HL Deb 09 June 1920 vol 40 cc534-51

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Connnittee.—(The Martivess of Londonderry).

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Power to give effect to Convention.

1. His Majesty may make such Orders in Council and do such things as appear to him necessary for carrying out the Convention and for giving effect thereto or to any of the provisions thereof, or to any amendment which may be made under article thirty-four thereof.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had on the Paper an Amendment to omit the words "and do such things as appear to him necessary." The noble Lord said: I suggest that these words are unnecessary. I believe the noble Lord has considered the point and I shall be glad to know his decision.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY)

I am willing to accept the Amendment, but I suggest that the words should read: "His Majesty may make such Orders in Council as appear to him necessary for carrying out the Convention." The noble Lord is suggesting that some of these words are redundant, and I should be happy to move the Amendment in the form that I have suggested.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 25 and 29, leave out the words ("and do such things").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Special powers in case of emergency.

(3) Any person who suffers direct injury or loss, owing to the operation of an order of the Secretary of State under this section, shall be entitled to receive compensation from the Secretary of State, the amount thereof to be fixed, in default of agreement, by an official arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, the principles of that Act being applied, with the necessary modifications, where possession is taken of any land or premises.

(4) An order under this section may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order made by the Secretary of State.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (3), at the beginning, to leave out the word "direct." The noble Lord said: This is rather an important Amendment. We want to define more clearly what kind of injuries will entitle a person to receive compensation. The words run "any person who suffers direct injury or loss." I suggest that the words should rather be "indirect injury," because there may be loss or damage which would be the indirect result of aircraft. There is, for example, the case of a brood mare being frightened by aeroplanes. Then there have already been cases in which low-flying aircraft over flocks of sheep have caused a panic among them and serious damage has resulted. There are also instances where low-flying aircraft have caused considerable damage to cattle. In the New Forest, of which I have had considerable experience, on several occasions ponies have been driven into bogs or injured. I suggest to the Government the omission of the word "direct," and a reliance simply on the common law, which would then operate. The words "any person who suffers injury or loss" would give the clause a rather wide interpretation, and I suggest to the Government that they should consider that point.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, leave out ("direct").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I think it necessary to retain the word "direct," because otherwise the door would be opened to many claims that it would be very undesirable to admit. I recognise the points that the noble Lord has made in regard to flocks of sheep and brood mares, but I think injuries of that kind, if there was a valid claim, could very easily be proved. On the other hand, if this word "direct" is not in the Bill, an outside person would be able to claim damages because an aerodrome had been commandeered by the Government, so preventing him from selling goods to the proprietor of the aerodrome. That would be a claim which the retention of the word "direct" would obviate. As regards the person who has suffered direct loss, he is not excluded from obtaining compensation, nor is any person prevented from obtaining compensation provided that the loss for which he sues is not under ordinary legal principles too remote.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

After what the noble Marquess has said I am prepared to accept his judgment on this point, but I think he should again consider it, and perhaps he will do so before the Report stage in order that the cases of brood mares and flocks may be covered, and compensation be paid in case of damage to them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "Nothing in this Act shall deprive any subject of a right of appeal to the Courts of the Realm." The noble Lord said: I put this Amendment down under the impression that this has some relation to D.O.R.A. Under D.O.R.A. some of us have had rather painful experience of the rights of the subject having been taken away or largely whittled down, and I think it is most important to preserve the right of appeal to the ordinary Courts of the Realm. I am not in love with any form of legislation which deprives His Majesty's subjects of recourse to the Courts of Law. Therefore I suggest to the Government that the words I have put down would, if adopted, give confidence to the subjects of His Majesty. The Government need not fear anything from the Courts of Law if they have a good case. I invite the noble Marquess to consider this point.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 2, at end insert ("Nothing in this Act shall deprive any subject of a right of appeal to the Courts of the Realm ").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

To insert this Amendment would cut at the whole root of the clause as it is drafted. The decision of the arbitrator is now final in all cases where land is compulsorily acquired under the law, and I am sure the noble Lord realises that if an appeal is admitted in these cases it may lead to endless litigation. I am certain that is not the desire which is in his mind. The clause as it is drawn does not prevent any one who can allege that the Secretary of State is acting in excess of the powers given to him by the clause going to the Courts on that plea, but I feel it is necessary for us to follow the custom which is observed in the case of the acquisition of land by compulsory purchase, and I most resist this Amendment. I do not think that we are going beyond what is habitually done in the case of decisions by an arbitrator when land is acquired compulsorily, and I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "Provided that no compensation shall be payable by reason of the operation of a general order under this section prohibiting flying in the British Islands or any part thereof." The noble Marquess said: I think it will be understood that this Amendment is proposed in order to limit the cases in which compensation is payable only when there has been an interference with the claimant individually by requisitions of his property, or the prohibition of flying at his particular aerodrome. The point that will be in everybody's mind is the prohibition of flying by Mr. McKenna, who was then Home Secretary, on August 2, 1914, two days before the outbreak of war. That was a general prohibition of flying, only of course no compensation could be claimed or paid. This Amendment is to safeguard that point.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 2, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Establishment of aerodromes by Air Council and local authorities.

8.—(1) The Air Council, and any local authority to which this section applies with the consent of the Air Council, and subject to such conditions as the Air Council may prescribe, shall have power to establish and maintain aerodromes (including power to provide and maintain roads and approaches, buildings and other accommodation and apparatus and equipment for such aerodromes) and to acquire land for that purpose, in the case of a local authority by agreement, and in the case of the Air Council either by agreement or in accordance with the provisions of this Act as to the acquisition of land by the Air Council.

(2) A local authority providing an aerodrome under this section shall have power to carry on in connection therewith any subsidiary business ordinarily carried on as incidental to the maintenance of an aerodrome.

(3) The local authorities to which this section applies are councils of counties and county boroughs, and urban district councils, and the expenses of those councils under this section shall he defrayed, in the case of a county council as expenses for general county purposes, and in the case of other council as expenses incurred in the administration of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908.

(4) A local authority, if a county council may borrow for the purposes of this section under section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, as if those purposes were mentioned in that section, and, if the council of a county borough or urban district, shall have the same power of borrowing under this section as they have under the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908, for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by them in the administration of those Acts.

(5) For the purpose of the purchase of land by agreement under this section by a local authority the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Act except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (1), after "purpose." to insert "by purchase or hire." The noble Marquess said: This is quite a simple Amendment. It is proposed in order to enable local authorities to rent land for aerodromes instead of being obliged to purchase.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 11, after ("purpose") insert ("by purchase or hire").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "Land may be acquired by a local authority under this section either within or without the area of the authority." The noble Marquess said: This additional power is desirable from the fact that some cities or towns may not have within their boundaries a site which would be suitable for the establishment of a municipal aerodrome. Already difficulties have been experienced both at Leeds and at Bradford, and there are large towns also in Lancashire which are similarly situated. I do not think that any danger need be anticipated in the granting of this power, because the Air Council's consent is required under the section before the local authorities can establish an aerodrome. The necessity of obtaining this consent will operate as a check upon any unreasonable proposals as regards distance, even if such proposals were made.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out from "business" to the end of the subsection, and insert "certified by the Air Council to be ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome." The noble Marquess said: This is an Amendment which follows out a suggestion made by the noble Lord (Lord Montagu of Beaulieu). It was his intention to add a schedule to the Bill in regard to subsidiary businesses which might be carried on. I think that if the words I have proposed are added this should meet the noble Lord's contention. It is highly undesirable that businesses should be carried on under the form of what we call "municipal trading." At the same time, it is necessary that the various undertakings should continue which, in the words of the Amendment, are "ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome."

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 18, leave out from ("business") to the end of subsection (2), and insert ("certified by the Air Council to be ancillary to the carrying on of an acrodrome").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for meeting me on this point, and I think that the words proposed will do very well. My object, like his, was simply to prevent local authorities from carrying on the general business of selling aircraft and motor cars, and generally engaging in business in which they would probably have little experience. I have every desire to assist local authorities in establishing aerodromes and generally in encouraging aviation, and I think it is most important that the authorities of big towns should be encouraged to give every facility towards that end.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (3), a number of Amendments of which the first was to insert, after "are," the words "the Common Council of the City of London, the." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment and the series which follows on the Order Paper are put down at the request of the Common Council of the City of London. The point of the Amendments is that the City of London should be placed in exactly the same position as the local authorities which are defined in subsection (3). The City Corporation is not at present included under the category either of county councils, county borough councils, or urban district councils, and it has specially asked to be included. The Common Council fully recognise, as we all do, that at this moment in the City of London those facilities for the establishment of an aerodrome do not exist. At the same time, they recognise that aviation is in its infancy. There may be very rapid developments in the future and they feel that it would be useful for them to know that they could acquire an aerodrome. Aeroplanes, of course, can already take off from the decks of ships. The Common Council desire, in view of possible developments, to enjoy the same advantages as the local authorities named in the subsection.

Amendments moved— Page 5, line 20, after ("are") insert ("the Common Council of the City of London, the") Page 5, line 23, after ("of") insert ("the Common Council of the City of London out of the general rate, in the case of") Page 5, line 27, leave out ("if a county council"). Page 5, line 28, after the first ("section") insert ("in the case of the Common Council of the City of London under the City of London Sewers Acts, 1848 to 1897, and in the case of a county council "). Page 5, line 30, leave out ("if") and insert ("in the case of").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert "but money so borrowed shall not be reckoned as part Of the debt of such local authority for the purposes of any enactment limiting the powers of borrowing by the authority." The noble Marquess said: The amount of indebtedness that may be incurred by a local authority at any time is limited by the Local Government Act, 1888, and the Public Health Act, 1875. The effect of this Amendment, which has been suggested by the Ministry of Health, is to exempt from those limiting provisions the amount which may be borrowed by a local authority under the clause.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 31, at end, insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has an Amendment on the Paper on the ground of the redundancy of the words in the clause, but I suggest that the noble Lord would perhaps be satisfied if we omitted the words "by agreement" in line 35.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I think that would meet the point. It seems to me that the words "by agreement" and the words "except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement "would be rather redundant, and, in fact, confusing, and we run a danger of complicating an already rather confused clause.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 35, leave out ("by agreement").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Trespass, nuisance, and responsibility for damage.

9. No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance by reason only of the flight of aircraft over any property or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of this Act and any Order made thereunder and of the Convention are duly complied with; but where material damage or loss is caused by an aircraft in flight, taking off, or landing, or by any person in any such aircraft, or by any article falling from any such aircraft, to any person or property on land or water, damages shall be recoverable from the owner of the aircraft in respect of such damage or loss, without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action, as though the same had been caused by his wilful act, neglect or default, except where the damage or loss was contributed to by the negligence of the person by whom the same was suffered.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after "aircraft," where that word first occurs, to insert "at a height of not less than 2,000 feet or such height in excess of 2,000 feet as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to the noise made by aircraft, the amenities of the locality, and the enjoyment of houses or land by His Majesty's subjects." The noble Lord said: This is a very important clause, and I invite the Government to consider this Amendment rather seriously. At, the present moment the position stands thus. On the Civil Aerial Transport Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, it was decided that it was difficult to fix the height at which an airman should fly. I recognise that, that having been more or less decided by the Committee after consideration, the Government, of course, may reply that they are only carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. Since that Committee sat there have been a good many evidences of damage done by low-flying aircraft.

Besides the cases of cattle or sheep, or the case of a valuable brood mare which was alluded to on a former clause by the noble Marquess and myself, there are also cases in which human life may be involved; for instance, cases such as that which occurred last year at Bournemouth when the beach was crowded with people, and a very injudicious and rash airman flew over the beach a few yards above the heads of the bathers. Had his controls gone wrong even in a very small degree he would have cut down dozens of women and children and others on the beach. He converted himself into an "air-hog," who can be a worse animal than even the "road- hog." Then there is the case of nuisance arising through low flying over houses. We can assume that some day there may be a more or less defined track between London and Edinburgh, or between London and Manchester, or other large provincial centres. The noise of the exhaust of aircraft is still so great that in an ordinary aeroplane the pilot and observer cannot hear one another except with great difficulty, and the noise below, if aircraft fly below a certain height, may constitute a serious nuisance to people on the ground.

There is one alteration of the Amendment which I should be perfectly prepared to make in order to meet a legitimate point which escaped me when I first put it down—namely, there ought to be provision for aircraft ascending from or descending to an aerodrome or private grounds. Nevertheless, I think there is a case for insisting that aircraft shall not fly at a height which constitutes either a danger or a nuisance to human beings or endangers the lives of human beings or animals. On this point I have had several rather eloquent letters, and one gentleman writes that he took a house some years ago near a certain aerodrome, and during the war he was, of course, willing to put up with the nuisance that arose. Later the flying became troublesome; aeroplanes circled over the roads at low altitudes and made this gentleman's house practically uninhabitable, particularly on Saturdays and Sundays when he needed rest. He eventually communicated with the Air Ministry who did their best to abate the nuisance. I have had many letters on this subject, and I suggest that there ought to be some power inserted in this Bill or given to the Secretary of State—to which I am perfectly willing to agree—whereby low flying should be prohibited, and the Secretary of State should have power to prohibit flying which is dangerous or constitutes a nuisance. I think the Amendment is an important one, and if the noble Marquess cannot see his way to meet me to-day he might between now and the Report Stage give it serious consideration. There is a strong feeling in the country on this point and the Government should try to meet us.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 2, insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

It is impossible not to feel a certain amount of sympathy with the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, and I am grateful to him for the temperate way in which he proposed it. The substance of the Amendment really is to draw an imaginary line at a height of 2,000 feet, and to restrict the protection of Clause 9 to aircraft above that height. I venture to say that this is an impossible provision to lay down. It is not possible to prove at exactly what height an aircraft is flying; and at the same time, in the climate of this country, there are many days in the year on which it is imposible to fly at a height of 2,000 feet. In fact, it is necessary on a great many occasions to fly lower than that.

The noble Lord recognises, of course, that in our attempt to regulate these matters we are faced with immense difficulties. The science of aviation is in its infancy. We have suddenly discovered a new high-road in the world, if I may use the expression—the high-road of the air—and it is obvious that any person or animal underneath that high-road is in a certain amount of varying danger, important and unimportant. It is to be hoped that, as the science of aviation progresses, this danger will he reduced to an absolute minimum. The difficulty in which we are at the present moment is in regard to our attempt to steer a middle course between the rights and amenities of private citizens on the one hand and the necessities of civil aviation on the other. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me when I say that it is unfair to draw any parallels from the amount and nature of Service flying in 1918. All those parallels are misleading for obvious reasons. It was a period of war, and care was not taken in the way in which, perhaps, it should have been taken and in which it will be taken by a commercial firm which is operating to satisfy the public, to eliminate risks and, above all things, not to arouse any undue prejudice which may hamper its efforts in that direction.

