PROVISION OF FACILITIES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AT AERODROMES NOT ESTABLISHED OR MAINTAINED BY THEM (Hansard, 19 July 1968)

§ Mr. William Rodgers
I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 13, leave out 'that section' and insert: 'section 19 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949'. This is a drafting Amendment which the House will fully understand and which I need not explain.

§ Mr. Burden
Can the Minister clarify one point? Under Clause 7, it is the intention to give rural authorities the right to construct aerodromes, but Section 19(9) of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, says: In this section the expression 'local authority' does not include the council of a rural district in England or Wales, and the expression 'land' includes any right in or over land. I hope that by introducing this provision without removing that subsection the Minister will not hamstring the Bill from giving a rural authority power to construct an aerodrome or to deal in aerodromes.

§ Mr. Rodgers
I do not think that that is the effect. As I understand it, this is a minor drafting Amendment concerned only with the language of the Bill and not with any point of substance.

§ Mr. Corfield
I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 30, at end insert: Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply where that other aerodrome is either owned or managed by some other local authority or is a designated aerodrome in respect of which byelaws have been made in accordance with section 4 of this Act. This is another byelaw Amendment and it is aimed at a somewhat similar problem. It is clear from Clause 6(3) that a local authority which happens to own buildings on any aerodrome which is owned by itself, or some other local authority, or by a person subject to a designation order under Clause 4, can make byelaws in respect of those buildings on the aerodrome. In both cases, if the aerodrome is owned by another local authority, or is a designated aerodrome, it will be a byelaw-making authority for that aerodrome. On the fact of it, it seems to be introducing unnecessary confusion to have two local authorities making byelaws in respect of the same aerodrome in the one case, or, in the other case, having the person who is the manager of the designated aerodrome making byelaws for part of the aerodrome while the local authority makes them for another part. This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which to go about any form of legislation.
I hope that the Minister will not reply that everything is all right in the best of all possible worlds because we are drafting by reference to other legislation and that this is how it all fits in, which is the only answer he has given on the other byelaw Amendments. This is not legislation by reference and nor is there anything in Clause 3(2) to suggest that we are referring to other legislation. Nor, as I recollect the Local Government Act, 1933, an Act with which I used to be fairly familiar, is there anything which automatically brings in the byelaw provisions of that Act when a local authority is given power to make byelaws for purposes which are not covered by that Act. Clause 3(3) expressly excludes certain provisions of the 1933 Act, but there may be some implication that the rest of the Act implicitly applies. It is not clear and I am not in the least convinced that we have these byelaw-making powers right in the Bill, or in a form in which they will be readily accepted and understood by the public.
1891 It is a great pity that the Board of Trade has not been prepared. It has had two and a half weeks to study the Amendments to Clauses 2, 3 and 4. I do not blame the Minister, who has arrived very recently and who obviously has a brief. But at least the Board of Trade should have been able to produce something convincing and I hope that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman has something convincing on his pad. I do not profess to be the world's greatest draftsman, but I think that I do at least as well as the Board of Trade.

§ Mr. Burden
I hope that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend. The Clause says in effect that a local authority shall have power to make byelaws in respect of any aerodromes owned or managed by it and shall also be given power to make byelaws in respect of so much of any other aerodromes as consists of buildings or other works provided by it. This could lead to much confusion. Perhaps the Minister can devise some words so that the authority owning the buildings on an aerodrome belonging to another authority will consult that other authority before drafting any byelaws.
At the same time, it seems to me to be quite wrong that two separate authorities should have power to make entirely different sets of byelaws for one aerodrome. If my reading of the Bill is correct, I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that there should be some system of consultation whereby the two authorities could get together in order to avoid producing conflicting byelaws.

§ Mr. William Rodgers
This, again, is an Amendment which, on the face of it, is very reasonable. I can appreciate the difficulty that might be likely to result from their being two different sets of byelaws for different parts of an aerodrome. I grasp the point, and I will not rest on the precedent of the 1933 Act.
The real difficulty—and this is a matter of judgment, and one has to come down one way or the other—is whether, on the whole, a local authority should be entitled to make byelaws relating to property within its charge or which it owns, or whether that responsibility 1892 should rest with someone else. I think that, on the whole, it is sensible to say that if an authority has responsibilities for or possesses certain buildings or properties, or whatever it may be, it should have the power of byelaw making over them.
A conflict would be most undesirable. I can see that in the Bill as it stands it can have occurred to hon. Gentlemen that conflict might result but, generally speaking, I believe that we may assume that authorities will consult together; and that if they have this power they will not act in such a way as to bring them into conflict.
At the end there is one sure means of avoiding this happening, and I think that this is the answer to what the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) had in mind. The Board of Trade is a confirming authority, and we will certainly ensure that no overlapping takes place. There is, therefore, a provision which satisfies the spirit of an Amendment which, in any case, I cannot accept.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 34, leave out from 'aerodrome' to 'as' in line 35.
This is really a probing Amendment. The purpose of the words enclosed in the brackets is not apparent to us. To explain the matter it is necessary to go back to the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, because the present subsection (4) refers to paragraph (o) of Section 8(2) of that Act. The Act of 1949 followed the Chicago Convention with which I hope everyone present will be familiar—if they are not, the assumption that they are will save valuable time.
Section 8(2) deals with certain provisions in respect of aerodromes which may be made by Order in Council, and paragraph (o) reads: — for regulating the charges that may be made for the use of aerodromes licensed under the Order and for services provided at such aerodromes — Subsection (4) of the Bill reads: Provision may be made under paragraph (o) of section 8(2) of the said Act of 1949 for regulating the charges that may be made for the use of, and for services provided at, so much of any aerodrome (whether or not licensed as mentioned in that paragraph) as 1893 consists of buildings or other works provided as aforesaid by a local authority. So far, in what might fairly be described as lengthy and adequate discussions, no argument has been advanced for extending the powers to non-licensed aerodromes and it is with that aspect that the Amendment deals. There may be good reasons for that omission, but it is not something that one knows intuitively. In the absence of adequate explanation, it needs to be made explicit. I think that it would be much better to provide the additional powers necessary, but to confine them as they were confined in the original enabling Act of 1949.
I do not think that we lose anything we seek to achieve by deleting the brackets and the words contained within them. Apart from anything else, once we go outside the provisions of any licensed premises—and in this connection "licensed premises" do not have the meaning they have in other contexts—the Minister may have a very great difficulty in defining in any given case the extent of the territory to which regulation of charges apply. If the airport is licensed, there is a proper definition in a visible document of the extent of the airport, but once we include …(whether or not licensed as mentioned in that paragraph) … we shall find it very difficult to operate. What are the buildings or other works provided by a local authority?
In subsection (1) we have the words … and the power of a local authority under that section to provide and maintain roads, approaches, apparatus, equipment, buildings and other accommodation shall be exercisable in connection with any aerodrome in respect of which the local authority has made such an arrangement. Where do the approach roads to London Airport at Heathrow really start? Is it at Hyde Park Corner? The airport can be approached from that point, and from a number of other directions. What about "apparatus"? The wording is so wide that it can mean anything or nothing, and is therefore bad law. Ill-defined law is bad law, and no one knows that better than those who are not lawyers, who do quite well out of ill- 1894 defined law. This is another example of a last opportunity we have to make sure that we do not legislate in a woolly and unspecific manner when actually it is not the intention so to do.
In the absence of any adequate explanation from the Minister as to the circumstances in which he envisages extending the regulation of charges to unlicensed premises and attributes of this kind … approach roads, apparatus, equipment, buildings and other accommodation … I believe that it will be very much better to leave out the brackets and the words they enclose, and keep in the Bill what could otherwise be quite a useful subsection.

§ Mr. William Rodgers
The hon. Member said that this was a probing operation. Having carried it out, I hope that he will feel reasonably satisfied. It is simply a matter of his not fully understanding the burden of the words in the brackets. The words are necessary because buildings and other facilities provided by a local authority could be on a Government aerodrome—an aerodrome owned by the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Technology, for instance—which was not licensed. It is clearly desirable that this provision should exist, and it would be damaging to the overall effectiveness of the Bill, certainly in this respect, if the words were removed.
I hope that the hon. Member will accept that, because for that clear reason I am bound to ask the House to reject the Amendment.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
I am grateful for that explanation. It appears that the hon. Gentleman does not have in mind applying it to aerodromes not owned by such bodies as the Armed Forces of the Crown or the Minister of Technology; it is not intended to apply to private airstrips which are not licensed. That is what I had in mind. If the Minister can assure the House that that is what he has in mind I shall be satisfied.

§ Mr. William Rodgers
I can give that assurance.