Lords Sitting of 30 January 1947

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  THE ROYAL VISIT TO SOUTH AFRICA: MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT: My Lords, I have the honour to convey to the House the following Message from the King, signed with his own hand:
  "I thank you sincerely for your Address on the occasion of the departure of the Queen and myself with our daughters for the Union of South Africa. I have received with great pleasure your loyal and affectionate message which the Queen and I will bear constantly in mind during our absence."

TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, perhaps I should say that I understand that this is a Bill in which a good many of your Lordships are interested, and it is suggested that a Motion shall be moved for an instruction to the Committee which will consider the Bill at a later stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

ACCIDENTS TO DAKOTA AIRCRAFT.
4.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the following question of which I have given private Notice: Whether His Majesty's Government have yet received the Report of the Air Safety Board in regard to Dakota aircraft.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords,
304
your Lordships will be aware that in view of public anxiety arising out of the recent accidents to Dakotas, a statement was made by me to the inaugural meeting of the National Civil Aviation Consultative Council on Monday, and on the same day an answer was given by my Parliamentary Secretary to a private Notice question in another place, that I had already remitted to the Air Safety Board the question of the maximum permissible all-up weight at which Dakota aircraft should be operated. I would, however, point out to your Lordships, as was pointed out in these statements, that, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, there has been no accident to Dakota aircraft attributable to overloading.
Last night I received the Air Safety Board's Report. With your Lordships' permission I propose to circulate a copy of the full Report with the Official Report, but your Lordships will wish to know the main recommendation. I now quote from the Report:
Having examined the evidence put before it, the Board recommends in respect of the Dakota:—

(a)The continued application of 28,000 lb. as the maximum permissible all-up weight. This weight, of course, implies that the aircraft is being operated from airfields adequate for its class and over routes related to its single engine cruising performance.

(b)Initiation by Air Registration Board of an examination of the maximum permissible all-up weight which should apply at specific airfields and on particular routes.

(c)Trials by Ministry of Supply to examine variations in performance at different all-up weights.

In accordance with the above recommendation, I have to-day invited the Air Registration Board to make as a matter of urgency, the examination recommended, and I have similarly communicated with the Minister of Supply. The Report indicates that the Air Safety Board had the advantage of the views of Air Marshal Sir Ralph Cochrane, the present Commander-in-Chief of R.A.F. Transport Command, the British Overseas Airways Corporation, the British European Airways Corporation, the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators of the British Empire and the British Air Line Pilots Association.
I should remind the House that the composition of the Air Safety Board is as follows: Air Chief Marshal Sir Frederick Bowhill, the first Commander-in-Chief of the R.A.F. Transport Command

305
and at present my chief Aeronautical Adviser (Chairman); The Right Honourable the Lord Brabazon of Tara, Chairman of the Air Registration Board; Professor A. A. Hall, Chairman of the Civil Aircraft Research Committee of the Aeronautical Research Council, Zaharoff Professor of Aviation and Head of the Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College of Science and Technology and Air Vice Marshal Sir Conrad Collier, formerly Second-in-Command of the R.A.F. Transport Command and at present Director-General of Technical Services at my Ministry. Your Lordships will appreciate from the qualifications of the Members of the Air Safety Board, that that body speaks with the highest authority. I propose, therefore, to accept the recommendation of the Board, pending the results of the investigation to be undertaken by the Air Registration Board and the Ministry of Supply, when the position will be reconsidered.
[Following is the full Report referred to:]

