinguished and useful member.

Mr. Kimball

Will the Minister of State now agree that this proves that the pressure on morning sitting time is mounting considerably and that the Government will have great difficulty fitting in all the business that they want to take at morning sittings?

Mr. Thomas

That is another point, and, happily, it does not fall to me. I am sometimes amazed by all that happens here. I think that, if we sat on Sundays, we should find something to talk about.

Mr. Onslow

We certainly should. [Laughter..]

Mr. Thomas

There we are. We are on better terms now. Perhaps it was my Welsh temperament. I did not want to upset the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Graham Page

If we sat on Sundays, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would no longer sit for a Welsh constituency.

Mr. Thomas

If we sat on Sundays, I should reconsider my postion; but I rather like this place, and I hope that I shall not be driven to that point.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) is well known for his concern for the well being of animals. In the days when it was my privilege to serve at the Home Office, I had a great deal to do with the hon. Gentleman. Like hon. Members on both sides, I am an animal lover, and I hate cruelty to any living thing. I am not very fond of snakes, but I do not want cruelty to them, either. There may be need for a further Convention on the carriage of animals by air—I do not know—but, if such a convention were thought necessary, I am sure that both the hon. Member for Woking and his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough would pursue the matter, and I certainly agree that it is our obligation as a country to do all we can to ensure the avoidance of suffering by any living thing. I would not oppose suggestions made to that end.

I have been asked some highly technical questions, and I shall do my best to answer them. I have had my "leg pulled" about a speech which I delivered to the House—perhaps that is really what offended me; no one likes being caught out—but I shall do my best now to answer the questions which have been put, and I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the points which have been raised this morning.

The House has approved this Order in its application to the United Kingdom. All that we are doing now is asking that it shall apply to the dependent territories. That is why I was, innocently, put into this position, which is not an easy one, as a member of the Administration.

I have been asked about Gibraltar. My hon. Friend the other Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs returns today from Gibraltar, and I have no doubt that she will take an early opportunity to convey to the House the results of her observations.

I was asked why Aden is omitted. The hon. Member for Woking is quite right to say that this is a sensitive point at the moment. Consultations with the Federation of South Arabia have not been completed, but it is always possible to add further names, if necessary, to Schedule 5, and I am sure that there will be no reluctance to add the name of Aden if it is thought necessary and agreed.

Next, I was asked which dependent territories are not included in Schedule 5. First, there are the Associated States in the Caribbean, namely, Antigua, St. Kitts, Dominica, St. Lucia and Grenada. St. Vincent also is excluded. It was expected that St. Vincent would be an Associated State by 1st June. However, the new date is likely to be shortly after that. Swaziland is excepted; it has recently become a Protected State with full internal self-government. Next, there are the Protected States of Tonga and Brunei, for which we have never, I believe, legislated on this question.

Southern Rhodesia is excepted. It has its own legislation on this subject, and before I.D.I. we did not include Southern Rhodesia in our civil aviation Orders. We believe that the same thing as I said about Aden can apply there. If necessary, any name can be added at another time to Schedule 5. It is not, however, our intention to alter this legislation.

Mr. Onslow

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm, therefore, that all these territories, or perhaps all except Rhodesia, will be included and named in the further Order in Council—the Carriage by Air (Overseas Territory) Order, 1967— which is to be made? Can he also confirm that it will be possible for a territory to be transferred from the appropriate Schedule of that Order to Schedule 5 of the present Order and that in appropriate cases this will be done?

Mr. Thomas

I will communicate with the hon. Member about that. We are suggesting to those folk that they might care to legislate themselves. If it is necessary for us then to include them, they will be included.

Mr. Fortescue

Will the hon. Gentleman be very kind and answer my question about communication with the Governor of Rhodesia on this matter? The hon. Gentleman specifically said that we have consulted all the territories, whether mentioned in Schedule 5 or not, about what is proposed. May I ask specifically again whether there has been any communication with Rhodesia on this matter?

Mr. Thomas

No. There has not been consultation with the Governor on this question, because hitherto we did not legislate on it for Rhodesia. It is considered that that must be a place which will have to wait—I hope not too long— until we have settled the question in Rhodesia.

Mr. Fortescue

Would it be fair, therefore, to say that the remark, made both in the other place and in the House of Commons, that we have consulted all the territories, whether mentioned in Schedule 5 or not, about what is proposed is not strictly accurate?

Mr. Thomas

I do not want to argue with the hon. Member. Rhodesia is a very special field. The Governor is us; he is our voice. If we consulted him, we would be consulting ourselves. I am quite sure that the House will appreciate that the Governor represents this country. This is an Order which limits liability. In that sense, therefore, it is not directly concerned with the carriage of horses or tortoises. Its purpose is to limit the liability.

I was asked about the Governor making exceptions. The Governor will not be allowed to make exceptions in carriage other than carriage within his own territory. The order will not apply to carriage between his territory and elsewhere. If there is an exemption, the liability is unlimited, but the airline can then itself by contract arrange with the passenger the amount of the limit.

In reply to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, the Order does not apply to personal insurance slot machines. When I travel by air I nearly always use, or used to use, that kind of slot machine. I always felt that I was safe because I was covered for £20,000 and I was sure that I would never bring that money to my family. That is not covered by the Order.

The hon. Member for Woking was very kind to give his detailed answer about the Islands. He helped to complete my education, too. As far as I am aware, in the Central Islands there neither is nor has been an airport; but one never knows. They may have one sometime. We would not want to bother the House—I certainly hope that nobody will bother me—to introduce an order of this sort again.

The hon. Member for Woking, who is very ingenious, raised the question of the New Hebrides. We have never legislated for the condominium of the New Hebrides and we cannot do so. I assure the hon. Member, however, that we will look into this question. I will look into all the questions which have been raised.

The hon. Gentleman was very kind to thank us for the improvements which have been made in the form of the Order. Whether it is necessary to have a combined version of all these Orders is not a matter for me but is an interesting question for whoever is responsible. I will see that the hon. Gentleman's views are brought to the notice of the responsible authority.

I was asked who was the consignee. On this, again, I shall have to write to the hon. Member, and it should be interesting correspondence. I promise him, however, that I will look into it. The question of prices and incomes and increased fares would have to be dealt with if it arose. It certainly has nothing to do with the passing of the Order this morning.

We have had a very good debate, much better than I expected when I was preparing myself, as my noble Friend prepared himself in another place. I earnestly hope that the House will now agree to pass the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Overseas Territories) Order, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved.