Lords Sitting of 23 July 1946

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Marquess of Carisbrooke—Took the Oath.
Prayers.

  LONG EATON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  2.35 p.m.

NEW TOWNS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of Amendments be received. I propose to make one or two observations in discharge of undertakings which I gave during the Committee stage of this Bill, to examine various points raised by noble Lords in the course of the discussion. I think that the most convenient procedure for the House will be for my noble friend Lord Henderson to follow me, because that should give noble Lords an opportunity of saying whether or not they are satisfied with our efforts to meet them. My first undertaking was given to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It was on the question of the rate fund contribution. The noble Lord was afraid that the method of payment to development corporations, set out in the Bill, of the equivalent of the rate fund contribution for houses which attract a subsidy, might cause various inconveniences. The noble Lord thought, for example, that the enterprise of those corporations would be impaired by the prospect of having to go to the Treasury afterwards for a grant. He spoke in rather strong language of "liberating the development corporation from the thraldom of the Treasury."
768
I can assure the noble Lord, and any other noble Lord who shares his view, that neither the Minister nor the corporations will be held back by a prospective deficiency on housing. No sensible housing scheme will be rejected because the equivalent of the rate fund contribution has to be recovered by way of grant. The financial procedure in the Bill will not work out in that way. What will happen, simply and briefly, is this. The development corporation engaged in a housing project that attracts subsidy will estimate in advance its annual losses, and the Minister, when he sanctions a housing scheme of this type, will agree to the contemplated financial loss and undertake that it will be made good out of annual grant. There will, therefore, be no shadow of doubt that the payment of the full amount of the rate fund contribution will be met. I very much hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord and relieve him of his anxieties.
The other point not covered in the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the Government, is a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, on Clause 15. Having examined this carefully, and having consulted my right honourable friend the Minister, I am satisfied that the winding up process will not be delayed in the manner suggested by the noble Earl, and that it could not be modified with advantage. On this second point, it would, I think, be unnecessary and inappropriate for the Orders made under subsections (1) and (2) to be subject to the same procedure as Orders made under subsections (3) and (4). These are the only points, I think, that arise, apart from further explanations that will be made on the Amendments. I will therefore leave it to my noble friend Lord Henderson to reply to other noble Lords who took part in the discussion during the Committee stage.
Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
2.42 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, four specific points were raised at the Committee stage, for which further consideration was requested. I undertook to consult the Minister about them, and I have done so. The noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, asked that a particular type of hard case at present not qualified for compensation

769
on the basis of the 1939 ceiling plus supplement, should be put on the same basis as owner-occupiers. The type of case entitled to qualify for compensation at the 1939 ceiling plus supplement was settled less than two years ago. It was agreed by all parties and approved by Parliament. My right honourable friend regrets that he is unable, for the purposes of this Bill, to concede an extension of the agreed scope of the term "owner-occupier." The second point urged that the existing basis of compensation was inadequate for certain classes of owner-occupier whose property is compulsorily acquired for public purposes. The fact is that the changes which were urged by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Earl, Lord Munster, would not be appropriate to this Bill. It would be impossible to amend the law of compensation for the purposes of this Bill without dealing with the whole compensation problem. The two noble Lords did, I think, recognize in their speeches that this was in fact the position. I will not therefore discuss the merits of the proposal.
Perhaps I may be allowed, however, to point out that the original basis of compensation for the owner-occupier is not static. It was fixed in 1944 on the basis which I have indicated—namely, the 1939 "ceiling," plus a maximum supplement of 30 per cent. That maximum supplement is; about to be increased to 6o per cent., and if experience of the new basis of compensation should show that it is not adequate, it will be possible, under Section 60 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, to review it again and to submit a new Order for Parliamentary approval. I will only add that the Minister is mindful of the various representations which have been made, and these will be taken into consideration.
The third point previously raised by noble Lords related to the question of co-opting on to the development corporation in an advisory capacity members of the local authorities concerned. My right honourable friend the Minister has made it clear that he recognizes the vital importance of the closest co-operation being maintained throughout between the development corporation and local authorities, and that the latter should be kept fully informed of all proposals with which they are concerned. He will encourage such
770
co-operation, but he does not regard it as wise that any particular form of co-operation should be made a statutory obligation. It will depend upon experience and upon local conditions. It may be found that the machinery of consultation which is most suitable for one area would not be the most suitable for another. I suggest, therefore, that it is not unreasonable that the form of consultation should be left to each corporation, subject to any direction which the Minister may think fit to give. I hope that the noble Earl, Lora Munster, will agree.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, referred to the Margate, Broadstairs and District Electricity Order, which was about to be published and which will include a list of professional bodies such as that suggested by the noble Lord in his Amendment. The reason for including the list in this special Order is that the Margate, Broadstairs and District Electricity Board is, in effect, a local authority organization and the Board when appointing an auditor will have to select a member of one of the professional bodies included in the list, which is identical with that inserted in Section 239 of the Local Government Act, 1933. In other words, the Margate, Broadstairs and District Electricity Board will be required to follow the same procedure as a borough council. The position with regard to the New Towns Bill is quite different. The appointment of an auditor will be made by the Minister himself. An assurance has been given that only a competent and properly qualified acountant will be appointed. Noble Lords will remember that a similar assurance was accepted in the case of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. Flaying fulfilled my promise to bring these matters to the attention of the Minister, and having indicated his position regarding them, I venture to express the hope that noble Lords will now be content to allow the Bill to go forward to its remaining stages.
2.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the two noble Lords who have spoken have been good enough to give the House an explanation of points raised on the Committee stage. I have no doubt that there are other noble Lords who wish to say a word on these points, and I will deal only with the particular point which I broached to your Lordships at an earlier

771
stage of this Bill; that is, the rate of compensation which should be paid. The case I cited was that of a farmer who had expended both money and effort on his holding since 1939, and who would not be fully compensated by the 1939 "ceiling," even with the 60 per cent. supplement which may be given under this Bill. I am very sorry that it has not been possible for the Government to meet us on this point, although I would like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who has taken immense trouble to see if anything could be done and who has shown very great sympathy with the point.
From what he has said I understand that he does not dispute the fact that my point had substance. His difficulty is that it is a matter of machinery; that it is extremely difficult to differentiate between cases such as I mentioned and other cases of people who are to receive compensation. In any case he thinks this is hardly the right time to make any amendment to the existing law on the question of compensation. I recognize, as I suppose we all do, that these difficulties are real, and that this is a very difficult and thorny question—as are all questions of compensation. I do not want to press the Government unduly now, but I take it that there will be some measure dealing with compensation and betterment in the future. It has been under discussion for some time, and was so even in the days of the Coalition Government, and I would ask the Government to consider this particular point again in connexion with this Bill.
I can promise them that we will also consider it. If they are unable to do anything we might find ourselves in a position to take some action in the shape of an Amendment when the Bill comes along. I would also urge upon the Government that, if they do think of anything that can be done, they should make it retrospective to the extent of covering cases that might arise under this Bill. It is, of course, a limited type of case. I am not trying to raise the whole question of the 1939 ceiling and the whole basis of compensation. That was, rightly or wrongly, accepted by all Parties in the days of the late Government. These are special cases of hardship. I know that the Government want to meet these cases. It is really a question of machinery. I do hope that they will do their utmost for those unfortunate people.
2.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I should like to add one word. I would begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for the sympathetic way in which he has considered what we have said. I have only just seen the Order by which the 30 per cent. is enlarged to 60 per cent. As I read it, it applies only to the value of land and does not apply to the clause in the Act of 1944 where, if there has been improvement of a dwelling or a house or a farm, the value of the improvements can be given as compensation calculated by reference to the prices of 1939. I do not myself see that that is covered here because the reference in this Order is to values and not to prices which are referred to in the clause which deals with improvements since 1939. Perhaps the noble Lord would think fit to look into that.
With regard to the question of owner-occupiers, it is very difficult to deal with that matter on this Bill, but I do feel strongly that the clauses with reference to owner-occupiers are going to lead to extraordinary injustice. The clause is extended to cover the case of a person who has granted a tenancy of the house in question, but the clause with which I am dealing adds that the person in question has to prove that at the date of acquisition of the premises by the authority it was his desire and intention to return within five years. That intention, in truth, does not exist in a great number of cases because the owner in question cannot afford to go back into these premises, and the clause as it is drawn will exclude some very worthy people who are just as much entitled to consideration as a person who can say, "Well, I let the house while my husband was away"—or something of that sort—" I now want to get back; I cannot get back at present, but it is my intention to get back within five years if I possibly can." The person I am thinking of is somebody old and ailing who cannot get back. Yet such a person is not treated as an owner-occupier. I have had myself one or two letters from Stevenage on the subject. I hope that when some new Bill comes forward and when the experience of Stevenage and other cases has shown that this New Towns Act does not work equitably, the Government will consider the question on the basis of justice.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the two noble Lords opposite for the manner in which they have dealt with the points which I raised on the Committee stage of the Bill. I need not deal with the question of the 1939 prices which has been mentioned by my noble friend behind me. I trust that the Minister has taken note of what has been said in this House for use in any further legislation which may come along. With regard to co-opting of members of local authorities on to the development corporations, I naturally accept the view which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, expressed—namely, that the Minister would encourage co-operation and that he desired co-operation, Nut that he wished such co-operation to be undertaken on his direction. It may not be suitable in every case for such co-operation to take place; nevertheless, as I say, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing the Minister's attention to my remarks and for the observations he has made with regard to the points raised.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, before allowing this Report to go through, I wish to draw attention to the point which I raised on Clause 25 with regard to the provisions as to Scotland in this Bill. I do not wish to raise a debate on this point again. We had considerable discussion, and in the course of that discussion my noble friend Lord Llewellin made what I thought was a very excellent suggestion. I am not quite sure whether he was speaking in the capacity of an Englishman or a Welshman, or both, but, in any case, he agreed that Scotland had been treated very shabbily in this matter, and he made the suggestion that perhaps the Government might consider preparing a consolidated New Towns Bill for Scotland, in order to clarify what is now, as it stands, a very complicated Bill so far as Scotland is concerned. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who replied and said that he would convey the suggestion to the Minister. I had hoped that in the statements which have just been made to your Lordships, we might have heard something about that particular point. I rise to ask whether the noble Earl can now give us a reply—I hope a favourable one.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, the answer given last week by my noble
774
friend the Earl of Listowel was passed on to me to make the necessary inquiries of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have been in consultation with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the matter. I can assure your Lordships that he is most anxious to make arrangements to assist the local authorities and others concerned with the subsequent administration of this Bill after it has passed into law. He has authorized me to say that he proposes to issue a Paper setting out the terms of the Bill as it applies to Scotland, which will be published and circulated for the convenience of local authorities and others concerned. I think that meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I understand that the Paper will really be the Bill as it applies to Scotland—that although it will not be called a Bill, that, in effect, is what it will be. If that is the case, it completely meets the suggestion I made.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, as I raised this point originally, I should like to acknowledge what the Secretary of State for Scotland is doing in order to try to clarify the position. I understand that the Paper that is being issued will actually be treated as the law on the subject. Am I correct in that?
LORD WESTWOOD: That is my interpretation. That is the interpretation I received from the Secretary of State for Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Then I gladly acknowledge it, and I thank the Secretary of State for Scotland and my noble friend for having done what they have done.
LORD HENDERSON: By leave of the House, I should like to thank noble Lords for the friendly way in which they have received the statements from my noble friend the Earl of Listowel and myself. With regard to the query raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, on the Order, I will have that looked into and either communicate with him or see him about it. I will make it my business to call the Minister's attention to the observations made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and I am sure my right honourable friend will take them into sympathetic consideration.
LORD REITH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is not here, but I know his mind on the matter of the rate fund contribution. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would like to know what I think Lord Balfour of Burleigh would say. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, informed us that the rate contribution would really be an automatic credit; in other words, it would not be argued about as part of the deficiency grant. That, I am sure, would satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and in the circumstances it satisfies me.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 4:
Acquisition of land by Development Corporations.
(7) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that a development corporation established under this Act is a public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved at the end of subsection (7) to insert
"and that Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, applies accordingly for the purpose of the assessment of compensation for the compulsory purchase of land by such a corporation."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, during the Committee stage. The noble Viscount pointed out that as the Bill is now drafted the compensation provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, might not apply to purchases by development corporations under the Bill. This Amendment removes any possible doubt that could exist that Sections 57 and 58 of the 1944 Act are to be applied under this Bill. I am obliged to the noble Viscount for drawing my attention to a possible source of ambiguity in the Bill as it now stands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 5, line 42, at end insert ("and that Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, applies accordingly for the purpose of the assessment of compensation for the compulsory purchase of land by such a corporation").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, the suggested phrase is quite satisfactory to
776
me, and I thank the noble Lord for considering the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Statutory undertakers.
(3) An order made under the last foregoing subsection may provide for the transfer to the transferees of any part of the undertaking of the transferors, and may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as the Minister of Fuel and Power thinks necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order; and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, any such order may provide—

(a) for transferring to the transferees any property or liabilities of the transferors;

(b) for amending or repealing any local enactment relating to the undertaking of the transferees or of the transferors;

LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the next Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Listowel is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 11, line 8, after ("enactment") insert ("including any order or by-law)").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15:
Winding up of development corporations.
(5) An order under this section which provides for the transfer of the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of a development corporation to any local authority or statutory undertakers may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as the Minister thinks necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, may extend or modify the powers and duties of that authority or those undertakers so far as appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the transfer:
Provided that—

(a) in relation to an order which provides for extending or modifying the powers and duties of any statutory undertakers, subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as if for the first reference therein to the Minister there were substituted a reference to the Minister and the appropriate Minister; and

(b) no such order shall confer or impose upon any local authority any powers or duties which are exercisable within the area of that authority by any other local authority.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 17, line 18, leave out ("such order") and insert ("order under this section")—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17:
Limitations of actions, etc.
17.—(1) The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, and Section twenty-one of the Limitation Act, 1939, shall not apply to any action, prosecution or proceeding against a development corporation, or for or in respect of any act, negligence or default done or committed by a servant or agent of any such corporation in his capacity as such.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 17, page 18, line 26, leave out ("negligence '') and insert ("neglect").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21:
Saving for enactments relating to water, electricity and gas.
21. Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (4) of Section two of this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing a development corporation to carry on any undertaking for the supply of water electricity or gas, except under the authority of an enactment other than the said Section two specifically authorizing them in that behalf.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved after "gas" to insert "or any railway, light railway, tramway or trolley vehicle undertaking." The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will explain both this Amendment and the next Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Listowel. This Amendment extends the principle of Clause 21 to the carrying on by development corporations of certain transport undertakings, namely, railway, tramway and trolley vehicle undertakings, as it is considered that the same principle applies to these undertakings as to water, electricity and gas undertakings. The Amendment was suggested by the Ministry of Transport, who are concerned to ensure that the provisions normally included in Private Acts or Provisional Orders for securing public safety shall be applied
778
to transport services operated by a development corporation.
The next Amendment, which is consequential, enables the Ministry of Transport to make an Order which will be subject to special Parliamentary procedure authorizing the development corporation to run trolley vehicles and containing any necessary provisions for the protection of the public. The Amendment is necessary as there is no General Act under which Orders can be made authorizing a trolley-vehicle undertaking, and a development corporation wishing to run trolley vehicles would, without this Amendment, have to obtain a Private Act authorizing them to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 21, page 19, line 16, after ("gas") insert ("or any railway, light railway, tramway or trolley vehicle, undertaking.")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved at the end to insert the following new subsections:
"(2) The development corporation established for the purposes of a new town may be authorized by means of an order made by the Minister of Transport to operate trolley vehicle services for the purposes of a new town; and any such order may impose such conditions as appear to the said Minister to be required in the interests of the public safety, and may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the said Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order, including provisions—

(a) authorizing the construction and maintenance in highways of any works or equipment required in connection with the services;

(b) providing for the making and enforcement of regulations and by-laws with respect to the construction and operation of any vehicles or equipment used for the purposes of the services, and the conduct of passengers on, and of the drivers and conductors of, any such vehicles.

(3) Any order under the last foregoing subsection shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure.
(4) In this section the expression "trolley vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads without rails and moved by power transmitted thereto from some external source."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Listowel.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 18, at and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25:
Provisions as to Scotland.
(6) In section four—
(c) in subsection (3) for any reference to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, there shall be substituted a reference to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert
"(d) in subsection (7) for the reference to Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, there shall be substituted a reference to Part II of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential to the Amendment moved by my noble friend the Earl of Listowel to Clause 4 on page 5, line 42, and provides the necessary reference to Part II of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, required by that Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 25, page 21, line 44, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 37:
Appeal from, and review of, Minister's decisions.
37.—(1) Any question of law arising in connexion with the determination of any such question as is mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the last foregoing section may, if the Minister thinks fit, be referred for decision to the High Court, and any person aggrieved by the decision of the Minister on any such question of law which is not so referred may appeal from that decision to the High Court.
(2) Provision shall be made by rules of court for regulating references and appeals to the High Court under this section, and those rules shall provide for limiting the time within which appeals may be brought.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved at the end of subsection (2) to insert:
"and shall authorize the Court to grant to the claimant payment of his costs (including his own costs) by the Minister, notwithstanding that the claimant fails in his appeal".
780
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, on the Committee stage of this Bill there was an Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in very similar, if not in identical terms to the present Amendment. When the question arose as to whether or not it should be accepted, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack expressed the view that it was an unnecessary Amendment because the Judge already had, without any statutory power being given to him, the necessary power to take the course which the Amendment required. The point is that in a proper case where a difficult question of law may arise a person shall not be debarred from taking the opinion of the High Court on account of his inability to pay the costs, and that, whatever the result may be, the Minister may be made to pay those costs whether he be successful or whether the other party be successful. I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack agreed that that principle was desirable, but his reason for rejecting the Amendment was, as I say, that it was already covered by existing powers. I was a little startled, when he made that statement, by the suggestion that a Court has not only power to deprive a successful party of costs, but also has power to award costs to an unsuccessful party. But having been divorced from the practice of the law for some years, I certainly had not the temerity publicly to contradict the Lord Chancellor; possibly if I had been in practice I should have felt still less like doing so. However, I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will perhaps on consideration have come to the conclusion that his view as expressed at the Committee stage was wrong in that respect, and that the Court, unless it be given special powers such as are suggested in this Amendment, has not any power which can enable it to order an unsuccessful party to be awarded his costs. If that deficiency exists, it ought to be made right, and it is made right substantially by the Amendment now before your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 2, at end insert ("and shall authorize the court to grant to the claimant payment of his costs (including his own costs) by the Minister, notwithstanding that the claimant fails in his appeal";—(The Marquess of Reading.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I hope I am not unduly stubborn, but I adhere entirely to the opinion I expressed on the Committee stage. Costs are entirely in the discretion of the court. Of course that discretion has to be exercised judiciously, and so long as the exercise is judicial there is no limit to what the Judge has a right to do with regard to costs. I believe that to be an accurate statement. However, since there seems to be diversity of opinion about it, I have no objection to inserting words which have this effect. I will not insert the proposed words because I do not know what they mean. "Payment of his costs (including his own costs)" is a phrase with which I am not familiar. Perhaps the noble Marquess would not mind moving his Amendment in a slightly different form. I have given him a copy of the Amendment I suggest and I will read it out to your Lordships:
"and on any such reference or appeal the court may order the Minister to pay the costs of any other person, whether or not the decision is in his favour and whether or not the Minister appears on the reference or appeal."
I think that gives the noble Marquess what he wants and if he is content with those words we need not embark upon a somewhat uninteresting discussion as to who was right on the question of the discretion as to costs. I will gladly accept that Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think the substance of the offer just made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, really concludes this matter. The words which he has been good enough to say he will accept, cover, as far as I can see, exactly the point that was urged on him last week and which he then did not feel able to accept. That being so, it would be a very inappropriate proceeding if there were to be any controversy on what is now admittedly an immaterial point of law. I will only observe in a single sentence that, so far as I understand the law, generally speaking a Judge has no right at all, while deciding in favour of A, to say that A shall pay all the costs. He has indeed to exercise his judicial discretion, but unless there was some reason for it he would be wrong if he made such an order. The best known case on the subject, if I may end on a somewhat arid note, is Higgins v. Higgins, reported in 1916, I King's Bench, page 640.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with what has fallen from my noble friend Viscount Simon. I would also say that if it were a matter of argument as to which was right and which was wrong, there would, in my view, be something to be said for the theoretical statement of the law by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I would go so far as to say that it would be difficult to quarrel with his general statement, but—and this, I think, is the vital matter—it has never been held in our courts that a defeated defendant should be paid his costs unless there are special reasons for it. It is just as well that it should be made perfectly clear that the arbitrator, or whoever it is, to whom this clause applies, will have complete power in a test case, where it is just and reasonable, to award costs even to a man who has been unsuccessful in his claim.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as I originally raised this point, I merely rise to say that I think the words proposed by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, are better than the words I originally proposed and that I am much obliged to him.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I have certainly no intention of becoming involved in a discussion with three Lord Chancellors or ex-Lord Chancellors on this subject. I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his suggested Amendment, which I agree meets the case better than the original one put forward. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I beg to move the Amendment suggested by the Lord Chancellor.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 12, at end insert ("and on any such reference or appeal the court may order the Minister to pay the costs of any other person, whether or not the decision is in his favour and whether or not the Minister appears on the reference or appeal").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42:
Appointment of Commissioner and deputy Commissioners.
42.—(1) For the purposes of this Act an Industrial Injuries Commissioner (in this Act referred to as "the Commissioner") may

783
be appointed by His Majesty and such number of deputy Commissioners as His Majesty thinks fit may be so appointed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved at the end of subsection (1) to insert:
"The Commissioner and deputy Commissioners shall be barristers or advocates of not less than ten years' standing."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to carry out a promise which I gave on the Committee stage. I thought at that time that I should have to deal separately with advocates in the Scottish application clause but I had not then realized that while that may have been true with regard to the local tribunals, with regard to this central tribunal it is, of course, of the utmost importance that we should have similarity of decision both in England and Scotland. Therefore we must deal with both in this clause. I need only assure your Lordships that so far as this rests with me—and I suppose it will—I shall do my best to see that the Commissioner and deputy Commissioners are lawyers of first-rate standing and the sort of people who are of the status of High Court Judges.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 35, at end insert ("The Commissioner and deputy Commissioners shall be barristers or advocates of not less than ten years' standing.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I should like to thank the Lord Chancellor, who gave this undertaking after a speech that I made. I am very much obliged to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47:
Appeals to Commissioner.
47.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, an appeal shall lie to the Commissioner from any decision of a local appeal tribunal—
(5) Where the local appeal tribunal grant leave to appeal they shall record in writing a statement of the grounds on which leave to appeal is granted.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"( ) Any question of law arising in connexion with the determination of any such appeal may, if the Commissioner thinks fit, be referred by him for decision to the Court of Appeal, and every person aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner on any such question of law which is not so referred
784
may with leave of the Court of Appeal appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal.
( ) Provision shall be made by rules of Court for regulating references and appeals to the Court of Appeal under this section, and these rules shall provide a limit of time within which such appeals may be brought."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I venture to think, although it stands in my name, that this is on general grounds an important Amendment. I am sure your Lordships realize two things about the scheme of compensation contained in this Bill. The first thing is that it takes the place of the Workmen's Compensation Act procedure which has been in vogue for the past fifty years and in the course of which a large number of matters of great legal import have been raised and successively decided by various courts of law. The second thing is, as I am sure your Lordships realize, that in this Bill and as the present scheme provides, the courts of law have no standing at any stage to express any opinion on what I may call the new Work men's Compensation Act procedure which is embodied in this Bill. That seems to me to be wrong in principle, and because I ventured to think it was wrong in principle I put down on the Committee stage an Amendment, rather different in form from the present one, which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack found himself unable to accept. He pointed out that the procedure then advocated would mean a long series of trials before different tribunals and that that was from many points of view undesirable. He also gave the assurance which he has just repeated, that whoever was appointed to fill the office of Commissioner under this Bill would be a person of a status comparable to that of a High Court Judge.
Having regard to that assurance, I quite agree that it is not necessary to go through the first stage of appeal which was contemplated in my original Amendment and bring the case from the Commissioner to a High Court Judge. The Amendment which I have now substituted gives a right of appeal in certain cases direct to the Court of Appeal, cutting out the High Court, because I rely on the fact that the Commissioner will be not less skilled professionally than a Judge of the High Court. What is the position unless this Amendment he accepted? It is that the decision of the Commissioner

785
on any point of law, however general in application and however intricate in content, can go no further than the Commissioner, and the Commissioner is to all intents and purposes not a Judge but a civil servant. It seems to me to be a wrong principle that you should exclude the courts of law from any expression of opinion. After all, what is the purpose of a court of appeal unless the principle is accepted that the collective knowledge, wisdom and experience of three persons is greater than that of one? I cannot help thinking that the Commissioner himself and his deputy Commissioners would be only too glad to feel, especially in the early stages of the administration of this new scheme, that they had behind them in cases of difficulty some authoritative tribunal such as the Court of Appeal to which they might refer any problem that arose.
I feel too that the parties might feel more satisfied if they knew that the Commissioners' decision was not the last word upon the subject. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in the course of the Committee stage, spoke of the necessity for justice being swift and cheap. I entirely agree with both those laudable objects, but they are not the end of the matter. Justice should be as absolute as it is possible for the fallible minds of men to make it. The Cadi under the palm tree is all very well so long as he himself is convinced that he is right and the people who appear before him are equally so convinced. But if he begins to have doubts of his decision, and the persons appearing before him begin to question his judgments, then his value is very largely destroyed.
Here you have this Commissioner and his deputy Commissioners who rank equally with him; their status is the same. You may have one sitting presumably in Scotland, one in the north of England and one in the south of England. The same point may be referred to each one of them, they may come to three entirely separate conclusions, and that is the end of the matter. There is no court of appeal to which they can go to get an authoritative decision which would be binding upon them. It is quite true that in Clause 42 of the Bill there is the proviso that if it appears to involve a point of law of special difficulty a case may be heard by a tribunal
786
consisting of three Commissioners. But those of us who have practised the law at any time and on any level know that points of law cannot always be relied upon to appear in advance, and though you may think that a particular case is quite straightforward, in the course of the hearing there may well appear a point of law of very great, importance which one of these Commissioners or deputy Commissioners will be called upon to decide, and his decision will be the last word.
I very strongly feel that to make it impossible to obtain any really authoritative opinion in these matters is wrong. I do not anticipate for a moment that there would be many cases referred to the Court of Appeal under this Amendment, because for the last fifty years the whole question of workmen's compensation has been considered innumerable times by the courts, and there is a vast bulk of legal decisions on the subject. It would, therefore, only be the exceptional cases which remain to be considered by the Court of Appeal, but in my view it is very necessary that they should be so considered.
I want to add only one thing. Let it not be thought that a provision of this kind would be against the interest of the workman, the insured person. I think that anybody who has followed the workings of the system of workmen's compensation would agree that the whole trend of decisions before the higher courts has been to the advantage of the workman as against the employer. I suggest that with that in mind the workman would not be in any way at a disadvantage by the proposal in this Amendment, but that indeed it would be of real assistance to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 17, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: With great deference to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, I feel it my duty to say in candour that I sympathize with what the noble Marquess has just said. I know that the noble and learned Lord has very firmly expressed another view. That view may be right, but at least it is worth spending a few minutes to consider where the balance of the argument lies. Under this new Bill we are putting the business of giving compensation

787
for industrial injuries into the hands of a Government Department. We are sweeping away the old system which had both advantages and disadvantages. I do not at all complain that the new system be substituted; it seems to me on balance that it is right and that the new plan is better than the old, and I think we all ought to feel grateful to the Government that they have undertaken to do this.
But let us realize what the new plan involves. It involves things which are immensely important to people who suffer from industrial injury. The workman who has met with an accident will have his claim decided by the machinery in this Bill, and, as things stand, without any possible reference to the courts at all. The Lord Chancellor said on the previous Amendment that he was going to do his utmost—as I am sure he is—to secure the best man or, I suppose, woman he can as Commissioner or deputy Commissioner. They will be banisters of ten years' standing in England, and advocates in Scotland of that minimum experience. That is all very well, but it is no good pretending that they are going to be Judges, because a Judge is a person who cannot be removed and who has a status which nothing short of a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament is likely to alter. They are in fact going to be public-spirited and independent-minded members of this organization. What is the kind of thing which may arise? I suppose the most important thing is the question which has so frequently to be decided, that is, whether the accident arises out of and in the course of the man's employment. That is to be found in the first subsection of the first clause. It provides that—
"… all persons employed in insurable employment shall be insured in manner provided by this Act against personal injury caused on or after the appointed day by accident arising out of and in the course of such employment."
I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, with his long experience and his judicial mind, will admit at once—will gladly agree, in fact—that it has been, on the whole, of great benefit to the insured workmen of this country that that question has had to be decided in courts of law in the past. Both he and I know of many cases in which, on an appeal being made to the courts on a matter of law, a decision has been given which has clarified the law and enlarged points of workmen's compensation.
788
It is not necessary to quote cases, for undoubtedly that is so. However, now that we are changing all this and it is going into the hands of a Government Department, and now that there is a fund which the Government Department has to administer, I ask myself is it really to the general public advantage to say there shall be no appeal to the courts?
May I call attention to the actual terms of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Reading? It is not the one he moved before. It is in much narrower shape, and I invite noble Lords who know this subject very well, and who want to act fairly in this matter, to consider the cases to which it refers. The first case is one in which the Commissioner may think fit to say: "I really feel that this particular issue which has arisen is one on which I should like to have the verdict and judgment of the court." As the Bill stands, it is no good the Commissioner wanting that. He cannot have it. A phrase sometimes used, which I do not think has any real justification, is that "the lawyers do the mischief," and that phrase so takes hold of some people that they say: "We shall make a much better case of this from our point of view if we say, 'Out with the Judges'." I do not believe it. I feel that if you take some of the instances where the question arises as to whether an accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, you would agree that it is far better that they should be decided, if the Commissioner wishes it so, by a legal tribunal.
The second case referred to in my noble friend's Amendment is one where a decision has gone against a claimant—against a man. I agree that if thereupon he could disregard all the existing machinery and say: "I will have another shot in the Court of Appeal or in the House of Lords," appeals would be multiplied and time occupied by cases for which, in many instances, there would be no justification. There are many people who appeal when they have not any real case, and, of course, I want to stop that. We all want to stop it. But when, in the judgment of entirely impartial people, it is thought that the man has really got a substantial point of law, then the Amendment provides for the Court of Appeal, if the Court of Appeal also takes the view that the man has indeed got a point of law which ought to be decided, to give leave for-that matter to

789
be brought before it. These are the only two provisions of the Amendment. I wish, in the interests of justice and good order, and nothing else, that something of this sort could be done. I know quite well some of the considerations that moved the Government. My noble friend and I do not minimize them.
The Lord Chancellor may say: "After all we have set up, by statute, a system of legal tribunals with an appeal to the Commissioners. Is not that enough for anybody? Why do you want to go any further?" That does not get over the difficulty which I honestly feel arises, because it is better, in these cases, if you can, to go to the authorized court, staffed by people whose life is given to the business of administering justice and who cannot be lightly removed. I still feel it is better to do that if you possibly can.
The parallel is far from being complete, but I remember that when I occupied the seat which my noble and learned friend now occupies, we carried through in 1943—I think first of all in your Lordships' House—the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act. It was carried through after much discussion and with a great deal of attention in both Houses, and I see that there is this provision in it: that where, in the case of an appeal to the Tribunal under the Act, the appellant or the Minister is dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal—that is, the Appeal Tribunal—as being erroneous in point of law, he may, with the leave of the Tribunal or a Judge of the High Court nominated for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor, appeal therefrom.
In the Unemployment Insurance Act, which, as some of your Lordships may remember, was passed in 1911, if my memory serves me aright, there was provision that if an important question of law arose under that Act there was to be the possibility of an appeal to a High Court judge, and a particular High Court Judge was nominated. I do not give these examples, as I am sure the Lord Chancellor will recognize, as being in all respects parallel.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble and learned Viscount give me the reference to his last statement regarding the Unemployment Insurance Act? I thought I knew this matter pretty well, but I confess that I do not remember that provision.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I thought that there was such a provision. I thought so because I remember that I have myself appeared before the High Court Judge in question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is it not a question of insurability?
VISCOUNT SIMON: That may be, and it may not be on the same question. I was careful to point out that the parallel was not complete. The point is that a High Court Judge was appointed for the purpose of deciding the question whether or not a man is to be insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Is not that so?
LORD CHORLEY: That is so. I have appeared in those cases.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am quite sure it is so, but please do not think that I am saying the cases are parallel. The point is that it has been thought in the past, and, I think, thought by the Party opposite, who were undoubtedly thinking very carefully of the particular interests of wage-earners (they were not the only people who thought of those interests, of course) that it was a good thing when there was a real difficulty on a point of law, that the Tribunal—in this case it would be the Commissioner—might itself give leave to appeal, or if the applicant failed and he satisfied the court that he had a genuine point of law which ought to be decided, he should be given leave. Now that is not in fact so under this Bill.
I know that the noble and learned Lord will say, and, of course, he will say it with great accuracy, that we must avoid the possibility of a conflict between the view held in England and the view in Scotland. That is the difficulty. It is extraordinary how the question of Scotland keeps arising in this House; how Scotland insists upon her own rights and is not content with the decision of the Sassenach. In these uncommon instances, if it was desired to give the defeated man an opportunity of going to the Court of Appeal, it was feared that there might be a decision in the Court of Session in Scotland which did not agree with the Court of Appeal in England. In those circumstances nothing would be easier than for the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to insert limiting words. I

791
am not in the least in favour of a whole series of tribunals one after the
other.
I am perfectly willing to see the matter limited in any way that is proper, but I am afraid that I do hold to the doctrine that when it comes to the question of a man's rights under the law, the proper tribunal to give the ultimate decision is a law court. Some may consider that that is an old fashioned or purely professional view, but I believe that it is part of the essential rights of the British people that when a really serious question affecting their own individual rights arises, and depends not on facts but on law, it should be decided under conditions which do not exclude courts. I apologize for speaking at this length, but I assure you that I feel the matter keenly and not in any way controversially, so far as my noble friend the learned Lord on the Woolsack is concerned. I think it is my duty to say, from such experience as I have had in various capacities, that this is a principle which we should be sorry to see set aside.
3.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said, this is a very important matter. I should not like it to pass without indicating my own opinion, for what that is worth, and it is that which has already been expressed by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I am convinced that it will tend to a better working of the Bill if on all difficult points there are some means of getting a decision of so eminent a tribunal as the Court of Appeal. Unless this clause, or something approximating to this clause, is allowed, I am afraid that there will grow up in different parts of the country different ways of dealing with a certain question of law. Decisions of Commissioners will probably not be widely advertised, but so far as they become known to the public it will be known that some doubt exists about the matter, some Commissioners taking one view and some another. The result of that must necessarily be that it will be impossible to advise some of the working men, whose interests we have at heart, whether they ought to take the step of appealing, or trying to get leave to appeal, to the Commissioner. Accordingly, in the interests of the working men themselves, I urge that something of this sort should be
792
included. For my part I am sure it will help the feeling which should prevail throughout the country that this Bill is being fairly administered in all parts—including Scotland.
3.43 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I, too, feel very keenly about this matter, and I regard it as one of great importance. It is rather a good thing that a man who has been a lawyer all his life—and we are apt to think that our system of law is perfect—should for a short time cease to be a lawyer and should look at this question from another point of view. I was Minister of National Insurance, and it became my task to mould this Bill. I was responsible for drafting this clause. There was no clause in the Bill on which I received more deputations than that. I think I may say that there was no clause to which my colleagues in the late Coalition Government more readily gave their assent. Why is it that all the trade unions concerned have agreed and told me how much more they preferred the judgment of the House of Lords on workmen's compensation to the judgment of the Court of Appeal? Why is it that they were all so anxious that we should not go beyond the Commissioners? It is for this reason. If an unfortunate person gets his hand caught in this machine of litigation he may be dragged up from court to court, unable to stop.
I will give you an experience—a professional experience—of my own. I remember—and another noble Lord will remember this very well—a man who very foolishly signed a cheque, putting in the figures £2 but not writing in the words "Two pounds." His secretary, although he did not know it, was a dishonest man; and nothing was easier for him than to put a figure "1" in front of the "2" and a "0" after it, and fill in the words "One hundred and twenty pounds." I was a comparatively young man at the Bar, and the original writer of the cheque came to me to ask who should bear the loss of that£118 the bank or himself? I said I thought the loss should fall on the bank. So we started litigation. We had a very long hearing in the first court, the Commercial Court, and eventually the costs there amounted to such a high figure that the£118 faded into absolute insignificance. My client won. That was very satisfactory. He then said to me: "I am

793
sorry I started this litigation. I do not care about the £118. Let us call it a day, each party paying their own costs." The bank, however, said: "This is a very important question to us; we must have it determined." And so we were taken to the Court of Appeal. Again, after a lengthy hearing, my client won. Then he saw, with horror, the prospect of the House of Lords! He said to the Bank: "I will tell you what I will do. Although I have won I will abandon the £118, and pay your costs in the two courts, if you will only let me go." To this the bank said "No." And so up we came to the House of Lords. After an even more learned hearing there, in which we quoted all the Roman and French jurists, and which lasted for days, my unforunate client lost. No doubt justice was done; accuracy was achieved. But it cost my unfortunate client some £6,000 in respect of litigation over £118, although he had won his case in the first two courts.
Therefore people say "This system is an admirable system, but do put some limit beyond which people will not be taken." Here we are concerned with a Minister, on the one hand, and the workman on the other. I saw nearly all the trade unions on this matter of compensation and they have nothing but the greatest praise for the decisions of the House of Lords. The representatives of these trade unions all asked that we should stop when we get to the Commissioner. Their view was that the Commissioner can sit with his deputies around him, and if anybody finds that it is a very difficult point—and difficulties do emerge—the tribunal can adjourn and summon a court of three Commissioners to deal with the matter. As I understand it this proposal of the noble Lord is, first of all, that you have an insurance officer who investigates the circumstances and finds out whether the accident arises in the course of employment. Then you come to the local tribunal of three persons, one of whom will be a lawyer. Then you come to the Commissioner, and, if necessary, three of them a Commissioner and two deputies, can sit together.
Then, says the noble Marquess, either the Commissioner can give leave to appeal or you can go to the Court of Appeal and ask for leave to appeal. The next step is going to the Court of Appeal and asking for leave. So long as you satisfy the Court of Appeal that you have a reasonable case,
794
there should be leave to appeal. The next step is, you go to the Court of Appeal and get a decision of that Court. I suppose the next step is the House of Lords, because in this Amendment, for some reason or another which I cannot understand, the noble Marquess has completely forgotten Scotland. What has the Court of Appeal to do with Scotland? Is Scotland going to have its legal decisions heard before the Court of Appeal? No; obviously it would be the Court of Session: If you have the Court of Session in Scotland, and in England the Court of Appeal, you must go to the House of Lords, which is the appellate Court for both of them, otherwise you will be in a difficulty. This matter of having one decision in Scotland and another decision in England is now causing me a headache in another connexion. There is no means of reconciling them. So you have to go to the House of Lords. The lawyers want it. I have practised considerably in the higher courts and I always had an active regret that there was not some court higher than the House of Lords. I do beg of your Lordships to see in this matter that we really should be content with the position as it is. I think the effect of this Amendment, with all these multiple appeals, would be really quite disastrous to the Bill.
There are one or two further matters. I do not think that there is much in the point that the Commissioner is not like a Judge, who can be removed only by an Address of both Houses of Parliament. I think everybody will agree we can all be proud of our County Court Judges of to-day—I think that they are doing a magnificent job of work. Theoretically, I can remove a County Court Judge. I have never done so, and so far as I know, it has never been done by any other Lord Chancellor. But I have the power. Is there anybody who will say that the County Court Judge is any less independent because theoretically the Lord Chancellor of the day can remove him? I do not believe it for a moment. A comparison has been made with the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. It is called an Appeal Tribunal. What is the procedure there? The Minister of Pensions decides. If a person is dissatisfied with the Minister's decision he can appeal to that tribunal. In certain circumstances an appeal can be made to a nominated Judge. You cannot go to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords. I say sincerely I am quite satisfied that the conclusion

795
to which I came when I drafted this Bill is right. I think that the deputations who came to me, and who felt so strongly about this were reasonable, and that my colleagues in the Coalition Government were right in introducing the Bill in this form. I am quite satisfied that, in order, supposedly, to achieve greater accuracy, to build up a machine with all these multiple appeals would be a very great disservice in carrying out the object of a Bill which is intended beyond everything else to be cheap, to be simple and to be expeditious, and, may I add, so that there may be no misapprehension this time, I do not think that means that it will be inaccurate.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has, of course, made his usual extremely cogent reply to an Amendment which he does not like. He gave us some interesting reminiscences of his own early days at the Bar and of the costs which had accumulated in that particular case. That may be a condemnation of our entire legal system and, if it be so, I have no doubt nobody will be more active and prompt in putting it right than the noble and learned Lord himself; but it does not seem to me to be by any means a complete answer to the Amendment which I have now put. He talks about deputations which he received from the trade unions. I should like to know whether it was put to the trade unions that there should be the same right of appeal right the way up through every court, or whether the proposal in this particular Amendment was ever put to the trade unions, and whether they ruled out any possibility of any point under this Bill being referred to the courts of law. Even if they did I am by no means convinced, whatever their view, that that is necessarily the last word on this subject.
He said also that the lawyers want it. It is quite true that those who have taken part in these discussions have been lawyers of varying degrees of eminence. It is possible that they did so because it is a somewhat technical matter in which those who are not lawyers might feel reluctant to intervene. I thought, however, that I made it very clear on my original Amendment that, in moving an Amendment of this kind, I was not doing it in the interest of the Bar or the legal profession;
796
I was doing it because I thought, as a matter of principle, that the courts ought to be allowed to express a view on a matter of this public importance. I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will accept that view. I am wondering what his answer is on one other point which I venture to make—I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, made it, too. What happens supposing the three Commissioners decide some point differently? Who decides between them as matters now stand? If it were convenient for the Lord Chancellor to indicate what would happen, that would help me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should imagine that what would happen is that you would summon a court of three Commissioners to decide.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Can the three Commissioners over-ride a decision of one Commissioner?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Lord says "Yes." I am bound to say that I can find nothing in the Bill which appears to give them any power of that kind. I understood this court of three Commissioners to be in no sense a court of appeal from one Commissioner, but merely a court on a similar level, to which, in the event of an important point of law arising, the matter could be referred ab initio. I have certainly never understood that if the Commissioners disagree amongst themselves sitting separately, they then can come and get a decision binding upon them all from this court of three. It would help me again if the noble and learned Lord could tell me if that is so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understood the noble Marquess to put this point: Suppose one Commissioner decided one thing and another Commissioner decided another, what would happen? I say that in those circumstances there are two precedents which can be followed. In those circumstances, the court of three would meet together, and I should imagine thereafter the point would be decided.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Meeting together—all three of them? I do not want to carry on the discussion, but

797
I want to make this quite clear. I do not want to embarrass the Government by putting forward this Amendment, but I do regard it as a matter of considerable principle. I wish I had some hope—and I think many of your Lordships share the view I put forward—that the Government would make at least some concession or give some hope of reconsideration in regard to this matter before the Third Reading stage is reached. The Lord Chancellor has been, if I may say so, unusually adamant on this point. I still hope we may have some indication from him that he is prepared to consider the matter further before the Third Reading stage. If he likes, I shall be prepared to put my Amendment in this way: that the matter should go no further than the Court of Appeal, that there should be a provision that, "except with the leave of the House of Lords," the decision of the Court of Appeal shall itself he final. That takes out yet one more step in this ascending ladder of which the Lord Chancellor has painted so gloomy a picture. If the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, would agree to consider the matter again before Third Reading, that would be some reassurance to myself and other noble Lords.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not entitled to speak again. I have made my point of view quite plain. I feel very strongly about this matter; so does this Government, and so did the last Government.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I have no right to speak again, but may I suggest to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that he should at least have put in the Bill something to justify his statement that there would be an appeal to the three Commissioners? That would very largely remove my difficulties. I have read Clause 42 of the Bill very carefully, and there is nothing to justify the statement that a court of three could decide as an Appellate Court.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 51:
Procedure, evidence, etc.
51.—(1) Regulations may provide—
(a) for prescribing the procedure to be followed and the form of any document required in connexion with the consideration and determination of claims and questions by the Minister, an insurance tribunal and
798
insurance officers or in connexion with the withdrawal of a claim;
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) of this section prescribing the procedure to be followed in cases before a local appeal tribunal or the Commissioner shall provide that any hearing shall be in public except in so far as the tribunal or Commissioner for special reasons otherwise directs.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert:
"and it is hereby declared that the power to prescribe procedure includes power to make provision as to the representation of one person, at any hearing of a case, by another person whether having professional qualifications or not."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is to meet a point suggested to me by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who asked me to be quite certain that my regulation-making power was wide enough. I think it is desirable to make the matter quite plain by these words, and I believe the noble Lord will agree with me that I have made the matter plain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 17, at end insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I do agree with the noble and learned Lord that the insertion of these words in the Amendment will make the matter quite plain.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61:
Inspectors.
61.—(1) For the purposes of this Act the Minister may appoint such inspectors as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine, and may pay to them such salaries or remuneration as may be so determined.
(4) If any person—

(a) wilfully delays or obstructs an inspector in the exercise of any power under this section; or

(b) fails to answer any question or to furnish any information or to produce any document or to sign any declaration when required so to do under this section; or

(c) conceals or attempts to conceal any person or prevents or attempts to prevent any person from appearing before or being examined by an inspector;

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds in the case

799
of a first offence under this subsection, and not exceeding fifty pounds in the case of a second or subsequent such offence:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (4) (b) to leave out "fails" and insert "refuses or neglects." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment on a point raised by my noble friend the Marquess of Reading. I think the words are a great improvement on the words in the Bill at the present time, and it is to carry out my promise to the noble Marquess that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 1, leave out ("fails") and insert ("refuses or neglects").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
Provisions limiting benefit payable in respect of any death.
1.—(1) Where two or more persons satisfy the conditions, in respect of the same death, for receipt of an allowance under Section twenty-one of this Act for any period, only one of those persons shall be entitled for that period to that allowance, and where two or more persons satisfy the conditons, in respect of the same death, for receipt of—

(a) a pension under Section twenty-three of this Act; or

(b) an allowance ruder Section twenty-four thereof;

only one of those persons shall be entitled to the pension or allowance, as the case may be.
5.—(1) The death benefit payable in respect of the death of any insured person by way of parents' gratuities shall not exceed seventy-eight pounds.
(2) The death benefit payable as aforesaid by way of relatives' gratuities shall not exceed fifty-two pounds, except where either—

(a) no person is entitled in respect of the deceased's death to a pension; or

(b) some person is entitled in respect thereof to a gratuity in lieu of a pension;

and shall not in any case exceed one hundred and four pounds.
6.—(1) A person shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as satisfying the conditions for the receipt of a pension under the said Section twenty-three notwithstanding that he is a child, if he may satisfy those conditions on ceasing to be a child.
(2) The provision of this Schedule limiting the number of persons entitled to a pension under the said Section twenty-three shall not preclude a person from becoming so entitled on ceasing to be a child by reason only of some other person having previously been so entitled.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of the last foregoing paragraph, any pension or gratuity under the said Section twenty-three to which a person becomes or may become entitled on ceasing to be a child shall be disregarded.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in paragraph 6 (3), to leave out "becomes or." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologize for rising at this stage to move a manuscript Amendment. I feel in some difficulty about the matter. It was quite rightly decided not to reprint the Bill on account of the few Amendments we made, but while I make no complaint about that decision the result is that the words which I propose should be left out do not appear in the printed Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, moved in Committee to insert after the word "person," in paragraph 6 (3), the words "becomes or," and that Amendment was agreed to. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, tried, as he usually does, to give us an explanation. I have since had a discussion with him and he has tried to convince me that "becomes" means something different from "may become." But still I am not convinced. When I look a few lines above, I see that in 6 (1)
"A person shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as satisfying the conditions for the receipt of a pension under the said Section twenty-three notwithstanding that he is a child, if he may satisfy those conditions on ceasing to be a child."
If we put in "becomes" here, we ought to put "when he satisfies or may satisfy" in 6 (1). I only raise this point now because I do not believe it makes any material difference whatever to this paragraph, which is only a directive one, after all, to the Ministry itself, and I think we might all of us look slightly absurd in another place if we send down this Amendment to their drafting without any greater expanation than that—I say this with all the good will in the world—which has been given to me at the moment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 50, leave out "becomes or."—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord opposite is certainly to be congratulated on the vigilance he has shown in this matter. In fairness to the draftsmen I should explain that the Amendment which was passed at the Committee stage was intended to cover

801
the rare but not impossible case of a child of a deceased workman who ceases to be a child after the man has died and before the case is finally decided. We feel that while the Amendment inserted at the Committee stage made assurance doubly sure, no one in fact would suffer if the noble Lord's present Amendment is carried, and in view of what he has said I am pleased on behalf of the Government to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the resolution of July 15), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE BOMB OUTRAGE IN JERUSALEM.
4.8 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I think your Lordships will pardon my interrupting our proceedings on the Orders of the Day at tins point, in order to acquaint the House with a statement that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has just made in another place, in answer to a Private Notice question on the subject of the bomb outrage at British Headquarters in Jerusalem. I will, if I may, read it to the House in the terms of the Prime Minister's statement, of which I have a copy here:
"Honourable Members will have learned with horror of the brutal and murderous crime committed yesterday in Jerusalem. Of all the outrages which have occurred in Palestine, and they have been many and horrible in the last few months, this is the worst. By this insane act of terrorism ninety-three innocent people have been killed or are missing in the ruins. The latest figures of casualties are forty-one dead, fifty-two missing and fifty-three injured. I have no further information at present beyond what is contained in the following official report received from Jerusalem:
'It appears that, after exploding a small bomb in the street, presumably as a diversionary measure—this did virtually no damage—a lorry drove up to the tradesmen's entrance of the King David Hotel and the occupants, after holding up the staff at pistol point, entered the kitchen premises carrying a number of milk cans. At some stage
802
of the proceedings, they shot and seriously wounded a British soldier who attempted to interfere with them. All available information so far is to the effect that they were Jews. Somewhere in the basement of the hotel they planted bombs which went off shortly afterwards. They appear to have made good their escape.'
"Every effort is being made to identify and arrest the perpetrators of this outrage. The work of rescue in the debris, which was immediately organized, still continues. The next of kin of casualties are being notified by telegram as soon as accurate information is available. Your Lordships will wish to express your profound sympathy with the relatives of the killed and with those injured in this dastardly outrage. The High Commissioner, Sir Alan Cunningham, is returning to Palestine by air. As the House knows, His Majesty's Government are at this moment in consultation with the Government of the United States with a view to arriving at proposals for a just settlement of the Palestine problem, which will be placed before representatives of both the Arabs and the Jews. His Majesty's Government have stated, and state again, that they will not be diverted by acts of violence from their search for a just and final solution of this problem."
4.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am quite sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House, whatever may be their views as to the future of Palestine, will wish to reprobate this revolting and senseless crime and to support the Government to the full in maintaining that high level of order and justice which is in the best interests of the people of Palestine themselves. Terrorism is a futile and a wicked weapon; it solves nothing and can only recoil on the heads of those who use it. Let us by all means, as the Leader of the House has said, not be diverted from the task of finding a just and durable solution of the Palestine problem, but it is surely equally the duty of his Majesty's Government and of the leaders of the various Parties in Palestine to see that terrorism is utterly stamped out. May I finally join the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, in expressing, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, our profound sympathy with the relatives of the victims of this deplorable outrage?
4.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I wish to express my regret at the fact that my noble friend Lord Samuel cannot be in his place this afternoon, as he would have wished to be, owing to a long standing public engagement. We who sit on these Benches join in the strongest measure of reprobation of the terrible outrage which has occurred, and extend our sympathy to the innocent victims and to their families. It would be, I think, inappropriate to go beyond this particular phase of the question and to enter upon a discussion of the Palestine question proper, as I understand we are to have a debate on it next week. I would, however, like to say that I earnestly trust, however abominable these outrages may be, that they will not give rise to an increase of anti-Semitism in this country. That would be really a tragic event and would almost lead to a triumph of the ideas of Hitler. I feel that that can be avoided by the exercise of tolerance and common sense, both of which qualities the British people happily possess to a marked degree.
4.15 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I wish to re-echo the sentiments of sympathy expressed by my noble friend and by the two other noble Lords with the relatives of the victims of this appalling outrage, but I think it would not be out of place if sympathy were also extended to Dr. Weizmann, the President of the Zionist organization, and others who have been, in good times and ill times, friends of this country and who are trying to find an equitable solution. Their position is made almost impossible, and I think they also are deserving of the sympathy of all members of your Lordships' House.
4.16 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think perhaps your Lordships will allow me, particularly in the absence of my noble friend Viscount Samuel, to say one personal word, and it must be personal, although I am entitled to express the hope that what I say has the assent of the Jewish community at large in this country. I only desire at this stage to express, as strongly as I can, my condemnation of an outrage as brutal as it was deliberate and as futile as it was dastardly. I should like to add also an expression of sympathy with those who have been injured and with the relatives
804
of those who have been killed. Perhaps I may make one plea. People are very apt to generalize, and for some reason perhaps particularly apt to generalize about Jews. I would ask your Lordships' House and the people of this country, in spite of the provocation of this outrage, to take thought before they indulge in any universal condemnation, and to exercise such discrimination as may be possible to them at such a moment, remembering that however deeply the great majority, if not all of us, may abhor these outrages, we are powerless to influence the perpetrators of them. I hope that, not because but in spite of what has happened, His Majesty's Government will proceed urgently to the production of a policy which may commend itself to the world in general as fair to the Arabs, just to the Jews and worthy of Great Britain.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House again to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 23:
Reservation of certain air services to the three corporations and their associates.
(3) Nothing in this section shall restrict the right of any person—

(a) to carry passengers for the sole purpose of instructing them in flying or the duties of aircrews; or.

(b) to carry passengers or goods for the sole purpose of providing an air ambulance or rescue service.

4.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved in subsection (3) after "person—" to insert:
"(a) to carry a passenger and his baggage in the execution of any contract under which the passenger is entitled to be carried upon three or more journeys with intermediate intervals, to be provided with such food and lodging as he may reasonably require during any such interval, and to arrive, at the end of the last of those journeys, at the place from which he departed on the first journey.
In estimating the reasonable requirements of any person for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection, no account shall be taken of any facilities available to him otherwise than under the contract in question."
The noble Viscount said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper and which is designed to place beyond doubt and to give effect to a matter which was raised on the Second Reading—namely, to insure that round trips organized by travel agencies can be made the subject of charter, and that the Corporations or other operators may engage in them. The value of these charter services to the public, is, I think, generally realized, and on the Second Reading the Minister himself emphasized his desire to encourage them. He said:
"Outside the scheduled air services there will be great scope for charter flying and charter work will be free for all. Incidentally, it will enable interesting comparisons to be made between services run by public corporations and services run by private enterprise. Legitimate and bona-fide charter operators will be encouraged—not merely permitted.… "
He went on to say, and I draw your Lordships' attention particularly to these words:
"The Corporations will be able to charter, because there may be a demand for charters outside the powers of charter firms to supply; but the main function of the Corporations is scheduled services."
I have always held, unlike some of my friends, that it is a reasonable thing that these Corporations should be entitled to engage in private work. I gave my reasons for that on the Second Reading, but I fully agree with the Minister that the main job of these Corporations is to run their regular lines, and they are certainly going to have their work cut out to do that.
One of the commonest forms of charter which we are likely to see is a travel agency chartering an aeroplane for a round tour. In my Amendment I do not deal in any way with a flight from one place to another. I am quite aware that a very arguable case may be made out for saying that if a travel agency arranges that it shall put up some of its clients, say, at Zurich or Lausanne or on the Riviera, it might be perfectly reasonable for it to run a regular chartered 'plane from England to a particular point in a foreign country, but I agree that a service of that kind might be run in competition with the ordinary regular scheduled international service which will be run under international agreement by a Corporation from England to the Riviera or to Switzerland. I am not concerned here to argue whether such competition would be good or not. Your Lordships will observe that that is not what is dealt with in this Amendment.
806
What is dealt with is solely what I may call the round tour.
It is well known to your. Lordships how these tours have been rim in the past. The travel agencies, such as the Workers' Travel Association or the Polytechnic, did admirable service in times before the war in arranging these cheap but comfortable and interesting trips of which people of this country have been most anxious to take advantage. The trip takes ten days or a fortnight and complete arrangements are made. You take an all-in ticket and you start from maybe somewhere in Lancashire. Before the advent of the aeroplane you were carried by train, then by boat, then by train again, then sometimes by motor car and sometimes by a lake steamer. Sometimes two days were spent in one place and sometimes only one day. There was an all-in charge made and it was quite a moderate sum for the railway, motor coach and boat fares and board and lodging, and maybe for a few extra trips thrown in to see the country or objects of interest. That is the kind of thing which is certainly going to happen again. The Foreign Secretary—I am delighted to see—has again returned to the charge, and he hopes in the near future to make travel easy for everybody.
How important it is that this sort of trips should be undertaken. I am quite certain that in the future many of these trips will be undertaken by air. It so happens that already one great firm, the Bristol Company, has designed an aircraft—I dare say others will follow suit—admirably suited for the purpose, bearing the suitable name of "The Wayfarer." It is not very fast, but it is cheap to operate. Surely there can be no doubt that a round trip such as I have described in which the all-round fare is paid for stopping at a number of different localities on the route is, in common language and in common sense, not a scheduled international service but a round trip. Where the company charters, an aeroplane—as the Workers' Travel Association or the Polytechnic will charter an aircraft to carry their clients round—obviously in common sense that is a charter service.
Now the Minister said on the Second Reading, "Of course I agree that is a charter service." He could not deny it. An aeroplane is chartered, which is exactly what a charter service means. The distinction between a charter service and -a regular international service is exactly as

807
it is in shipping. If you have a liner which is operated by a liner company and runs from Southampton to New York, that obviously is a regular service. If, on the other hand, you want to carry some freights from London to Rio de Janeiro and you charter a steamer and fill it up with the freights you want to carry, that is a charter. That has always been the simple distinction. The Minister said, "Well, of course it is a charter. If it does not happen too often then the ordinary charter company will be able to engage in it. But if it becomes at all regular, then the charter company must not engage in it, and it must be reserved for a Corporation."
Well, I thought we were going to encourage this form of charter service. The Minister said he wanted to encourage it and, indeed, he said he wanted the charter operator to do the bulk of the business and to bring in his own corporations in those cases where the charter company could not cater for the service. Of course there will be a certain amount of regularity. The Workers' Travel Association and the Polytechnic cannot just suddenly wake up one morning and say, "I think it would be rather fun to make up a party to do a trip round the North of Italy next week." That is not the way that planning—if I may use the expression—is done. Of course these people have to prepare their arrangements so that they can say—particularly as, now we are going to have staggered holidays—that they are going to run a trip round North Italy stopping at certain places one week, and a trip round Scandinavia another week, and possibly one to North Africa another week. Of course, they will have to be able to get out their notices to enable their clients, who are almost members of these organizations, to say when they want to travel. They can then make out their shipping load of people.
We all want to see this done. This extraordinary distinction is made by the Minister—and I do hope he is not going to stick to it—that if this is done with any sort of regularity then it has to be done by the Corporation; but if it is done only now and again it may be done by an outside charter company. Surely the distinction really is as between the regular liner service—as I may call it—
808
the through train from point to point, and the chartered aeroplane which carries its load of people round. This is the distinction which has always been drawn in international negotiations and in international conventions. The scheduled international air services, which were debated so much at Chicago and which, indeed, formed the subject of the International Convention of course have nothing whatever to do with these round charter services starting in one country, making a round tour and coming back to the country from which they started, not depositing or picking up people en route.
What we were discussing at the Chicago Convention were those regular international services which exercise what we have called the Third and Fourth Freedoms—and the Fifth Freedom, if a Fifth Freedom is permitted. They were the regular services passing between one country and another, between London and Paris, between London and New York, taking passengers, we will say, from London to Paris, depositing them in Paris and taking up another lot in Paris and bringing them back to London. It may be, if the voyage is a long voyage, and the Fifth Freedom is provided, that further travellers will be picked up en route. That, of course, is what was meant by these international air services. Not only is that obvious—indeed, it is equally obvious in every agreement which the Minister himself has made—but the Chicago Convention went on to provide that all other air operations, except those through services which passed from country to country in the exercise of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Freedoms, shall be free to all the world. If your Lordships have before you the Chicago Convention, you will see that Chapter II, Article 5, provides
"Each contracting State agrees that all aircraft of the other contracting States, being aircraft not engaged in scheduled international air services"—
that is ordinary liner services—
"shall have the right, subject to the observance of the terms of this Convention, to make flights into or in transit non-stop across its territory, and to make stops for non-traffic purposes without the necessity of obtaining prior permission, and subject to the right of the State flown over to require landing. Each contracting State nevertheless reserves the right, for reasons of safety of flight, to require aircraft desiring to proceed over regions which are inaccessible or without

809
adequate air navigational facilities to follow prescribed routes, or to obtain special permission for such flights.
Such aircraft, if engaged in the carriage of passengers, cargo, or mail, for remuneration or hire, on other than scheduled international air services, shall also, subject to the provisions of Article 7, have the privilege of taking or discharging passengers, cargo, or mail, subject to the right of any State where such embarkation or discharge takes place to impose such regulations, conditions or limitations as it may consider desirable."
It went further than the services with which I am dealing in my Amendment, because there is no question here of picking up passengers or mail in the country of destination. This Amendment, in terms—and I am very grateful for the help which I have received in drafting it—applies exclusively to the voyage of an aeroplane chartered and starting off with a full load from England, stopping at a number of places en route and, eventually, landing those people in the place from which it started. That is entirely in accord with the International Agreement, and people are already operating on those lines. I may observe that if we did not give these rights and exercise these facilities in our own country for the benefit of our own people, companies would establish themselves in foreign countries, just as in the radio business companies in the past established themselves in Normandy and Luxembourg. Already, I am informed, there are foreign companies established who are saying: "This charter business is obviously free under the Chicago Convention, and we will come in and fly planes for you on charter."
If there were not proper British services flying, our travellers would have to take advantage of such services. That would be a strange commentary (would it not?) on the great export drive which we are all trying our very best to help forward. This air travel can be a wonderful invisible export. It would indeed be unfortunate if, by a pedantic prejudice in favour of these Corporations, we merely played into the hands of foreign charter companies. And, of course, the Minister in the agreements which he has made, has entirely followed the Chicago principle. I will not trouble your Lordships to go through a number of these agreements, but if you lock at any of them you will see that the scheduled services are nothing whatever to do with the round charter trips. You will find them laid down in
810
the annexe to each of the agreements—services running to and from London and Paris, Lille, Basle and so on; services running across a variety of territories.
I may also observe, in passing, that I have shown, I think, that I can really speak with some authority on this matter. After all, I had to go through the Chicago negotiations. I know what the agreement was intended to mean, and what it did mean. I had very able lawyers with me to help me with their advice—and very valuable indeed did their advice prove. But even supposing there was something in this point of international law and that some permission was required to run such a service, which would be quite in accordance with the Chicago Convention, that would be no reason for denying the right to a charter company, even where the Minister has acquired the right to operate a scheduled service upon a reciprocal basis—that is, a service between this country and another country. Under every agreement, there is reserved to the Minister an absolute right to allocate the British share to any company he pleases. He can hand it over to one company, or to twenty companies. That is the common form of all the agreements.
I thought it right to mention this, because I understood that some question was going to be raised as to whether this was properly covered at Chicago. But even if it had not ban, there could be no possible reason or excuse for denying to the ordinary charter companies the right to run services of this kind, if that is fair to them and in the public interest. Surely it is fair and reasonable that we should want to encourage these kinds of services, and this kind of travel. The Minister's Corporations will themselves be entitled to tender for this traffic, though he says that it is not their primary object and that they ought to be doing their own job first. But surely the charter companies also ought to be able to tender. Let the man who can give the best service get the contract. That surely is fair and reasonable. Observe what would happen if you denied that right to the ordinary charter companies. The Minister stated that the primary job of these Corporations—I want to quote his words because I think they are so important—is this. He said:
"Their main function is the scheduled services, but they ought to be able to charter

811
because there may be a demand for charters outside the powers of the charter firms to supply."
Obviously what is in his mind is that ordinarily charter services will be operated by charter companies, but if there is a great demand for travel which will absorb all the available aircraft of these companies then the Corporations, if they have spare aircraft, will be able to share this business. If this were confined to the Corporations, observe what would happen. Not only would it be extraordinarily unfair to the charter companies but it would be entirely at variance with the Minister's statement to them, that he intended not only to permit them to carry on their work but he was anxious that they should succeed. Surely he is not coming to the House to-day to say: "When I said that, I meant that you can take the difficult part of the business. You can take a few 'chancy' contracts, but when there is any good business to be done you will be cut out. I am going to keep that for my Corporations." I am sure he will not take away with one hand what he gave with the other on the Second Reading of this Bill.
Apart from the great unfairness of such a proposal to the charter operator and to the British aircraft industry—for they are interested in this as well—the more of this type of business there is, the more British aircraft we shall use. That is a matter on which I know this Government are keen. And we on this side of the House share their anxiety that they shall succeed. But let us look at the effect of the Government's proposal on the travelling public. It is the public for whom we are the trustees, and whom we are here to serve. What would happen if these services were forbidden to charter companies? Travel and tourist agencies would be able to take their customers on important journeys only if the Corporations had aircraft to spare and were willing to hire them. That would be the most grave disservice to the travelling public and it would be most unfair to the travelling public and to the travel agencies which cater for them. This Amendment is designed solely to meet the round tour, the most normal form of charter service in which the travel agencies engage. Such a service would not compete in the least with the regular lines operated, whether by this country or by any other. It is the complete round tour by people who
812
want to have a fortnight's holiday travelling around the Continent with which this Amendment seeks to deal.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 27, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Swinton.)
4.43 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope that my noble friend Lord Winster will not give way one inch on this Amendment. It attempts to drive a coach and four, in fact a Constellation, through the Bill. Before I explain the objections to it may I ask, if the Amendment is going forward, that the word "luggage" should be, substituted for "baggage," which has two meanings? The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, began yesterday with an Amendment on the Paper, which I remember particularly, to exempt travel or tourist agencies from the prohibitions of this Bill. Apparently he thought better of that. That was too obvious. Any body wishing to start an air-line, one of the great shipping or railway companies, or a finance company associated with them, had only to call itself a travel agency and it would have been able to do what it liked.
The pre-requisites of this new Amendment are that the agency must carry a passenger and his luggage, and must provide him with food and lodging. Every air-line always does that. That has been the case all the time that I have been flying on commercial airlines, which is now a matter of a quarter of a century. Even the old Imperial Airways provided food and accommodation, although sometimes of a primitive kind. And then—and this is the most extraordinary suggestion—the agency would be all right if it brought the passenger and his luggage back to the place from which he started. Of course the passenger will be brought back. Everyone wants eventually to come back to the place from which he started. This Amendment does not say in how many months or years he must come back. If it were five years the agency would still be within this Amendment. The tour mentioned might be a tour lasting twelve months. In the old days before the late war some of the shipping companies used to run twelve-months' round-the-world sea tours. Under this Amendment they might run a twelve-months' air tour, or something like it.

813
By pretending that they were a travel agency, perhaps an agent of Cook's or the American Express Company, or one of the other great concerns, such an agency, if this Amendment were passed, would be able to eat into the "cream" and the most paying and profitable part of the business of the Corporations at the most profitable period of the year. It is nothing more or less than a piece of effrontery to make this suggestion. Both Houses of Parliament have decided that of three possible ways of running British airlines, that of the State monopoly shall be adopted. The other two ways are a private monopoly, favoured by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the free-for-all, for which there is a good deal to be said. Parliament has decided that there shall be a State monopoly, and now we see attempt after attempt to get round this decision. I should like to ask if my noble friend Lord Winster can understand what is meant by the last four lines:
"In estimating the reasonable requirements of any person for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection, no account shall be taken of any facilities available to him otherwise than under the contract in question."
Does that mean air facilities or railway facilities? Those of your Lordships who live at a great distance from this House can have your fares paid if you can find an aeroplane to bring you here on your Parliamentary duties. But you can also come here by train; and there are other ways of travel besides train and air. The other extraordinary feature of this curious Amendment is this provision of three or more journeys. What is the object of that? Why should that enable a company to qualify for running a service? I repeat that the whole suggestion—I am sorry to use these words—is a blatant attempt to get through the decision of Parliament as embodied in this Bill.
With regard to the arguments about the round tour, I may say that in a few weeks I propose to start a tour by a number of different airlines. I propose to fly to New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Mexico and Buenos Aires, and so as not to be caught in the United States on the way back I propose to return by the southern route, by Lagos and Portugal, or whatever the route is now, to the same aerodrome presumably from which I started. That is a round tour, and it will be run by one of the great trunk lines operating across the Atlantic, and also by
814
trunk lines flying internally in America. Under the terms of the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, interested parties could make an arrangement with Cook's and have regular tours in the holiday season, charging good and substantial fares and skimming the cream of the passenger traffic. So long as the company carried the luggage or baggage of the passenger, and provided food and lodging for him, they would come within the legality of the Bill. I hope my noble friend the Minister will not listen to the special pleading of the noble Viscount or to the seductive arguments that he put before us.
4.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: The noble Lord opposite has told us about a situation which is now, I believe, in actual being, and of which he has taken full advantage himself. I would suggest that it might be impossible for those who wish to travel quickly to be able to get an aircraft in order to do so, unless there were some form of charter company which could operate a round tour.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is all right.
LORD WALERAN: My noble friend Lord Strabolgi may be very lucky in the matter of priority.
LORD STRABOLGI: I have no priority.
LORD WALERAN: Even as an R.A.F. officer with Transport Command I found it was extremely difficult to get priority even in China, where I was stationed. There may be times when the ordinary person wants to get somewhere fairly quickly, and he may want to charter a plane for a round tour. He cannot afford to be delayed at Buenos Aires or Washington. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, may be able to afford the money and the time but there are many people who cannot do that.
LORD STRABOLGI: I had no priority.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, will listen to the noble Viscount's plea in this matter. As some of your Lordships may recall, I raised this question in an earlier debate. At that time the noble Lord spoke very enthusiastically, as the noble Viscount has recalled of the need for encouraging charter services. I hope he

815
will turn that enthusiasm into reality by agreeing to the noble Viscount's suggestion.
LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, may I be permitted to support the noble Viscount's Amendment from the point of view of the British aircraft industry? As I have had considerable experience in running an airline, I think I know something about what is required. The aeroplane which is required for the Corporations and for running scheduled airlines is a very different type from that required for a charter service. In the one case, most likely, you want the biggest possible machines, or at any rate the fastest possible machine and machines that are not necessarily so economic to run as would be required for charter services. In a charter service you do not require enormous speed nor enormous size in machines, because, as the noble Viscount said, you may want to land at ten, fifteen or twenty different places where aerodrome accommodation may not be of the very best. Therefore, if you have a smaller and lighter machine, it will do the job better than the so-called airliner That being so, if you allow charter services to operate, that will inevitably cause a big demand for aircraft of the type that is most useful for that branch of work. We want as many orders as we can get for the aircraft industry. If the demand for the different types is widened the industry will be helped and you will get more aircraft produced.
4.55 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): In the time at my disposal I have gone very thoroughly into the matter raised by the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Viscount. I have done that in a sincere endeavour to find some means of meeting the point which is enshrined in the Amendment. But in the end, after many consultations and after trying many alternative forms of drafting, I have been forced to the conclusion that to concede this Amendment would strike at the roots of a fundamental principle of the Bill, namely, that scheduled air services are reserved to the three Corporations. Civil aviation has many ramifications, as no one knows better than the noble Viscount, and I have all along considered not only what a particular proposal put before me involves in itself but what consequences
816
would follow, and what else might become legally possible if the proposal, possibly attractive in itself, were accepted.
I endorse what I have said in previous speeches on that subject about charter operators. I say now I am quite sure that private operators as a body will be a bona-fide body of men. But there will also possibly be a few astute men looking for a loophole in the law, and, for this reason, it is necessary to look very closely indeed at anything which impinges upon the reservation of the scheduled air services to the three Corporations. The question put is this: If a tourist agency advertises regular and inclusive tours, covering hotel expenses, sightseeing fees, and so on, would such tours constitute legitimate charter work if operated by the tourist agency itself or by a charter operator on behalf of the agency? A tourist agency might advertise regular weekly tours of such a nature in June, July and August, in the holiday season. Those tours would not be what would be called spasmodic trips. I have come to the conclusion that such regular weekly tours would constitute a systematic service whether the tourist agency ran them or chartered a private operator to do so.
Tours by air undertaken spasmodically would not constitute a systematic service. There can be no objection to the ad hoc excursion as distinct from the regular tour. But such tours, if constituting a series of journeys taking place week by week, even if they are round tours, would infringe Clause 23. The proper course for tourist agencies wishing to run such tours would be to approach the Corporations. The Corporations might not wish to undertake the work direct. They might wish, when seasonal traffic is high, to charter private operators for the work. A service is at present operating to Switzerland on such an agency basis. That is the position. To alter it as this Amendment proposes, would, as I say, tear a hole in the Bill. The Amendment would in its present form open the door to the operation of regular services under the guise of tours.
In addition to the effect of the Amendment on the Bill itself, I also have to consider its effects in the international sphere. Transit rights would probably be covered by the Second Freedom, but there remain other serious objections. As regards what the noble Viscount said on the subject in Chicago, in any event the privilege of two freedoms does not help the charter operators

817
when tourists disembark and "stop over." On re-embarkation they count as having embarked in the territory in which they disembark, and traffic rights are required to cover the position. If I recall rightly—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—my understanding is that at Chicago the noble Viscount himself strongly opposed the national lever as a test of traffic embarkation and fought very stubbornly and very stoutly for the principle of the act of embarkation irrespective of nationality.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Will the noble Lord—
LORD WINSTER: Perhaps I might finish.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I thought the noble Lord asked me to answer him.
LORD WINSTER: Well, perhaps if I may be allowed to complete—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly if you do not want me to—
LORD WINSTER: I was dealing with what I understood the noble Viscount to have stood for at Chicago.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was going to tell you how wrong you are.
LORD WINSTER: If I may be allowed to complete what I had to say on that subject, which, of course—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the noble Lord wishes to misrepresent me, I do not wish to intervene.
LORD WINSTER: I think there is no need to make this challenge about misrepresentation. I do not think this gets us anywhere. I am making a perfectly clear statement of what I understand was the position. I said what I understood the noble Viscount had contended for.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: You are completely wrong.
LORD WINSTER: I have said I will gladly give way, when I have completed this portion of my remarks, to the noble Viscount. So that I do not think any question of misrepresentation will possibly arise. But the material words in Article 5, which the noble Viscount quoted, on the rights of the charter operator to engage in traffic are subject to the right of
818
any State to impose such reservations, conditions or limitations as it may consider desirable.
So long as the demands of different countries vary in meeting the distinction between scheduled and chartered services, we shall be bound to impose the limitation which Article 5 allows. It has become plain to those of us who have to consider these matters, and to consider what has taken place since Chicago, that it will be necessary to reach international agreement to achieve uniformity of policy between countries as to the distinction to be drawn between the scheduled and charter services. That is all I have to say on the subject of Chicago, and now perhaps the noble Viscount will say what he desires to say.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The argument about nationals was entirely different from what the noble Lord said. The American contention was that on a scheduled service—that is a service going direct from America to England or direct from England to America—the American ought to be able to travel on an American plane, and if 80 per cent. Of the passengers were American, then America ought to have 80 per cent. Of the aircraft on the scheduled service, and we should have only 20 per cent. I am perfectly clear that the whole intention was that the provisions with regard to international scheduled services should be the ordinary services from here to America and from America to here. There was never any question that the ordinary charter run would not be open to either the national of America who wished to come here and make a tour or to a national of this country who wished to go to America and make a tour.
LORD WINSTER: I think the essential point that has emerged is the one which I have mentioned, that it is becoming increasingly clear that it will be necessary to arrive internationally at a definition of the distinction between scheduled and charter services. As that will have to be undertaken it would, in my opinion, be improper to pre-judge the results of international deliberations by making a statutory regulation of our own on that subject.
If I may continue on the subject of these obligations which arise in the international sphere, regular weekly tours, as I have said, would constitute systematic

819
service, and such services would undoubtedly complicate the obligation of our bilateral agreements which provide that by the sharing of capacities and frequencies we should be treating as legitimate charter a class of service regarded by the other party to the agreement as scheduled operations. The effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount would give rise to the possibility that charter operations of the nature contemplated by his Amendment would have to be counted as part of our allocation of services under a bilateral agreement. In this connexion may I point out that the United States, which is the home of free enterprise, regards as an infringement of the rights of the scheduled airlines operator the operation of air services which form part of a systematic pattern. In effect, the United States definition of a scheduled service is substantially the same as that which is included in Clause 23 of the Bill we are now considering.
I am also concerned about the possible effects on arrangements for international agreements in force among scheduled airline operators. There would be no obligation on the charter operator to conform with the rights recommended by the International Air Transport Association which has been set up for the purpose, amongst other purposes, of avoiding warfare among scheduled airline operators. In the result the operator carrying out services in accordance with the noble Viscount's Amendment would be in a position to undercut the fares of our own scheduled operators for comparable services, and also those of foreign scheduled operators to whom the right of systematic tours as part of a pattern of service is reserved. As noble Lords are aware, the recommendations of the International Air Transport Association will probably lead to a reconciliation of conflicting views on the appropriate fares, and the future of this body might well be prejudiced if charter operators were allowed to operate services on a regular basis at rates below those agreed—rates with which certain operators might be content but for their obligation to adhere to internationally agreed rates. Certainly there would be difficulties under our bilateral agreement with other countries, which provide for the sharing of capacity and frequencies. Charter operations permitted by the Amendment and becoming indistinguishable
820
from scheduled services would be regarded by the other country party to a bilateral agreement as part of our allocation of service.
I really do not wish to complain, but it is difficult to develop this argument with this conversation going on. I would be grateful to the noble Viscount if he would allow me to continue with my argument undisturbed.
We should then be placed in the difficult position of either having to designate the charter operator who does secure part of the Corporation's quota of a regular service, or of refusing to designate and making it impossible for the charter operator to conduct the service for which we have given legislative sanction. This is particularly important having regard to the United States, which would certainly regard it as an infringement of the rights of the operator, if there was systematic pattern. The operation of bilateral agreements will become quite impossible if different countries adopt different demands in this matter. This is a matter that will have to be considered by I.A.T.A. in the near future in order to secure uniformity of practice between America and ourselves. Taking Clause 23 as it now stands we are broadly in line. Our two countries could exercise a very powerful influence on I.A.T.A. in securing acceptance of their policies, which meet with order in the air. The introduction of a statutory exception would tend to prejudice the possibility to reach this goal. I again in that connexion assure the noble Viscount that most careful consideration has been given to this matter with a view to seeing if it were in any way possible to meet this point, but until international agreement on charter has been reached I feel these matters cannot be quite as tidy as we should all like. When international agreement has been reached, amending legislation to this Bill may become necessary. I cannot, however, agree that the public will be so entirely deprived of the services they want as the noble Viscount has indicated. There is a statutory obligation upon the three Corporations to provide such services as the public require, and if for some reason they are unable to provide those services, then the Bill gives them power to sub-contract. I hope the noble Viscount will recognize the real difficulties that are involved in meeting his Amendment and, in view of

821
those difficulties, that he will not press an Amendment which can only produce great complications in the international field.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I really do not think we can leave the matter quite as it stands after the speech of the Minister. It seems to me that in endeavouring to justify the rejection of this Amendment the Minister revealed a state of affairs which is most distressing for this country. He said that because of international reasons there will be virtually no charter work done in this country either by the Corporations or by ordinary charterers. The Minister took objection to the proposal of my noble friend on international grounds; he said it would create difficulties under our bilateral agreements and under our international agreements for fares. Those two objections, however, must apply equally to the Corporations if they are asked to carry out a considerable number of workers' tours in Europe. Therefore we reach the position that, because of our international agreements, the noble Lord rejects this Amendment, and as a consequence this country is going to enjoy no workers' tours in Europe at all, whether carried out by the Corporations or not. That is in fact the result of the Minister's statement.
It is true that he said the Corporations had a statutory obligation to provide the services demanded by the public. I do not think I misrepresent him when I say that he took refuge, as it were, in the argument that because of that fact the public's demand would be fulfilled. Supposing Frame's Tours or the Workers' Educational Association wish to organize tours around Europe every fortnight during eighteen weeks of fine weather, if we ever get eighteen weeks of fine weather. The Corporations will not have the aircraft and will not have the facilities to transport those passengers through ordinary bookings. We already know that the priority system has to exist to some extent for Government-sponsored passengers to Paris and other places in Europe. It is really completely fallacious for the Minister to say there are going to be adequate seats because of the statutory requirement on the Corporations to supply services. If he had said that because of our international agreements there was no prospect at all of having charter tours to any great extent,
822
that would have been a deplorable but at any rate a straightforward declaration of the situation as he has explained it today.
Then the Minister said that a regular weekly tour would become a scheduled service, but that spasmodic ad hoc tours would be allowed. I should very much like to know, and I think the House is entitled to know, when a spasmodic tour ceases and a systematic tour begins. I presume there is nothing illegal in the Workers' Educational Association, for instance, advertising weekly trips round Europe during a period of eighteen weeks. I presume the illegal act would take place if some charter company executed the requirements of the travel organization. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong in saying there is nothing illegal in advertising such tours. Let us assume that a tour is advertised and the Workers' Travel Association goes to charter firm A for the first week and to charter firm B for the second week. Those, I presume, would be ad hoc performances by firm A and firm B. Supposing on the third week the Association goes to firm A, on the fourth week to firm B, then has an interlude with the Corporation, and then goes to firm A for another couple of tours. At what stage does firm A perform the illegal act of carrying out a systematic tour? I think that we in this House, and those interested in the charter industry outside this House, are entitled to know from the Minister, first, whether we are really debarred from any great activities in special charter services because of our international agreements(and I know he will not repeat the argument that the ordinary seats will carry everybody, because that does not carry any weight); and secondly, when a spasmodic tour ceases and a regular tour begins. Until we have a clear definition of those particular points I do not see that we can judge the merits, if there are any, of the case put up by the Minister.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I ask one question of the Minister? Is there anything in this Bill which debars a business firm in this country from chartering a machine once a week or once a fortnight to take its representatives over to a branch of the business in some foreign country and to bring them back again?
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: The noble Lord, Lord Winster, referred to the similarity

823
between British charter companies and American charter companies. I believe I am right in saying that private individuals and private companies in America are permitted to apply for licences to operate scheduled services. That rather contradicts the noble Lord's remark. In America I believe those services are not left to Government sponsored companies, as appears will be the case here.
5.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I would like to make quite clear the position which we take up on this side of the House. We attach the greatest importance to the principle contained in this Amendment and we must press it to a Division if necessary. If the Minister has entered into an international agreement which prevents a particular kind of charter from operating, then everyone in this country must be bound by that agreement, whether it be a good one or a bad one, but his own Corporations must be bound by it as well as and in exactly the same way as the independent charterers. That surely is a perfectly simple issue. If an Amendment of this sort is to be moved at all, I understand that these words are those which are most apt for the purpose. The Minister will, I think, agree with that. I am perfectly content, however, to move the Amendment with these words at the beginning: "Subject to the provisions of any international agreement for the time being in force." That would mean that if an international agreement precluded charters of this kind, nobody could engage in those charters, but if an international agreement did not preclude charters of this kind, then anybody might engage in them, whether it was a Corporation or whether it was a private individual.
What would be quite intolerable, in the opinion of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, would be the proposition which the Minister advanced that the private charter company should not be entitled to do this work but that the Corporation should. He even advanced the extraordinary proposition that the Corporation, if it was unable to satisfy the requirements of the travel agency, should get some other charter company to do the work and take a rake-off in the process. That really is the most astounding proposition
824
I have ever heard advanced. I have heard members of the Socialist Party denounce capitalist cartels. There are things about cartels in regard to which I would certainly agree control is required, and I do not think we would differ too much on the nature of the control. But one of the gravest charges which was always made against the cartels was that there was a combine, a monopoly, and somebody in the monopoly got something for doing nothing. That was the charge. But that is exactly what the Minister is proposing in this case. He proposes that even though the Corporation cannot manage to undertake the work, they are to have a monopoly of this kind of work. They may go and find some private company and say to them, "You go and do the job, and we will take a commission on the proceeds." That would be quite intolerable.
I put this proposition quite fairly to the Minister, on behalf of all those for whom I speak. If he is prepared to agree that in so far as chartering of this kind is lawful under an international agreement it may be undertaken by the Corporation or by anybody else, then I am prepared to move the Amendment with suitable words in it—"Subject to any international agreement for the time being in force." If the Minister says that he would like more time to consider the best wording to give effect to such a purpose, then we would not press the matter at the present time. But if the issue between us is the very simple one that in so far as this chartering—this round tour for which I have provided in this Amendment—is lawful by international agreement, it is to be reserved for the Corporations and the private company is to have nothing to do with it, then on that I am afraid we must divide.
5.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE: I had no intention of taking part in this debate, as I have lost my interest in civil aviation in much the same way as the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, has lost his. Both the noble Marquess and I, and a few of those who were devoted to civil aviation, started these debates during wartime. We had no idea that they were going to finish in this Bill. But often in life, after one has started a thing, it finishes entirely differently from how one intended. This is one of those examples, and here we are debating the setting up of what must be one of the greatest monopolies

825
in the history of the world—civil aviation. Here we are endeavouring, if we can to subtract a small sprat of private enterprise civil aviation from the tentacles of this great monster. It is a small thing, a small window through which the sun is going to shine or not, according to the wish of the Minister of Civil Aviation. That is all that is left for private enterprise, so far as we can foresee, in the future in civil aviation.
I would suggest to my noble friend the Minister that he might be kind to this small effort, and give to those spirits who are still left and who are brave enough to stick to their convictions, some chance of justifying their belief in civil aviation. There have been a great number in this country who have been pioneers. This gives them perhaps some slight chance of carrying on their activities. I would suggest that the noble Lord should not take a complete monopoly of chartering as well as of the regular services of civil aviation, but that he should enable these people to come forward and start some services of their own. He should not, through legislation, make it impossible for anybody to try to set up some kind of an organization—because that is what he is doing. It will become quite impossible for anybody, in any circumstances, to set up such an organization. It requires some money and it requires some effort, and who on earth is going to supply money or effort in the circumstances created by this Bill? Nobody will, because sooner or later, no doubt, as matters stand at present, the tentacles will close upon them and they will be extinguished without any compensation of any kind whatsoever. Those who have already started are going to be extinguished without compensation, and those who dare in future to start on this chartering, will also be extinguished without compensation, once the tentacles start to close upon them. That is an impossible position.
Of course, I realize that the Minister wants to extinguish all aspects of private enterprise from civil aviation. I realize it is the only way in which this monopoly can have any chance of becoming a success, because if there were the slightest sign of private competition in any direction whatever and it was possible to notice the difference between the two, very shortly the example of the monopoly would be seen to the worst possible advantage. Therefore, in the same way as with
826
the B.B.C., the only hope is that it shall be a complete and absolute monopoly. If any counter-organization were allowed by law to operate, nobody would listen to the B.B.C. at all after a short time. In the same way in civil aviation, if there is the slightest bit of private enterprise allowed, it will be a serious danger to the monopoly which the noble Lord is setting up. Nevertheless, I suggest he should take that chance, soften his heart and give these people a chance, so that at some date in the future we shall perhaps have some elementary organization left which has some enterprise behind it and which can one day take the place of the noble Lord's monopoly.
LORD WINSTER: Before replying to the points raised I would just like to answer one question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. If such a service as the noble Viscount mentioned is not thrown open by the firm to the public, then it will be quite a legitimate service. The, noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, made the point that international agreements would debar us from charter work. My statement was that the Amendment as drafted left the door open to scheduled services being run by private operators, and if the scheduled services included tours it is that which would give rise to international complications, and not the genuine charter services. Several noble Lords who have spoken have started off with the axiom that regular tours are charter services, but I could not accept the basis on which the noble Lords' Amendments and arguments are based. As regards the other question which the noble Lord put to me, as to when a spasmodic journey becomes a regular service. I am reminded of the old mathematical trap: When does a large heap of stones become a smaller heap of stones? The answer is of course: By the removal of one stone. The noble Lord may be aware of that trap. His question rather reminded me of it. In fact, I thought that the arguments which he put forward in that part of his speech did really show, perhaps better than I did in my speech, how easy it is to drive a coach and four through this Bill once you begin to set a thoroughly ingenious mind to work upon it.
I listened with great attention to what the noble Viscount said as regards a suggested alteration in the form of his

827
Amendment. Answering him without delay, I should say that the proposed qualification obviously would not afford protection, as indeed it does not seem to me to deal with the problem that we cannot anticipate international agreement on the distinction between scheduled services and chartered services. Nor does it touch the threat to the machinery which I also mentioned in my first remarks. All I can say now is that I will very willingly consider, in a most friendly spirit, that proposal and also all the arguments which have been brought forward in relation to it by various noble Lords. I will undertake to consider that proposal in a most friendly and sympathetic manner, and to weigh fully the different arguments. At the same time, I feel that it would not be right of me to hold out any hope of being able to alter conditions which I have outlined today. Further than that I cannot go. I must speak in good faith. But I will readily do as I have said.
5.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think we should all be very grateful to the Minister for going so far as he has done, although he has not gone nearly so far as we should have liked him to go. I cannot help feeling that his thinking—if I am not being impertinent in saying so—is still somewhat muddled about this subject of chartering. To my mind, a chartered service is a service where an aeroplane is chartered by somebody, in the same way as one takes a special train, or whatever other form of transport it may be. An ordinary scheduled service is a service which runs regularly in any case. Now suppose someone representing the Workers' Educational Association, or the Y.M.C.A. or some organization of that sort, were to go to a flying concern and say: "I should like to charter a plane to send some of my members on the 1st of January, the 1st of March and the 1st of June, on a round trip to the Continent and back." That, to my mind, would be charter service, and it does not make a ha'porth of difference whether those people charter from a Corporation or from some private company. It is still a charter service. All we are asking is that, if that is true, a charter service provided by a company and a charter service provided by a Corporation shall be treated on a basis of equality. We do not ask for any more than that.
828
There is another provision in the Bill about which we were rather worried, something about the provision of facilities as between the Corporations and charter companies. I think the Government are quite agreeable to exactly the same facilities being available to both. Now that is just what we are asking for here. We only want to get exactly the same facilities. So far as I can see, the only difference between us at present is what constitutes a charter company and what does not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been listening with great interest to what the noble Viscount has said, but the point is, I would suggest, is it a systematic charter? It is a systematic charter, surely, if you have a charter for every Monday of the year. It seems to me that if it is a systematic charter, it slides into the category of scheduled services.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is the difference between us, and I would not quite accept the noble and learned Lord's definition. He is obviously giving an advantage to a Corporation when they charter as against anybody else who charters. I do not think that that difficulty can be got over. It is true, of course, that at a certain point the charter system and the scheduled services come very close together. There is this differentiation—the Corporation will not be running the scheduled services for itself, they will be chartering to somebody else. And that is exactly what the private company would be doing. All we ask is that these two, the Corporations and the companies, should be treated on all fours. We are not attached to the wording of this Amendment. Actually, as I have mentioned, we had originally worded it differently, but we rather hoped that this wording would be more acceptable to the Minister. If he prefers another form, we should be very ready to consider it.
So far as international agreements are concerned, I should have thought that the proposal put forward by my noble friend Viscount Swinton would meet the Minister's point. On this question of wording, how would it be if one were to say—I am only drafting aloud—"Subject to any international agreements which are at present or may become in force." How would it be to introduce words of that kind so as to cover completely any possible contingency? I would have

829
thought that that would get over the point regarding international agreements. We do not want to divide upon this, or indeed to have a Division on anything, but we do feel strongly on this point. We shall always be ready to take this matter to the Minister at any time between now and the Report stage, to see whether we can get agreement. If we cannot do so, we shall probably press an Amendment at the Report stage, and probably we shall have to press it to a Division.
5.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: As the noble Viscount knows, the Minister and many other of my noble friends have given much thought to this matter, and they are sincere in their desire to try to meet the point. Bat for the reasons which my noble friend has explained, this Amendment cannot be accepted, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will not press it to a Division. However, it is for them to decide. We will continue to give most serious thought to this matter, but we cannot have the fundamentals of the Bill damaged. We will honestly and sincerely endeavour to see if anything can be devised which will be acceptable to the noble Lords opposite. We cannot make any firm promises at the moment, but if the noble Lord will accept that assurance, I think he will be serving the best interests we are desirous of promoting.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do want to add a word to make one thing clear. We are agreeable that the Corporations shall have the exclusive rights to all direct scheduled services. Really the scheduled service is the service, in every case, which goes along what I may call the direct route—London, Paris, Basle and so on. It is utterly different from these round charter services, stopping a night here and a night there. I dare wager that there is no single international agreement that is being entered into by any country with another country in which that kind of round charter has been scheduled as a scheduled service. It is only with that that we are concerned.
It is only in so far as the Corporation is entitled to do that that we say private individuals should also be entitled. We ask that there should be absolute equality of treatment, subject to any international agreement.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: We gratefully accept the Minister's offer to think this matter over and to have a talk with us before the Report stage on Thursday, and we do not press the Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved in subsection (3) after "person" to insert:
"(a) to carry passengers or goods by air for hire or reward except upon scheduled journeys, or ".
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is to put in a positive form the liberty of individuals to carry out charter work. I consider that the insertion of this Amendment would be, as it were, a declaration of liberty to actual and potential charter operators. On the Committee stage yesterday the noble Lord the Minister said this:
"…the question arises of assisting private operators to know exactly how wide that field is. The Government's view is that the way to proceed is by defining a regular scheduled journey, leaving by implication all other services open to private operators."
I submit that assent by a negative is not really enough, and that permission by default of prohibition is not sufficient in such a vital matter as that of defining the effect which this will have on charter operators. The Minister is saying that charter operation is permissible. He is saying it by implication; I am asking it by positive declaration. That is the substance of the Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 27, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD WINSTER: I regret that I feel unable to accept this Amendment because it seems to me inappropriate and unnecessary in a clause which deals solely with scheduled services to insert a provision—as the Amendment proposes—declaring that the clause does not restrict services other than scheduled services. In any attempt to define what the charter operator may do, it seems to me—and I have had to consider this many times in the drafting of this Bill—that you tend to restrict his powers. That must always be borne in mind. It is for that reason and not merely out of regard for the Corporations that it has been felt wisest to define what the scheduled operator may do, leaving the rest open to the private

831
operator. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord may agree not to press this Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am sorry that the noble Lord, the Minister, does not agree with me. I am not going to the stake for this, and I shall not press it. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23, as amended agreed to.
5.43 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved to insert the following new clause:
"Prevention of discrimination in regard to Charter services.
.In exercising his powers and discharging his functions under this Act the Minister shall not give or permit to be given any preference or discrimination in any respect in favour of any charter activities carried out by the Corporations as against any person or persons operating charter services of a similar character."
The noble Lord said: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal now with the Amendment to be moved later by the noble Lord, the Minister, after Clause 38. The Minister's Amendment covers broadly the point I am putting forward in my Amendment. Under the Minister's Amendment such items as landing charges, wireless, meteorology and traffic would all be administered fairly. My Amendment goes rather further, because I have endeavoured to put on the Minister a general obligation that he shall give no discrimination in all his activities—and in fact in his administration of this measure—beyond the boundaries of the aerodrome. There are certain provisions, certain activities, which the Minister will have to carry out, which are outside the scope of his Amendment; for instance, applications for permits for services to go overseas, the licensing of air crews and ground crews, the provision that aircraft in short supply shall be divided between a large number of applicants, some of whom are bound to go short. It is in matters of this sort that I ask that there shall be no undue preference exercised by the Minister against the outside companies when applications by them to enable them to carry out such charter activities as they may undertake are considered.
The second difference between my Amendment and that of the Minister is that I have endeavoured to put on the Minister an obligation not only not to give
832
any preference, but also not to permit any preference to be given. This means that in the exercise of his powers he could see that the Corporation does not offer to those to whom it is tendering for charter advantages with which outside charterers could not compete. For example, suppose on scheduled journeys a Corporation gave free meals and free accommodation at various places. It would be unfair for the Corporation to use for the benefit of passengers facilities which are gained through grants from the Exchequer, since the subsidies are intended for the running of regular routes and they could not be enjoyed in a similar manner by private charterers. If the noble Lord, the Minister, will meet me on the point that he should make no discrimination beyond the boundary of the aerodrome and will give a general undertaking not to make any discrimination I would not press for the obligation which I am endeavouring to put upon him not to permit any discrimination. I admit it would be very difficult for the Minister to say when he was permitting and when he was not permitting such discrimination, but I suggest that the noble Lord should either accept my Amendment, or that when we come to his proposed new clause he should amend it so that the obligation which he is willing to undertake, not to give any discrimination, should be extended to cover the discharge of all his functions under this Bill, and not only the provision of aerodrome facilities. If he will do that I shall be perfectly content. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 23, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD WINSTER: I do not think there is much between the noble Lord and myself on this subject, because broadly speaking it is not my intention to allow Corporations to have unfair advantage over charter companies. I do not intend that they should be able to use the resources of the State to the disadvantage of the charter operators. But in framing my new clause I had many things to consider, and I felt that in that new clause I had gone as far as I could. I felt that I should be getting on rather uncharted ground, and incurring a good deal of uncertainty, if I went further. Between now and the Report stage I will look at the clause again, and if I feel that I can go

833
further, without entering too much on uncharted ground, I will see what I can do to amend my own clause.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. May I suggest that the words "aerodrome facilities" should come out? That would completely meet my point. I am afraid that it is a little irregular to discuss a clause which we have not yet reached. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: I will do my best and inform the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25:
Amendments and adaptations of 2 and 3 Gem 6. c. 61.
25.—(1) The supplementary provisions contained in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to the British Overseas Airways Corporation in lieu of any corresponding provisions made by or under the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939; and accordingly any reference in the said Schedule to "the corporation" shall be construed as including a reference to the British Overseas Airways Corporation.
5.50 p.m.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) The said Act of 1939 shall have effect as if, after subsection (1) of Section fourteen thereof, there were inserted the following subsection:—
(1A) Without prejudice to their powers under the last preceding subsection, the Corporation may, with the consent of the Treasury, create and issue Airways Stock which is to be allotted as consideration for the acquisition of any other undertaking or of shares or stock in any other undertaking'."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is simply to bring the powers of B.O.A.C. in regard to the issue of stock into line with the powers of the two new Corporations. Under Clause. 8 (1) of the Bill, the new Corporations have power to create and issue stock, not only for the purpose of borrowing money but also for the purpose of allotting the stock as consideration for the acquisition of another undertaking or of shares or stock in another undertaking. The powers conferred upon B.O.A.C. by Section 14 of the Act of 1939 are some what narrower. Under that Act B.O.A.C. have no power to issue stock except as security for money borrowed or for the purpose of honouring the agreements
834
for the transfer of Imperial Airways and British Airways. It is desirable upon general grounds that the powers of B.O.A.C. in this matter should be on all fours with the powers conferred on the two new Corporations by the Bill, and it is for that object that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 34, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL moved to insert the following new clause:
"Acquisition of existing Air Transport Undertakings.
.If the Minister shill, within six months of this Act receiving the Royal Assent, receive notice from any person, company or undertaking which shall at any time between the first day of January, 1940, and the first day of November, 1945, have engaged in the carriage by air of passengers or goods for hire or reward upon scheduled journeys (as defined in subsection (2) of Section twenty-three) requiring him so to do, the Minister shall:

(a) Purchase the physical assets of such person, company or undertaking which still exist and which are or have been employed in connexion with the scheduled journeys aforesaid, including air fields and landing grounds, and buildings thereon, which have not been acquired compulsorily by the Minister under the provisions of Section twenty-six;

(b) Pay to such person, company or undertaking reasonable compensation in respect of the value of the goodwill attributable to the operation of the scheduled journeys aforesaid; and

(c) Pay to such person, company or undertaking the costs incurred by such person, company or undertaking in the organization or development of the scheduled journeys aforesaid.

The sums payable respectively under the preceding three sub-paragraphs shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Acts, 1889–1934."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. It aims to include a new clause in the Bill which will make it compulsory for the Minister to take over airlines existing as at January, 1940, to pay a fair value for all the assets used in connexion with their services, including any aerodromes or landing grounds made and maintained by them to carry on the services, and to make adequate compensation for goodwill

835
and the cost of development. In paragraph 25 of the White Paper on British Air Services, His Majesty's Government stated that payment would be made for physical assets taken over from airline operators operating on November 1, 1945, but that His Majesty's Government did not consider that there was any case for the payment of compensation for goodwill.
If I might take two examples, Western Air Lines and Allied Airways have been operating during the war. Western Air Lines was founded by that pioneer, Air Commodore Whitney Straight. Allied Airways, which operates in Scotland, has been carrying on regular scheduled services throughout the war, and has earned thereby additional valuable goodwill. It has built up the bulk of its services under considerable difficulty. I suggest that the large part of the services operated by Allied Airways will eventually be operated by British European Airways. Yet if the Bill is not amended, no company will be able to receive any compensation whatever for the pioneering which it has undertaken. Just at a time when these lines are becoming profitable, they are, by the action of His Majesty's Government, deprived of the opportunity either to recoup their pioneering losses or to carry on their enterpise in an effective and profitable manner. I beg leave to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 25 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sempill.)
LORD POLWARTH: I should like to support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Sempill. I should just like to ask why he has been so modest as to restrict the period covered to one commencing on January 1, 1940. Surely the event which caused the majority of these companies to close down operations was the outbreak of the war, and therefore I would suggest that the Amendment would be better if the date proposed for the commencement were September 1, 1939.
VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE: I should like to hear the Minister's views on this Amendment. It is, I think, an old established practice, and one which has been carried out by the present Government, to pay compensation for any business which is taken over. I should like to know under what ruling he is not compensating
836
those people who started these small services. After all, when Imperial Airways and British Airways were taken into B.O.A.C., they both were compensated. I see no reason why, just because these services are small and some of them insignificant they should be left out of the general scheme of compensation which always takes place in these circumstances. There may be a very good reason, but I should like to hear it. I think the Minister should justify this departure from a well-established procedure, and tell us why these ladies and gentlemen who started these air services (for whom I do not speak, for I really do not know any of them, though I met one once) should not be compensated. It is not a very good procedure which is being introduced at the present time, and I should like to know why the Minister is going to pass them over and give them no compensation.
LORD WINSTER: I shall be very happy to comply with both the noble Viscount's requests. He shall hear me justify my reasons for resisting the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Semphill. This Amendment, if accepted, would enable any person, who had operated a scheduled service at any time between January 1, 1940, and November 1, 1945, upon giving notice within six months after this Bill receives the Royal Assent, to require the Minister to buy his undertaking and pay therefor the value of all the physical assets which are, or have been, used in connexion with that scheduled service, including airfields or landing grounds; also reasonable compensation for good will and development costs. Those proposals, I think, relate in the main, as the noble Lord has said, to Allied Airways, but the principles of compensation included in the Amendment would be applicable also to all the other undertakings which have operated scheduled services during the war—for example, Railway Air Services, Limited, and its associates.
Undertakings other than Allied Airways are in negotiation with my Ministry for the sale of their undertakings as going concerns to British Europeon Airways Corporation when formed, on the basis of transactions between willing seller and willing buyer. The Government have always resisted the proposal that compensation should be paid for development

837
costs to operators of scheduled air services. The general proposition that the Minister should be bound to purchase an air transport undertaking at the request of its owner is therefore quite unacceptable. But apart from questions of valuation, the proposal would require the Minister to do two things: first of all, to purchase the assets used by a given person for the operation of scheduled services, and, secondly, to purchase airfields and landing grounds owned by that person and used in connexion with those scheduled services.
Paragraph 25 of the White Paper read as follows:
"Airline operators.—Payment will be made for physical assets taken over from the airlines operating on November 1, 1945, the date of announcement of Government policy.
His Majesty's Government do not consider that there is any case for payment of compensation for goodwill. No compensation will be allowed in respect of any airline operations which might be commenced thereafter and which would have to be discontinued as a result of legislation to give effect to the policy of the Government."
Negotiations are proceeding between the Ministry and three of the companies which were operating scheduled services in the United Kingdom, with a view to buying their undertakings on the basis which I have mentioned. It is my intention that a fair price shall be paid for the assets which will be taken over by British European Airways, when formed. But the successful conclusion of these negotiations will, of course, depend on agreement on a reasonable price, which, in default of agreement, I propose shall be fixed by arbitration.
The compulsory acquisition of air transport undertakings is included in this Bill, and the Government do not propose to accept an insertion in the Bill of a provision requiring the Minister to buy any such undertaking. As regards the airfields and landing grounds, I have power to acquire aerodromes by agreement or compulsorily, the basis of compensation being in accordance with the existing law governing the acquisition of land by Government Departments. It would, in my opinion, be unreasonable to require the Minister to buy up airfields and landing grounds which he did not want merely because an operator had used them during the war for scheduled services. It is for those reasons, which
838
I hope will commend themselves to your Lordships, that I feel unable to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE: I agree with the Minister that he should not be forced to take over airfields and landing grounds which he does not want. At the same time, by this Bill those services are by law forced to discontinue. It seems to me in those circumstances that he is bound to take them over. If they were allowed to continue it would be an entirely different state of affairs. They are, however, forced to stop by law, and by law they are not being compensated for so stopping. Therefore the question of the Minister taking them over does not arise. It is simply a question of the law preventing them from carrying out their lawful purposes.
LORD WINSTER: That is fulfilling the policy which was clearly announced in the White Paper which was issued by the Government.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: With regard to compensation for aerodromes, I think the Minister said the compensation was to be the usual basis for the compulsory acquisition of land, namely, 1939 value. Aerodrome land is not ordinary land; it has been improved, and a great deal of work has been done on it in order to put it in a proper condition to be an aerodrome. Will nothing be given for any improvement that has been made on that ordinary land, and will that ordinary land be compensated for only on a 1939 value? It is generally accepted that all land has gone up certainly 50 or 60per cent., and we know of some cases where it has gone up by as much as 100 per cent. I think a great deal depends on what the Minister replies to that as to whether we feel proper compensation is going to be paid.
LORD WINSTER: As I have said, I have power to acquire aerodromes by agreement or compulsorily, and where I do so the basis of compensation will be in accordance with the existing law governing the acquisition of land by Government Departments. There are many Government Departments concerned in the acquisition of land, and my Ministry will be on all fours in the matter with those other Government Departments. As regards the 1939 ceiling to which the noble Viscount referred, I am speaking from memory, but I think there is provision for certain subsidies in that respect.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Does that include improvement of that land for aerodrome purposes? The Minister has not answered my question on that.
LORD WINSTER: That will be on all fours with the existing legislation and provisions made with regard to other Government Departments. We will have to take exactly the same matters into account.
LORD SEMPILL: I thank the noble Viscount and the other noble Lords who have spoken for their support in this matter, and also the Minister for the long reply he has given. With respect, I would say that the Minister's reply does not carry conviction to my mind at all, but in the circumstances I have no option but protestingly to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.6 p.m.
Clause 26:
Power of Minister as to acquisition of land, etc.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) of Section fifteen of the Air Navigation Act, 1920 (which relates to the acquisition of land by the Minister) the expression "purposes of civil aviation" shall be deemed to include any purpose connected with the discharge of the functions of the Minister, and subsection (2) of the said Section fifteen shall have effect as if the words "for purposes of civil aviation" were omitted therefrom.
(5) Without prejudice to his powers to acquire land by agreement under the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903, the Minister may acquire land by agreement otherwise than under those Acts, and may acquire by agreement any right in or in relation to land.
(6) Subsection (3) of the said Section fifteen is hereby repealed.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, in subsection (4), to leave out the words "subsection (1)" and to insert the words "subsections (1) and (3)." The noble Lord said: I fear that the next two Amendments deal with rather complicated matters, but I think I can most simply explain them in the following manner. The short point is that under Section 15 of the Air Navigation Act, 1920, subsection (3), the Minister had power to dispose of land in his hands but not immediately required for civil aviation purposes; for example, he might have land in his hands suitable for the provision of houses for people displaced by civil aviation. As the Bill now stands subsection (3) is being repealed, which might lead to doubt as to whether the Minister enjoyed the powers that were
840
conferred upon him. These Amendments enable me to retain the powers which were conferred upon the Minister by subsection (3) of Section 15 of the Air Navigation Act, 1920. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 29, leave out ("subsection (1)" and insert ("subsection (1) and (3)").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved to leave out subsection (6) and insert:
"( ) Where any person having an interest in land (hereinafter referred to as 'the grantor') grants or agrees to grant to the Minister any right (whether in perpetuity or for any other period and whether capable of subsisting as a legal estate or not) in or in relation to that land (including a right to enter upon that land, a right to carry out and maintain works on that land, a right to instal or maintain structures or apparatus on under over or across that land, and a right restrictive of the user of that land) the grant or agreement shall be binding upon any person deriving title or otherwise claiming under the grantor to the same extent as it is binding upon the grantor, notwithstanding that it would not have been binding upon that person apart from the provisions of this subsection."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 40, leave out subsection (6), and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL moved after subsection (6) to insert:
"( ) For the purpose of this Act Section sixty-three of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 shall be read and construed as if the words 'the loss of revenue receivable by the parties interested in such lands and' had been inserted after the words 'to the value of the land to be purchased or taken by the promoters of the undertaking, but also to' in section sixty-three of the said Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This Amendment proposes an additional subsection to Clause 26 to provide for the payment of compensation to the owners and lessees of airfields and sub-tenants in respect of loss of income due to their property and interests being compulsorily acquired by the State. Under the Bill as drafted there is incorporated the usual and familiar machinery of compulsory purchase under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. Under this the Minister will have to treat with anyone who has an interest in the land in question, and there are ample provisions

841
by arbitration and otherwise to ensure that a reasonable price is paid for the land according to the several interests of the parties concerned; but these Acts make no provision whatever for any compensation to be paid in respect of disturbance or loss of business. In normal circumstances this is acceptable. A trader or professional man can, at some inconvenience, but at comparatively small cost, find suitable accommodation, and therefore in the past it has not been thought necessary to pay any compensation for disturbance, but only to pay a fair value for the land and any interest therein. But in the circumstances as at present, he is not able so to do. The aerodrome is taken over, and there is nowhere where a person who has a sub-lease for the repair facilities at aerodromes or for the sale of petrol and oil can go, and he is put right out of business. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 40, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Sempill.)
LORD WINSTER: The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would in fact introduce a new basis of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land by the Minister under Clause 26 of the Bill for the purposes of the discharge of his functions. The basis of compensation for compulsory acquisition of land under Clause 26 is the same as that for compulsory acquisition by other Government Departments or by local authorities. Any departure from that basis in this Bill would have wide repercussions indeed. The Bill as drafted follows the normal procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land and compensation. As I can see no justification for special conditions in these matters where civil aviation is concerned, I am bound to inform the noble Lord that I cannot accept his Amendment.
LORD SEMPILL: I am sorry that the Minister will not listen to this Amendment because, as I see it, the case is not parallel with those cases that he has quoted. People will be dispossessed of the business they have acquired, and will not be able to do any business of a kindred nature anywhere else. In the circumstances, as the Minister will not listen to my plea, I have no option but to withdraw, while still protesting.
Amendment, by leave, with drawn.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Power of Minister of Transport to stop up and divert highways, etc., in the interests of civil aviation.
28.—(1) The Minister of Transport may, it he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in order to secure the safe and efficient use for civil aviation purposes, including the testing of aircraft designed for civil aviation, of any land vested in the Minister of Civil Aviation, or the Minister of Supply, or of any land which the Minister of Civil Aviation or the Minister of Supply proposes to acquire, by order authorize the stopping up or diversion of any highway.
(3) An order under subsection (1) of this section may contain such consequential, incidental and supplemental provisions including provisions for authorizing the compulsory purchase of land, as appear to the Minister of Transport to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "including provisions for authorizing the compulsory purchase of land." The noble Lord said: I think I can explain the purpose of this and the next Amendment quite briefly. While the Bill was in Committee in another place, we were, as I mentioned in my speech on the Second Reading, very much helped in regard to the land clauses by an honourable Member. In order to meet a point made by that honourable Member during the proceedings in Committee we inserted several words in the It is now found that the honourable Member's point can be equally well met by a better form of words. The form of words proposed in these Amendments would deal with the matter according to normal procedure instead of according to the Parliamentary procedure which we adopted in the Committee stage in another place. That the simple effect of these Amendments; they do what was agreed upon in a normal way instead of by special means. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, leave out from the beginning of line 26 to ("as") in line 27.—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert:
"(6) The Minister of Transport may be authorized to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of providing or improving any highway which is to be provided or improved

843
in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) of this section, or for any other purpose for which land is required in connexion with such an order; and the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, except Section two thereof, shall have effect as if, at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section one thereof there were inserted the words 'or under Section twenty-eight of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946.'"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the second Amendment to which I have referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 15, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Supplementary powers of Ministers in relation to land.
30.—(1) Section twenty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 5944 (which relates to consecrated land and burial grounds) shall have effect in relation to any land acquired by the Minister as if the Minister had acquired that land under Part I of that Act:
Provided that the power of making regulations for the purposes of that section as applied by this section shall be exercisable by the Minister, and accordingly the references in subsection (3) of that section to "the Minister" shall be construed as references to the Minister of Civil Aviation.
LORD WINSTER: The Amendment on the Paper is essentially a drafting Amendment. The regulations to which the proviso refers are regulations for securing the proper re-interment of the dead in cases where the Minister or the Minister of Transport is compelled to interfere with a burial ground. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 36, after ("as") insert ("including").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:
Provisions as to displacements from land.
32. Where the Minister has acquired land for civil aviation purposes, or gives a direction in relation to any land under Section twenty-nine of this Act, and the use of the land by the Minister for those purposes, or, as the case may be, the execution of the direction, will involve the displacement of persons residing in premises on the land, it shall be the duty of the Minister, in so far as there is not other residential accommodation
844
available on reasonable terms to the persons who require it in consequence of the displacement, being residential accommodation suitable to the reasonable requirements of those persons, to secure the provision of such accommodation in advance of the displacement:
(3) The Minister may pay:—
(a) to any person who is displaced in order that land may be used by the Minister for civil aviation purposes, such reasonable allowance as the Minister thinks fit towards the expenses of that person in removing;
(4) Where the Minister of Transport acquires land in pursuance of an order made under this Part of this Act, the provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to that land as if the references therein to the Minister were references to the Minister of Transport and as if the references therein to civil aviation purposes were references to the purposes for which the land is so acquired by the Minister of Transport.
LORD WINSTER: Clause 32 imposes upon the Minister the duty of providing for the rehousing of persons who are displaced when he acquires land, but under the clause as it stands that duty only attaches where he acquires land for civil aviation purposes. That provision is unduly restrictive because the Minister might want to acquire land in order to rehouse persons displaced from land which is to be used for an aerodrome and it is doubtful whether the land for rehousing could be regarded as land required for civil aviation purposes. It is to meet that point that this Amendment is put down. The following Amendments are consequential upon the first. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 9, leave out ("civil aviation purposes") and insert ("purposes connected with the discharge of his functions").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 35, leave out ("civil aviation purposes") and insert ("purposes connected with the discharge of his functions").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 5, leave out ("an order made under").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 8, leave out ("civil aviation purposes") and insert ("purposes connected with the discharge of the functions of the Minister").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 35 agreed to.
Clause 36:
Air Transport Advisory Council.
36.—(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the constitution of an Air Transport Advisory Council consisting of such number of members appointed by the Minister as may be determined in accordance with the Order.
(2) In the appointment of members of the Air Transport Advisory Council the Minister shall have regard to all appropriate interests, including the interests of—

(a) the technical, professional, industrial and commercial bodies, including those of organized labour, directly concerned with the provision of air transport services; and

(b) those bodies which appear to the Minister to represent the persons who use air transport services, or any class of the said persons.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Air Transport Advisory Council—

(a) to consider any question which may be referred to the Council by the Minister, being a question relating to facilities for transport by air in any part of the world, or relating to the charges for such facilities, or being a question which in the opinion of the Minister requires consideration with a view to improving the adequacy or efficiency of air transport services;

(b) subject to any conditions or exceptions for which provision may be made by an Order made under this section, to receive and consider representations from any quarter with respect to any such facilities and charges as aforesaid and to afford to persons interested the opportunity of being heard in connexion with such representations; and

(c) when the Council have considered any question referred to them by the Minister, or have considered any such representations as aforesaid, to report to the Minister upon their conclusions, and to make such recommendations to the Minister in connexion with those conclusions as they think expedient:

Provided that the Council shall not be required to hear representations from members of the public with respect to any matter which is for the time being regulated by an international agreement to which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a party.
(4) Any Order made under this section may contain such incidental and consequential provisions, including provisions for the payment of remuneration to members of the Council out of moneys provided by Parliament, and provisions for determining the procedure of the Council, as His Majesty thinks expedient.
(6) The Minister shall provide the Council with such information and other assistance as he thinks expedient for the purpose of assisting the Council to discharge their functions.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved to leave out subsections (1), (2) and (3) and insert:
("(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the constitution of an Air Transport Advisory Council consisting of a chairman, who shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and who shall be a barrister, advocate, or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing, and such number of members appointed by the Minister (not being less than two nor more than four) as may be determined in accordance with the Order.
Of the members of the Council appointed by the Minister, at least one shall be a person of experience in the operation of air transport services, and at least one shall be a person of experience in the operation of other transport services.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Air Transport Advisory Council to consider any representation from any person with respect to the adequacy of the facilities provided by any of the three Corporations, or with respect to the charges for any such facilities:
Provided that the Council shall not be required by this subsection to consider any such representation if, in their opinion, it is frivolous or vexatious or if in their opinion, the matters to which the representation relates have been already sufficiently considered by the Council, or if, in their opinion, it is inexpedient that they should consider the representation on the ground that the matters to which it relates are for the time being regulated by any international agreement to which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a party.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Air Transport Advisory Council to consider any question which may be referred to the Council by the Minister, being—

(a) a question relating to facilities for transport by air in any part of the world, or relating to the charges for such facilities; or

(b) a question which in the opinion of the Minister requires consideration with a view to the improvement of air transport services.

(4) When the Council have considered any such representation or question as aforesaid, they shall report to the Minister upon their conclusions, and shall mike such recommendations to the Minister in connexion with those conclusions as they think expedient.
(5) The Council may appoint such assessors as they think expedient for the purpose of securing that they are properly advised with respect to matters affecting the interests of persons who use air transport services, or of any class of such persons, and the interests of technical, professional, industrial and commercial bodies (including those of organized labour) directly concerned with the provision of aim transport services.")
The noble Lord said: These Amendments to Clause 36 are designed to meet the point of an Amendment to the same clause standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and I trust that the noble Viscount will consider that in

847
substance they do meet his point. There is only one thing I would like to point out at this stage. The words in subsection (1) as the Amendment was originally drafted were "consisting of the chairman, who shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and who shall be a barrister…" I thought perhaps it would be preferable to use the word advocate also in order to make it perfectly clear that the Lord Chancellor is at liberty to appoint a Scotsman for this purpose, and so that word is in the Amendment as printed to-day. If there is any further explanation I can give I shall be very pleased to do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 44, leave out subsections (1), (2), and (3) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Winster.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am very much obliged to the Minister for having gone some way to meet us on this matter. I shall have to move certain Amendments when we come to the Report stage. I certainly do not want to discuss those now, but I think it would help the Minister and the House if I gave a brief indication of the further points upon which I want to get agreement if I can. I say at once that they do not go as far as my Amendments which are on the Paper. In the first place, I am very obliged for the judicial character of this tribunal. I only want to be clear on one thing and I will put down an Amendment formally in order to ensure it. Obviously nobody should be judge in his own cause and therefore neither an appellant nor a respondent should be on the tribunal. I leave out assessors. There ought not, therefore, to be a member of the Corporation or a person connected with the Corporation on the tribunal.
LORD WINSTER: I will readily agree with that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And equally no applicant. The second point is that where there is a representation from a municipality or a member of the public, I think this judicial tribunal—I do not want to argue this now—should be able to publish its findings. Where the Minister refers something, obviously the report should go to the Minister, but I am going to propose that where there is a representation by a member of the public, then the findings should be published. I entirely agree that
848
the tribunal should not entertain frivolous applications and that it should be the judge of that. I also agree that it has got to be bound by any international agreement. I had proposed that where a Corporation is running a service and where the tribunal holds that the service is inadequate or the fares excessive but the Corporation is unwilling to carry out the recommendations, there should be an opportunity to let in somebody else. The reasons for that I would rather advance next time. If I am met on other points I am willing to abandon that, because I appreciate that that would create competition on the same routes, although I do feel that the recommendations ought to be accepted. I would rather develop that on the Report stage.
The final point is this. Where there is no service at all running and the tribunal is satisfied that a service ought to be run, I think that the Corporation should have the first refusal of that service and should be given what the tribunal thinks is a reasonable time to establish it. But if the Corporation says, "I do not want to run this service and I am not going to run it," then in that last resort I cannot see why somebody else should not run the service on terms which the tribunal thinks suitable. I am not going to elaborate any points now but those are the Amendments which I will put down to the Minister's Amendments, and then we shall have an opportunity of discussing them at length when we meet again on the Report stage.
LORD WINSTER: Those will be Amendments to the new clause which I have moved.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, they will be Amendments to the subsections which the Minister is now moving and which we shall pass. It is not exactly a new clause.
LORD WINSTER: It is the clause in a new form.
LORD STRABOLGI: What happens to the noble Lord's Amendment on page 27, line 38, to insert a new subsection?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not proposing to move any of the Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper to-night. I am proposing on the Report stage to move those Amendments of which I have given an intimation.
LORD STRABOLGI: I understand that, but that did not include the one which I must confess I rather liked, on page 27, line 38, to insert a new subsection. Then follows the description of a committee of advisors to the Council which rather follows the line as originally set out in the Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Quite frankly, I thought the Minister had sufficiently met that. So far as the tribunal is concerned I want it to be a judicial tribunal, and I want it to be of the type that is being set out here. So far as it is advisory to the Minister I am perfectly happy, if I may respectfully say so, to leave it to the Minister to say what kind of advisory bodies he thinks will best advise him.
LORD STRABOLGI: I must make some remarks on my noble friend's proposals on Clause 36. I was a little puzzled when I first saw the new Amendments he put down over the weekend, and I did not quite understand the reason until I heard just now that they were put down to meet the demands of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and, up to a point, my noble friend seems to have satisfied the noble Viscount. In the original Bill as it reached us from another place, it was quite a different story. There was to be an Air TransportAdvisory Council; and this was the result of a good deal of discussion by all parties in Committee and on the floor of the House of Commons. A promise was given that the clause in the Bill would be introduced in the Report stage in another place. It was introduced on the Report stage, and not only that but it was confirmed by a Division. It is quite a different story from what is now proposed by my noble friend. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at Clause 36, your Lordships will see that the Minister in appointing the members of the Air Transport Advisory Council
"…shall have regard to all appropriate interests, including the interests of—

(a) the technical, professional, industrial and commercial bodies, including those of organized labour, directly concerned with the provision of air transport services; and

(b) those bodies which appear to the Minister to represent the persons who use air transport services, or any class of the said persons."

That would obviously mean a committee of some size and diversity and representing all important interests. What are we
850
offered in its place? We are offered a chairman who must be a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing, and two or at the most four other members. In the first place, I cannot for the life of me understand why it is necessary in this case to have a barrister or advocate or solicitor of seven years' standing. That is following the precedent of the Railway Rates Tribunal, but the Railway Rates Tribunal is a semi-judicial body and it arbitrates between parties. This is not a semi-judicial body at all; I do not see where the law comes in in the ordinary way, and I cannot for the life of me understand it. I am very puzzled by this, arid I would be glad if my noble friend could explain why it is necessary to have the chairman appointed from among banisters or advocates or solicitors, unless it is to satisfy the noble Viscount opposite.
I cannot see the substance of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton's insistence for a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing as chairman of the committee, because he is not dealing with legal questions at all. Here he is dealing with questions put by the Minister or by members of the public, dealing with certain matters which I will have to come to in a moment. There can be only two others, of whom one shall be experienced in the operation of air transport services and one shall be a person experienced in the operation of other transport services. This is the body which takes the place of the much wider committee which satisfied another place and which was argued for by members of all parties, including the Conservative and Liberal Members of the Grand Committee, and which in accordance with the pledge given was introduced on the floor of the House in another place on Report by the Under-Secretary. Now to satisfy the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—who represents, with great respect to him, nobody but himself—all that is thrown overboard and we have this other body, which I must confess is far less satisfactory.
What, after all, do we want in this case? We want a body which will receive complaints for investigaton by the Minister in the first place, and then we want the same body to investigate complaints by the general public. It is the British public who will own these three Corporations. That does not seem to have seeped into the

851
minds of the noble Lords opposite. These Corporations will be national property and the ordinary man and the ordinary public, whether they are merchants who want to send goods by transport plane or whether they are users of the air services—even workers on the aerodromes who are not covered by Clause 19, to which I will refer in a moment—will want to be able to make complaints. If they cannot make complaints, and there is no body to deal with them—and with great respect to my noble friend this little body of a barrister of seven years' standing and these two other handpicked people is no substitute for the much wider committee representing these various interests which appear in the original Bill and which satisfied the other place—what will be the result?
I must say that I regard this as rather a retrograde step. Suppose the ordinary man wants to make a complaint about the running of the air services, which are his property and for which he pays, and he is not satisfied that the barrister of seven years' standing and the two other gentlemen, one experienced in surface transport and the other in air transport, are giving him and others a fair deal, what will he do? He will write to his Member of Parliament, or he may write to one of your Lordships. I expect that he will certainly write to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, as he takes such an interest in these matters. I do not know what Viscount Swinton will do, but perhaps in the case of an old constituent from Hendon he will put the complaint directly to the Minister.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I shall certainly do the best I can for anybody who appears to have just cause for complaint.
LORD STRABOLGI: If anyone sends a complaint to me which I think is justified, I, as a member of Parliament, shall certainly send it to my noble friend. Undoubtedly, constituents of Members of the House of Commons will send complaints in to them if they are not satisfied with this body which is going to deal with them, and Members of the House of Commons will in turn badger my noble friend. If they do not get satisfaction, then there will be questions asked at question time in another place, which, no doubt, the Under-Secretary of State will deal with very ably. Subsequently, complaints will be brought up in the debates
852
on the Estimates. I would have thought that, in his own defence, my noble friend would have approved of the other body, because they are a body, which, as set out in Clause 36, would include representatives of technical, professional, commercial and industrial institutions and also representatives of organized labour.
It may be said that there is a channel for making complaints set out in Clause 19. Now Clause 19 is a very valuable clause, and I congratulate all who were concerned in drawing it up. But it is designed obviously to deal with domestic affairs inside the Corporations, and the person concerned can put forward complaints, including complaints regarding the efficiency of the operation of the Corporation's services and their own welfare and so on. But that is machinery within the Corporation, and the complaints will not get by that machinery to the higher levels. The complaints will not get to the Directors of the Corporations, nor to my noble friend. It is valuable machinery for dealing with internal affairs but the complaints will not necessarily get through it to the higher levels. The only alternative for the aggrieved will be to write to Members of Parliament.
I am sorry that the clause as it originally reached your Lordships' House from another place has been thrown overboard in favour of this arrangement, which I am sure my noble friend has adopted with great reluctance in order to ease the passage of his Bill past the ramparts of the Conservative Party on the red benches opposite. Having said that, I would be most grateful to my noble friend if he could afford me some crumb of comfort, if he could give me some further explanation. I propose to move the Amendment which stands in my name and that of my other noble friends. I must say that I prefer the wording of my noble friend Lord Marley to my own. If your Lordships will look at the new clause as now proposed by my noble friend, you will observe that this Air Council has, amongst its other duties, that of considering representations from any person with respect to the adequacy of the facilities provided by any of the three Corporations or with respect to the charges for any such facilities. So far, so good. But I am inclined to think that it would be an improvement if we adopted the wording of Clause 19 and added after

853
"adequacy" the words "and efficiency," or the wording which Lord Marley suggests. I think the public have a right to bring forward to some such body complaints about the efficiency of the services.
Now this could be a great nuisance to the Corporations. It probably would be a great nuisance to the Corporations. In my view it will be a good thing if there is such a nuisance to the Corporations. This whole service is vitally important. A tremendous lot hangs upon it—not only in connexion with British prestige and British commerce, but in connexion with the whole great programme of nationalization and Socialism. These Corporations have got to be made efficient—they must be. I would have thought that it would have been an excellent thing if the owners, the general public, the man in the street, who is not a fool as a rule—you get a certain number of cranks, of course, but they can be sieved out—should have the right not only to complain about the adequacy of the services but also about their efficiency. My noble friend behind me thinks adequacy includes efficiency. I bow to his great knowledge of the English language, but, to be on the safe side, I would like also the question of efficiency to be included.
If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment—and may I say here that I make no apology for detaining the House about this; this is very important, and I am frankly worried about it—if your Lordships will turn again to the original Clause 36, as it came to us from another place, you will see that under that much wider and larger Air Transport Advisory Council which was set up there, as promised to the Grand Committee, this Advisory Council had the duty to consider any questions referred to it by the Minister relating to facilities for air transport, relating to charges, relating to adequacy, or efficiency. But then, secondly, it would also have the duty of considering representations from any quarter (the new wording is "any body") from the owners, the shareholders, the proprietors, that is, from the man in the street, with respect to any such facilities and charges only. There is nothing there about adequacy and efficiency.
In the new clause which has been moved by my noble friend this afternoon, adequacy is in, but there is nothing there
854
about efficiency. If the Council can consider questions of efficiency referred to them by the Minister, perhaps coming to him from a member of the other place or from a member of your Lordships' House, or from some outside body, it might be a local authority or one of the great trade unions not directly concerned with air transport, it might be some public-spirited body of men, a Chamber of Commerce, for example, why not allow the complaints to be made direct? Why should it not be right for outsiders to send forward complaints as to the efficiency of the services? I do not say that frivolous or vexatious complaints should be entertained, but I do not think it necessary to insert words to the effect that such complaints need not be considered. I would have thought that it was not necessary to have these words in at all. Any competent body would have its secretariat which would winnow out any frivolous or vexatious complaints.
But to limit the complaints to be considered to the sort of complaints that the proprietors, the owners, the British public can legitimately make only as to adequacy and to the charges, and not to allow them to complain about efficiency, is, I believe, a weakness. As a result, I ask that the Minister considers this very seriously. I beg the Government to accept the Amendment. It was understood that this would be in the Bill when it came before another place, but, as my noble friend well knows, the debate was a very hurried one there. It took place very late at night, and although the other place is always most brilliant late at night, there was a tendency to rush things through. Moreover, there was certainly a misunderstanding. The Attorney-General explained matters, but I do not think he satisfied everybody. I think that we have a chance here to put matters right. As I see it, almost anything else can be considered except the efficiency of these vitally important services and I beg my noble friend to accept the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
In the proposed new subsection (2) alter ("adequacy") insert ("and efficiency ").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD MARLEY: As a not dissimilar Amendment is down in my name, I desire to say that I have thought over this

855
matter carefully and I am inclined to think that an inefficient service would hardly be considered an adequate service. Accordingly, it seems to me that it would not be necessary to add the words "or efficiency" after "adequacy." For that reason I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in my name, and I am prepared to accept the position as set out in the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Winster.
LORD WINSTER: I always listen to speeches of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi with interest, and if I could comfort him about this I would. Whilst I cannot accept the Amendment, I will certainly look at his speech between now and the Report stage and see if I can do anything with the wording to meet some of the points he has made. So far as his remarks to-day are concerned I have had a great many Amendments to deal with, and speaking rather quickly I may not perhaps have used the right phrase when I said that I had put down my Amendment with a view to meeting the proposals of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. What I should have said was that I thought there were certain points in the Amendments proposed by the noble Viscount which commended themselves to me as likely to improve the Bill, and I had drafted my Amendments to that end. I did not mean to imply that I had drafted my Amendments for the sole purpose of meeting the noble Viscount.
As regards the alterations which I propose to make in the Bill I must say that whilst it is true that the words may differ from what appeared in Clause 36 (2) as it reached this House I think that the new words which I have proposed are in the spirit of the clause as it reached us. I think the clause then said that when the Minister was appointing members of the Air Transport Council he should have regard to all appropriate interests, which are then enumerated. Under my proposed new clause the Council, if they think fit, may appoint assessors drawn from exactly the same bodies and classes of person. I think that completely meets the spirit of what was done in another place.
Concerning efficiency, may I call the attention of my noble friend to the fact that subsection 3 (b) of my amended version specifically refers to improvement of air services and in my opinion
856
"improvement" does cover the question of adequacy and inefficiency.
LORD STRABOLGI: But those are the words. The Minister can do that if he likes. I want the same right for the man in the street.
LORD WINSTER: I will look into that between now and the Report stage. I must consider that in all its applications. I hope that with my undertaking, which is given quite sincerely, my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I will certainly withdraw my Amendment, but would the noble Lord, Lord Winster, be kind enough to explain why it is necessary to have a lawyer as chairman in a body of this kind, which is dealing mainly with technical and common-sense questions and questions of fact? I dare say that the Council will have to send people abroad to investigate some of these complaints—I hope they will; that is why I wanted a large Council—but why is it necessary to have as chairman somebody who "shall be a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing"?
LORD WINSTER: The majority of matters coming before this Council will be matters affecting fares, freights and the frequency of services provided, and I think there will be an advantage in having a trained legal mind to sort them out.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, in subsection (4), after "Parliament," to insert:
"provisions for the payment out of such moneys of expenses incurred in connexion with the appointment of assessors by the Council."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes the necessary alterations in the existing subsection (3) of Clause 36, to allow the payment of the expenses of appointing assessors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 42, after ("Parliament") insert the said new words.—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINSTER: The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 9, at the end insert ("and each of the three Corporations shall keep the

857
Council informed of all services which are provided by them or which they intend to provide, and of the charges which the Corporation make or propose to make for any such services").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
6.47 p.m.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:
"Use and management of aerodromes.
—(1) In the management and administration of any aerodrome vested in him the Minister shall make such provision as he thinks necessary to ensure that adequate facilities for consultation are provided for the local authorities in whose area the aerodrome or any part thereof is situated, and for other local authorities whose areas are in the neighbourhood of the aerodrome, and for other organizations representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated.
(2) The Minister shall appoint for each such aerodrome an officer who shall be responsible to the Minister for all services provided on the aerodrome on behalf of the Minister, including signalling services, flying control services, and services connected with the execution of works."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to give effect, as far as is practicable, to the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who also proposes to insert a new clause. Perhaps I may deal with the two Amendments together. I felt, for example, that the new clause proposed by the noble Earl was unacceptable as drafted. I thought the words "area served by such aerodrome" were rather too vague. To meet certain points of the noble Earl's Amendment, which I thought effected improvements, I drafted the new clause which I am now moving.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Winster.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for meeting me so far. I have few comments, except that we have spent a great deal of time discussing services and not very much time discussing aerodromes, although they are very nearly as important. An aerodrome is a difficult thing to organize, and a difficult thing to run properly. It would make a tremendous difference to the whole method and manner in which the air services of this country are run if they were properly
858
equipped and managed. We expect to lose quite a lot of money from the public purse on these air services, but that loss can be materially reduced by sound organization of the aerodromes. I hope the Minister will endeavour to see that the man in charge is fully cognizant of this fact and is interested to get as much as he can from the aerodrome. There are many ways of doing that, but there must be a responsible man in charge.
Would it be possible for him to include "met" services? There are signalling services and flying control services. I think that would complete all that might probably he called the services of the aerodrome itself.
LORD WINSTER: With what the noble Earl has said about the necessity of appointing the right man to be responsible for these aerodromes, so that public money will not be wasted, I am in full agreement, and, in making the appointment in accordance with subsection (2) of my clause, I shall certainly be guided by that intention.
If the noble Earl would allow me, I should like to have a look at what he has proposed with regard to "met" services, etcetera. I will look into that question and see if words to that effect should be included on the Report stage. Otherwise I hope that the new clause will satisfy him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, after Clause 38, to insert the following new clause:
"Exclusion, of discrimination.
.The Minister shall not provide any of the three Corporations with aerodrome facilities in connexion with the operation of any charter service unless he is satisfied that comparable facilities are available, or can be made available if required, to parsons other than the three Corporations in connexion with the operation of a similar service, and are so available, or can be made so available if required, upon terms and conditions not less favourable than those upon which the facilities in question are provided by him For the Corporation concerned.
In this section the expression ' aerodrome facilities ' means any facilities connected with the use of an aerodrome, and the expression ' charter service ' means any service provided on c11arter terms."
The noble Lord said: This new clause has already been referred to and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I under

859
stand, accepts it, subject to certain points which will be considered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40:
Compensation of officers.
(2) Regulations made under this section may include such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions, including provisions with respect to the procedure for determining questions, as the Minister thinks expedient for the purposes of the regulations.
(3) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2), after "questions," to insert "including arbitration." The noble Earl said: This is a very small point. I think that Clause 40 is a very desirable clause. Subsection (1) of the clause states:

"(a) Any person who immediately before the acquisition was employed by the aerodrome undertaking in full-time service wholly or mainly connected with the maintenance or use of the aerodrome; and