The noble Lord has given us one instance of an airman who flew low at the seaside. He knows that, under the existing Air Navigation Regulations of 1919, any person who carries out flying which, by reason of low altitude or proximity to persons or dwellings, is dangerous to public safety, is liable to be punished by a fine of £200 and six months imprisonment. This provision will be repeated in the Order in Council to be issued under this Bill. The Civil Aerial Transport Committee, of which the noble Lord was a member, considered this point carefully, and in their Report they have given it as their opinion that it is impracticable to attempt to prescribe any altitude of this description. While I need hardly say that I fully sympathise with the point the noble Earl is trying to make, I feel that the limiting words which he proposes to insert in the Bill are really impossible, and I would. ask him to be good enough to withdraw this Amendment. I can assure him that between now and the Report stage I shall certainly make further inquiries, and leave no stone unturned to reduce to a minimum the danger and the nuisance, which is important from the point of view of the general public and the success of aviation.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should like to support what my noble friend behind me has said, not that I desire to controvert in any way what has been put forward so courteously by the noble Marquess. I wish, however, to confirm the experience of the noble Lord as to the great nuisance and danger which some gentlemen who fly do involve to the public. When I was at a seaside town, a totally different. place from the one referred to, I saw a proceeding on several occasions which filled me with indignation. It was at Littichampton. The beach was absolutely full with large numbers of people and children digging. A flying gentleman came down and flew the whole length of the beach so low that, as I watched him from above, my eves were above the level at which he sat. Now that we have reached a time of peace there will be a strong feeling of indignation against flying of that kind, and it is very necessary regulations of some sort should he made. I am quite willing to take it from the noble Marquess that there is power already to stop what constitutes a danger; but something more than that is required. Anything which is obviously injurious to the health and convenience of the ordinary population ought not to be allowed to take place, and the noble Lord is quite right in calling attention to this point. His amendment may go a little too far, but I hope that between now and the Report stage the matter will be further considered in order to see whether the Bill cannot be strengthened so as to prevent such occurrences as we have both witnessed.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

May I say in answer to the noble Marquess that power already exists under the Air Navigation Regulations, 1919, under which a person guilty of an offence similar to those referred to is liable to a fine of £200 or 6 months' imprisonment. That is the existing law, and this provision will be repeated in the Order in Council to be issued under this Bill.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I quite recognise what the noble Lord has said about the necessity of flying lower than 2,000 feet when there is fog or under conditions in which the earth cannot be seen clearly, and if there is power already existing by which the Government, through the Air Ministry, can prosecute pilots who are so rash as to fly in the manner described I am satisfied, but I do invite the Government to consider this point more carefully before the Report stage in. order that. we may have a fuller explanation then. In the circumstances I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, after "was" ["damage or loss was contributed to "], to insert "caused by or". The noble Marquess said: We have been asked to put this Amendment into the Bill in order to give protection to the owner of an aircraft in cases where the damage or loss in question has been caused and not merely contributed to by the negligence of the person by whom the damage or loss is suffered.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 13, after ("was") insert ("caused by or").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the end of the Clause, to insert "Provided that, where any damages recoverable from the owner of an aircraft under this section arose from damage or loss caused by the wrongful or negligent action or omission of any person carried in the aircraft, nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect any right of the owner to recover from that person the amount of such damages. For the purpose of this section, the expression 'owner' in relation to aircraft includes any person to whom the aircraft is demised." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is obvious; other wise, the owner of an aircraft would be responsible for any delinquencies which might be committed by passengers who were being carried in the aircraft. There might be instances where something was thrown out of an aeroplane and damage incurred by some one on the ground. The owner of the aeroplane should be entitled to recover from that person the amount of such damage. The expression "owner" includes any person to whom the aircraft is demised. If the aircraft is hired by another person that person incurs all the liabilities of the owner.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 14, at end insert the said words.— (The Marquess of Londonderry.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I quite agree with what the noble Marquess has said. At the same time, if we look at it from the point of view of the public, it is very difficult to see how the public can be protected. Take an instance. A large machine goes up from one of the suburban aerodromes round London. The passengers take their lunch with them. Suppose they throw out half a dozen soda water bottles and one of the bottles catches one of your Lordships on the head as he is walking in the street—perhaps killing him or seriously injuring him—what remedy has he, or his executors? It is rather a serious question. In the case of a railway company it has been established that the company has no liability for any hurt that may happen to any one but its own servants. If you throw a soda water bottle out of a first-class railway carriage and you hit a platelayer, the platelayer, I believe, can claim; but if it kills an ordinary citizen I do not know what redress there is. It seems to me rather hard that there should be no means of recovering. I do not know what the law may be on this subject, but this is a point which will have to be considered very carefully, because it may be one of great importance in the future.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I think the noble Lord will see that the object of this Amendment is to enable the owner to recover from the passenger who may have committed the crime, which means that the owner is at this moment responsible for any damage which he may do.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Infringement of patents.