(b) any person who, having been employed by the aerodrome undertaking before the acquisition of such service as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph would have been within that paragraph but for any war service in which he has been engaged:

shall in such cases, to such extent and subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks proper, be entitled to receive compensation."
But it gives no indication at all as to how the man is to set about obtaining the Minister's consideration. A great many of the persons concerned will be small men, not big men. How are they to set about asking for the consideration of the Minister in any way at all? I do not wish to elaborate that point. It is, I think, quite obvious. I should like to suggest to the Minister that he should insert the words "including arbitration," which would enable him to set up some arbitration procedure to permit him to hear, receive and examine any cases which might be worthy of consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 15, at end insert ("including arbitration").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD WINSTER: There is nothing really at issue between the noble Earl and myself on this point. I should like to point out that under subsection (2) of Clause 40, which deals with compensation for loss of office, the Minister may prescribe, in the regulations which he is required to make, the procedure for determining questions relating to compensation under those regulations. It follows that arbitration is not excluded from such procedure and therefore it is unnecessary to insert a specific reference to it in subsection (2). If the noble Earl feels strongly on the point I will accept the Amendment, but I really believe it to be unnecessary.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In those circumstances I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) In this section the expression 'war service' means service in any of His Majesty's forces and such other employment as may be prescribed by regulations made under this section."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides a definition of "war service" for purposes of the regulations which the Minister has to make under Clause 40. The definition is the same as that used in the National Health Service Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 19, insert the said new words.—(Lord Winster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: The words may be the same as in the National Health Service Bill, but I think—I apologize for not having given notice of this point—that service in the Mercantile Marine should be included. That is a civilian force, not one of the Armed Forces. I am sure that the noble Lord will sympathetically consider the point. May I ask if he can consider enlarging it in the next stage of the Bill?
LORD WINSTER: I certainly feel sympathetic to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. He and I have always done what we could for the Mercantile Marine. All I can say at the moment is that I shall have to look into the question. It may be necessary to get power.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am sorry to butt into this discussion on the other side of the House, but I should have thought the Minister had all the powers that he needed. It is stated:
"in such employment as may be prescribed by him."
He could include the Mercantile Marine.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like something a little more hard and fast. My noble friend may not always be the Minister of Civil Aviation. He may go to higher things. I would rather have the words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 45 agreed to.
Clause 46:
Registration of certain orders in the register of local land charges.
46.—(1) As soon as may be after any of the following orders, that is to say

(a) an order under Section twenty-seven of this Act;

(b) an order under Section twenty-nine of this Act; or

(c) an order under Section thirty-seven of this Act, other than an order for the imposition of prohibitions or restrictions on the use of water;

becomes operative, it shall be registered in the prescribed manner in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of any local authority in whose area the land to which the order relates, or any part of that land, is situated.
In this subsection the expression "local authority" means the council of a county and the council of a county borough.
(2) As soon as may be after such an order has become operative it shall be the duty of the Minister to notify that fact to the proper officer of the local authority by whom the order is required to be registered as aforesaid, and to furnish to him all necessary information relating to the order.
LORD WINSTER: The next Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 34, line 32, leave out ("orders") and insert ('' instruments.")
Page 34, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("or any direction given under such an order").
Page 34, Line 41, leave out ("order") and insert ('' instrument").
Page 35, line 1, leave out ("order") and insert ("instrument").
Page 35, line 3, leave out ("order") and insert ("instrument").
Page 35, line 5, leave out ("order") and insert ("instrument").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
Clause 49:
Interpretation.
"land" includes any estate or interest in land and any easement;
LORD WINSTER: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment to the definition of "land" in Clause 49, arising from the fact that an "estate" in land is itself an "interest" in land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 18, after ("or") insert ("other").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50:
Application to Scotland.
50. This Act shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect subject to the following modifications—
(f) in Sections thirty-three and thirty-five for references to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, to Section twenty-five and to Sections twenty-six and twenty-seven thereof, to the Fourth Schedule thereto, to Part Il and paragraph 2 of that Schedule and to sub-paragraphs and (4) of the said paragraph, there shall be substituted respectively references to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, to Sections twenty-five and twenty-six thereof, to Section twenty-four and to the Fourth Schedule thereto, to Part II and paragraph 2 of that Schedule and to subparagraphs (1) and (4) of the said paragraph;
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, at the end of paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) in subsection (5) of Section twenty-six after the words ' the grant or agreement shall.' there shall be inserted the words ' on being recorded in the appropriate register of sasines';"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment applies the necessary adaptation to Scotland of the Amendments, which I have moped in Clause 26. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 19, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINSTER: The next two Amendments, in paragraph (f), are to cover errors which were allowed to creep into the Bill, and are to improve the drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 38, line 22, after ("1945") insert ("to Section twenty-four and").
Page 38, line 23, leave out ("to Section twenty-four and").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51:
Application to Northern Ireland.
(5) The powers exercisable by the Minister of Transport under Section twenty-eight of this Act shall as regards land in Northern Ireland be exerciseable by the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland and accordingly the references to the Minister of Transport in that section, and in subsection (4) of Section thirty-two of this Act, and in subsection (2) of Section thirty-four of this Act shall, in relation to land in Northern Ireland, be construed as references to the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland:
Provided that the said Section twenty-eight shall, in its application to Northern Ireland as aforesaid, have effect as if—

(a) for the words "repairable by the inhabitants at large" in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) thereof there were substituted the words "maintainable at the cost of a county or county district as the case may be;"

(b) sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (f) of subsection (2) were omitted from the said section;

(c) subsection (4) were omitted from the said section.

(7) For the purposes of the application of Section thirty-two of this Act to Northern Ireland, the reference in subsection (2) of that section to the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, shall be construed as a reference to Part IV of the Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1935.
(8) For the purposes of Section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 (which relates to the power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws), Section thirty-four of this Act shall be deemed to be a provision of an Act passed before the appointed day.
(10) Section thirty-eight of this Act shall, in so far as it relates to aerodromes in Northern Ireland, have effect as if—

(a) for the reference in subsections (1) and (2) thereof to the Minister of Health there were substituted a reference to the Ministry of Health and Local Government for Northern Ireland;

(b) the reference in subsection (2) thereof to a local authority included a reference to such authority as the Ministry of Health and Local Government for Northern Ireland
864
may designate as the appropriate authority for the purposes of the said section;

(15) The expression "summary conviction" means conviction subject to, and in accordance with, the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, and any Act (including any Act of Parliament of Northern Ireland) amending that Act.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, in subsection (5), at the end of the proviso, to insert
"(d) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (6) of the said section:—
(6) The powers of compulsory acquisition of land exercisable by the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland under subsection (3) of Section two of the Roads Act (Northern Ireland), 1937, shall include the power to acquire lands compulsorily, in accordance with the provisions of the said subsection, for the purpose of providing or improving any highway which is to be provided or improved in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) of this section, or for any other purpose for which land is required in connection with such an order, and the said Act shall have effect accordingly.
The powers conferred on the said Ministry by this subsection shall be exercisable in relation to any land notwithstanding that such land is the property of a statutory undertaker or is declared by any other enactment to be inalienable'."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides for the adaptation to Northern Ireland of the Amendments I moved to Clause 28. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 13, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINSTER: The next four Amendments are necessary to provide for adaptation to Northern Ireland of the Amendments to Clause 26. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 42, line 22 leave out ("order") and insert ("instrument")
Page 42, line 26, leave out ("order") and insert ("instrument")
Page 42, line 39, leave out ("order") and insert ("instrument")
Page 42, line 43, leave out ("order") and insert ("instrument").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, after subsection (13), to insert:
"(14) Any reference in this Act to an Act of Parliament shall be construed as including a reference to an Act of the Parliament of

865
Northern Ireland; and in this Act the expression 'enactment' includes an enactment of that Parliament."
The noble Lord said: This again is a drafting Amendment. The Northern Ireland draftsmen have proceeded for many years on the assumption that the phrase "Act of Parliament," when used in an Act of the United Kingdom, does not, without express provision, include an Act of 'he Northern Ireland Parliament, and the Amendment is designed to meet that point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 46, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Winster.)
LORD WINSTER: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 10, leave out from ("Act '') to ("amending") in line 11.—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53:
Application to Channel Islands and Isle of Man.
53.—(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct—

(a) that any of the provisions of this Act, except subsection (3) of Section thirty-eight thereof;

(b) that any regulations made under Section one hundred and forty-three of the Public Health Act, 1936, as that section has effect by virtue of this Act in relation to aerodromes for the time being vested in or under the control of the Minister of Civil Aviation, and in relation to persons arriving at or departing from such aerodromes;

shall extend, with such exceptions, modifications and adaptations, if any, as may be specified in the order, to any of the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man.
LORD WINSTER: I beg to move a drafting Amendment. The regulations which could be made under Section 143 of the Public Health Act, 1936, relate to aircraft as well as to persons arriving at or departing from aerodromes. The words of this Amendment are accordingly to be added to Clause 53, which contains a reference to such regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 24, after ("persons") insert ("and aircraft").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved in subsection (1) to leave out "to any of the Channel Islands, or." The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment because it would appear that there has been a serious breach of normal procedure and practice in regard to the Constitution of the Channel Islands. I am only sorry that this matter, which is of great importance to the Channel Islands, should be discussed at such late hour and before such an empty House. The Channel Islands, as your Lordships know, enjoy a very great measure of independence. They have their own Constitution, their own Parliament—which is known as "The States"—and they make their own laws. They are jealous of those independent rights, and quite rightly so. No doubt they are all the more jealous by virtue of the suffering which they have endured during the war, with which your Lordships have the utmost sympathy. If their independence is interfered with, there is, in common parlance, "an unholy row." I am quite sure your Lordships would not wish to interfere with that independence.
I am not wholly versed in the Constitution of the Channel Islands but I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is in his place; I hope he will correct me if I am wrong in any respect, because I am certain that during his distinguished career he will have become very much versed in matters concerning their Constitution. I understand that for 140 years Imperial Acts of Parliament have not been applied to the Channel Islands without the expressed agreement of the insular authority, which is, of course, the States Assembly. I understand also that the normal practice is for a law to emanate in the States and to be transmitted to England to receive the assent of the Crown in Council. That is the normal practice, and I submit that that practice should have been followed in this instance.
The object of this clause, in so far as it affects the Channel Islands, is that the Government may get their claws into the Channel Islands Airways. The Channel Islands Airways is a company registered in jersey. It is a Channel Islands company, and in that respect is fully entitled to the protection of the Jersey laws. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Air Ministry in another place said:

867
"I ought perhaps to add that the Channel Islands Airways will also be taken over in the same way"—
he referred to a sale being concluded as between a willing buyer and a willing seller—
"I have not mentioned that previously, because it is outside this country and the Bill will be applied to the Channel Islands by Order, but it is as well to make clear, perhaps, that what I ant saying relates to the Channel Islands Airways as well."
I submit that, in view of the Channel Islands' independence, and having regard to the normal practice that has been followed regarding the Constitution of the Channel Islands, the Channel Islands Airways should have been dealt with under Clause 23 (4) of the Bill, which reads:
"(4) Nothing in this section shall restrict the right of any person, for the purposes of any air transport undertaking of which the principal place of business is in any country outside the United Kingdom, to provide transport for passengers or goods in accordance with the terms of any agreement for the time being in force between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of that country."
That is the clause under which this particular Airways should have been dealt with, because, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary says, it is outside this country. On the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House, in reply to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said:
"On the last point raised, that with regard to the Channel Islands, I may say that we have had conferences with the island authorities, and they wish the Bill to be applied to them by Order in Council. We have agreed to do that, and the provisions of the Bill will be applied by Order in Council. I will not say, for I do not wish to put words into the mouths of the island authorities, that they are enthusiastic about the provisions in the Bill"—
as a matter of fact they feel very strongly about it indeed—
"but I do say that they have accepted them with a good grace. At their wish we have agreed that we will not take over their airfields, but will leave them within the jurisdiction of the island authorities."
I want considerably more elucidation from the noble Lord about this matter. Who are the island authorities with whom be has made an agreement? The only authority with whom he could make an agreement is the States, and this matter has not been before the States, it has not received the assent of the States, and it has not even been on the agenda of the States.
868
They are the only authority with whom he could make an agreement in a matter of this kind. As I say, this matter should have been dealt with under a previous clause, Clause 23 (4) of the Bill.
Some years ago, in the middle of the last century, three Orders in Council were applied to the Channel Islands, and there was such a row about it that the Privy Council gave the following advice. Here is the story of it, and I am quoting from the authority of two eminent Counsel:
"The whole question of the right of the Crown to legislate for the Islands and in particular to legislate in matters involving expenditure of public money without the advice and consent of the States, was argued before the Privy Council in connexion with the Orders in Council of the 11th February, 1852, and after such argument the Committee of the Privy Council reported that though the Orders appear well calculated to improve the administration of justice in Jersey, yet, as serious doubts exist whether the establishment of such provisions by Your Majesty's prerogative without the consent of the States of Jersey is consistent with the constitutional rights of the Island of Jersey, their Lordships have agreed to report their opinion to Your Majesty that it may be expedient for Your Majesty to revoke the said Orders."
They were revoked.
"If such a measure were brought forward by that method"—
that is to say, by the method of Order in Council—
"we are of opinion, on the strength of the two instances mentioned above and for other reasons also, that such procedure would be inconsistent with the constitutional rights of the island."
I submit to your Lordships that this clause should not apply to the Channel Islands unless and until it has the full assent of the States of Guernsey and Jersey, which has not yet been received. I am sure your Lordships, even at this late hour, will stand fully behind the constitutional rights of these brave little islands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 36, leave out ("to any of the Channel Islands, or").—(The Earl of Dudley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Earl who has just moved this Amendment for letting me have a most elaborate and learned disquisition on the law of Jersey, which I received (owing to other engagements) at a quarter past one to-day. It is very learned and very long, and it obviously will repay attention. I do not pretend that my knowledge is ubiquitous—I have

869
often revealed that fact—and I do not pretend that I am one of the greatest living authorities on the laws and customs of the Channel Islands. I suppose there is no doubt at all that legally—merely legally—any Act of Parliament passed by this Parliament extends to the Channel Islands.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I think that is admitted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But equally I am in entire agreement with the noble Earl that we should all of us, on both sides of the House, be most careful to safeguard the proper constitutional position of the Channel Islands. Quite frankly, I am nor certain what that constitutional position is at the present time, and I would like, if your Lordships will allow me, myself to go into this matter between now and the Report stage. I will find out what the constitutional position is and I will try to find out what the facts are, because I shall want to know the facts. For instance, if some agreement was made, I shall want to know with whom it was made, and I shall make it my business to try and find out the answers to the other questions which the noble Earl asked. If the noble Earl will be good enough not to press his Amendment at this stage but to let us deal with the matter on Report, I shall then, I hope, be in a better position to deal not only with the relevant facts but also with the true constitutional position.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I do not want to detain the Committee for more than a moment. It was in answer to a question I put that the Minister, on the Second Reading of this Bill, dealt with the position of the Channel Islands. These were his words:
"I may say we have had conferences with the island authorities and they wish the Bill applied."
I hope the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will tell us, when he gives us the result of his inquiries, who are the "they" referred to and whether they can speak for the islands. My information is that it was the Bailiff who negotiated with the Ministers, the Lord Privy Seal and the Home Secretary. I understand they paid a visit to the islands on this particular matter. If they came to
870
some provisional agreement with the Bailiff, I am informed that the Bailiff cannot commit the States in the same way as a Prime Minister can commit his Government and go to Parliament and say that the Government wants a particular thing.
It is clear that the procedure under this Bill has been tried twice and has failed twice. Even although no one would dispute the paramountey of this Parliament to legislate, the procedure proposed here has been tried twice and has failed twice. I am informed that if the Channel Islands, Guernsey and Jersey, wish this Bill to be applied to them, the States should initiate such action, and the correct procedure would be for them to petition His Majesty to apply the provisions of this Bill to them. That would mean that the initiation of such action should come from the States and not from this Government. I am sure we will forgive the Minister if, in saying "They wish the Bill applied," he has tripped up on a matter of constitutional procedure, provided that the matter is put right and we preserve the traditional rights of these brave little islands.
LORD WALERAN: I wish to support my noble friend Earl Dudley in this matter. We must think about the international situation. This country is trying to do a lot of things in the way of granting self-government, as for instance in India, to show our bonafides in respect of all peoples, whoever they are. I beg this Government to recognize the rights of the States and not to contravene them in 'any way. I would ask the Minister if he could state in reply with what authorities he dealt.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have told the noble Earl that I will look into this matter myself. Having gone into it, I will tell your Lordships on the Report stage exactly what steps have been taken and what the facts are.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: In view of what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
Provisions of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, which are to cease to have effect.
In subsection (2) of section one, the proviso.
Subsections (4) to (7) of section one.
Subsections two to seven.
LORD WINSTER: The borrowing powers of B.O.A.C. are provided for by the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, and are related to the functions which they are called upon to discharge under that Act. Their functions are now being enlarged and it is consequently necessary to extend their borrowing powers accordingly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 19, at end insert ("In subsection (2) of section thirteen, the words 'under this Act'").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule:
Provisions Relating to Certain Orders.

PART I.
1. Before making the order, the Minister:—

(a) shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the district in which the land is situated; and

(b) shall serve on every owner, lessee and occupier of any of the land and upon every local authority within whose area any of the land is situated;

a notice stating that the Minister proposes to make the order and the effect thereof, and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-eight days from the service of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, objections to the making of the order may be made.
2. If no objection is duly made by any such local authority, owner, lessee or occupier as aforesaid or if all objections so made are withdrawn, the Minister, upon being satisfied that the proper notices have been served, may, if the Minister thinks fit, make the order with or without modifications.
3. If any objection duly made as aforesaid is not withdrawn, the Minister shall, before making the order, either cause a public local inquiry to be held or afford to any person by whom any objection has been duly made as aforesaid and not withdrawn an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose, and after considering the objection and the report of the person who held the inquiry or the person appointed as aforesaid, may make the order either with or without modifications.
3. Notwithstanding anything in the two last foregoing sub-paragraphs, the Minister may require any person who has made an objection to state in writing the grounds thereof, and may
872
disregard the objection for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule if he is satisfied that the objection relates exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the tribunal by whom the compensation is to be assessed.
LORD WINSTER: The six Amendments to this schedule are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 47, line 10, leave out from ("Minister") to end of paragraph and insert ("may, if he think fit, make the order")
Page 47, line 17, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Minister")
Page 47, line 20, after ("may") insert ("if he thinks fit")
Page 47, line 20, leave out from ("order") to end of paragraph
Page 47, line 21, leave out ("sub-paragraphs") and insert ("paragraphs")
Page 47, line 24, leave out ("this Part of this Schedule") and insert ("those paragraphs").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
Provisions relating to directions under section twenty-nine of this Act.

PART I.
1. Immediately after the Minister has given the direction, he shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the district a notice stating that the direction has been given, and shall also serve notice of the direction—

(a) in the case of a direction given for the purpose specified in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of Section twenty-nine of this Act, upon every owner, lessee and occupier of any land to which the right of way is appurtenant, and upon every local authority in whose area that land is situated;

(b) in the case of a direction given for any other purpose specified in the said subsection, upon every owner, lessee and occupier of the land to which the direction relates and upon every local authority in whose area that land is situated;

LORD WINSTER: The two Amendments to this Schedule are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 50, line 23, after ("area") insert ("any of")
Page 50, line 27, after ("area") insert ("any of").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
Adjustments of the Functions of Statutory Undertakers.
7. As soon as may be after the making of a representation to the appropriate Minister under the preceding paragraph, the person carrying on the undertaking in question shall, as may be directed by the appropriate Minister, either publish, in such manner as may be so directed, a notice giving such particulars as may be so directed of the matters to which the representation relates and specifying the time within which, and the manner in which, objections to the making of an order on the representation may be made, or serve such a notice on such persons, or persons of such classes, as may be so directed, or both publish and serve such notices.
LORD WINSTER: There is a drafting Amendment to this schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 37, after the first ("the") insert ("last").—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
7.20 p.m.

1914–18 WAR MEMORIAL.
LORD CALVERLEY: I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government to take steps to provide some form of illumination for the War Memorial, 1914 –1918, situated in the Royal Gallery.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, as the noble Lord will probably have noticed, full lighting has been restored in the Royal Gallery since Saturday last, and I hope he will agree that the War Memorial is now satisfactorily illuminated.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, may I say that I am personally grateful for what has been done, because it has relieved the abysmal gloom in the Royal Gallery, and in view of the fact that many young children are now paying visits here it is well that they should see it at its best. Might I ask this supplementary question? Has the noble Lord noticed that the Book of Remembrance is in front of the plinth of the memorial? Could he see that the cabinet is removed to its former place on the right of the Memorial
874
so that in future the whole of the Memorial can be seen in its proper proportion?
LORD HENDERSON: I will bring the suggestion of the noble Lord to the attention of the Minister of Works, who I am sure will consult the proper authorities of the House on the matter.

SKEGNESS PIER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
IPSWICH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
READING CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment of each Bill, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.