(3) For the purposes of this subsection the expression "owner" shall include the actual owner of an aircraft, and any person claiming through or under him, and the expression "passage" shall include all reasonable landings and stoppages in the course or the purpose of a passage.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The Amendment which I move in this clause is merely to correct a misprint.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 4, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Provisions as to Orders in Council.

16.—(1) An Order in Council under this Act may be made applicable to any aircraft in or over the British Islands or the territorial waters adjacent thereto, and to British aircraft wherever they may be.

(2) An Order in Council under this Act may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Order in Council.

(3) Any Order in Council made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the Order or any provision thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or provision, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

(4) Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to any Order made under this Act.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I move an Amendment to correct a verbal error in the drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 7, leave out ("regulation") and insert ("order").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I should be very much obliged if the noble Lord would tell the House what subsection (4) means. I think it is very desirable that there should be full publicity given to any rule made, and I think that everybody would be the better for knowing exactly what is going to be done or to be ordered. Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell us what is meant.

Amendment moved— Page 9, lines 12 and 13, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I do not think it is a matter of very great importance. The original idea was that where urgency was present orders could be more readily promulgated, but it is of no great importance.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

Savings.

17.—(1) This Act shall not (except where express provision is made to the contrary by this Act, or any Order or regulations thereunder) apply to aircraft belonging to or employed in the service of His Majesty.

(2) Nothing in this Act, or in any Orders or regulations thereunder, shall prejudice or affect the rights, powers, or privilege of any general lighthouse authority.

LORD GLENARTHUR moved, in subsection (2), after "general," to insert "or local." The noble Lord said: The Amendment that stands in my name is submitted on behalf of the Dock and Harbour Authorities Committee, representing the large harbours in the country, including those of Liverpool, Newcastle, the Clyde, and Bristol. The object of it is to preserve the rights of those authorities. Clause 17 subsection (2) preserves the rights of any general lighthouse authority, but it is thought that it does not include the right of any particular harbour board that is also a lighthouse authority for the port. The two principal harbour authorities who are also lighthouse authorities are the Mersey Dock & Harbour Board (who have, under an Act of 1858, power to maintain and control the lighthouses in the port of Liverpool) and the Clyde Lighthouse Trust, whose special duties are to erect and maintain lighthouses on the Clyde. It is very important that the rights of these authorities should be protected, and I am glad to know that the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill is willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 20, after ("general") insert ("or local").—(Lord Glenarthur.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

Application to Scotland and Ireland.

18.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—

(b) a county council may borrow for the purposes of the said section on the security of the general purposes rate in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed by the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1899, and a town council may borrow for the purposes of the said section on the security of the public health general assessment in like manner and subject to the like conditions as they may borrow for the purpose of the provision of hospitals.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The only Amendment to be moved in this clause is proposed for the purpose of correcting a misprint.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 32, leave out ("1899") and insert ("1889").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Schedule:

THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY

I beg to move Amendments to give effect to the representations made by the Colonial Office that the correct order of precedence in regard to the self-governing Dominions should be followed in the Bill.

Amendments moved— Page 10, leave out line 32. Page 10, line 34, at end insert ("the Dominion of New Zealand").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new schedule:

    c551
  1. SCHEDULED SUBSIDIARY BUSINESSES. 35 words