ALL-UP WEIGHT OF DAKOTA AIRCRAFT
1. A meeting of the Air Safety Board was held at 1500 hours on the 28th January, 1947. In accordance with your instructions, the Board examined the relative considerations applicable to the maximum permissible all-up weight of Dakota aircraft established by Air Registration Board at 28,000 lb. vis-à-vis the American maximum of 25,200 lb. Representatives of British Airline Pilot's Association, Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators of the British Empire, British Overseas Airways Corporation, British European Airways Corporation, and Air Marshal Sir Ralph Cochrane, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Transport Command, were invited by the Board and were present.
2. No justification emerged from the discussion for a decrease in the existing Air Registration Board standard, at the present stage of aerodynamic development. It was evident that the British Airline Pilot's Association recommendation to reduce the weight to 26,500 lb. was established on the general premise that by decreasing the all-up weight, an increase in safety would result. The reduction to 26,500 lb. would not eliminate the risk due to engine failure at take-off.
3. The Board, as a result of the information put before it, formed the view that:—

(a) All statistical evidence available establishes that an all-up weight of 28,000 lb is acceptable for a Dakota operating under suitable conditions of aerodrome and route and no evidence of accidents directly attributable to this or higher weight was forthcoming.

306

(b) A reduction in all-up weight introduces new factors, viz.:—

(i) The necessity for shorter stages introducing more take-offs and landings (the chief danger in flying today).

(ii) The diminution in fuel carried, introducing hazards in cases of bad weather.

(iii) The possible disinclination to carry airborne aids to the extent that present unstandard conditions demand.

A balance of risks must be struck between the small effective gain in safety by reducing the critical period after take-off by a few seconds only, and the increased hazards set out above.

(c) The only available performance figures for a Dakota at 28,000 lb. have been calculated theoretically from the American's figures for 25,200 lb. operation. The Board was surprised that no evidence could be found of practical tests carried out in this country before its introduction as a civil type.

(d) From the data available to the Board, it is considered that the poor performance of the Dakota on one engine immediately after take-off could only be materially improved by a reduction to an all-up weight of the order of 20,000 lb. to 21,000 lb., when no economical payload could be carried.

(e) Maximum permissible all-up weights are directly related to length of runways, altitude of airfields, and geographical features on route. The all-up weights of an aircraft over a mountainous region must be such that the obstruction can be cleared on one engine at maximum permissible cruising revs. It is very satisfactory to note that the Corporations already vary their aircraft loading in respect of these factors. It is doubtful, however, whether Charter Companies do likewise. If not, action should be taken to ensure that they do.

(f) A high standard of crew training and an equally high standard of maintenance are relatively more important to safety than a decrease in all-up weights. In this respect, Transport Command completed approximately 250,000 take-offs in 1945 and 157,000 take-offs in 1946 without accident due to engine failure.

4. Having examined the evidence put before it, the Board recommends in respect of the Dakota:

(a) The continued application of 28,000 lb. as the Maximum Permissible all-up weight. This weight, of course, implies that the aircraft is being operated from airfields adequate for its class and over routes related to its single engine cruising performance.

(b)Initiation by Air Registration Board of an examination of the Maximum Permissible all-up weights which would apply at specific airfields and on particular routes.

(c) Trials by Ministry of Supply to examine variations in performance at different all-up weights.

5. Additionally, the Board considers that continuing study of the problem with respect to future aircraft should be diligently progressed. The Viking, Dove and Wayfarer are more particularly concerned.
4.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I have no doubt that there are noble Lords who will wish to ask the Minister some questions on this matter, but, before they do so, I should like, if I may, to make a very strong protest that the House was not given any notice that this important statement was going to be made. This is a question of burning interest. There have been shocking accidents lately, I agree not entirely to British aircraft but to aircraft of this type, and the public are deeply concerned about the matter. Your Lordships' House has a number of experts on this particular question who have no opportunity of being here this afternoon. It has always been the custom in the past, when a statement of this importance was to be made, that due notice should be given to the House. I do hope that such a lapse as this will not occur again. It is not in accordance with the traditions of the House, and it gives the House no opportunity of examining these very important and urgent matters.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, it was because of my recognition of the fact that your Lordships and the country felt profound concern in these matters that I considered it my duty to inform you at the earliest possible moment that I had received the Report, and also to make known the contents of the Report. I received the Report last night and I had to take the opportunity of considering it and its implications in the course of this morning, and I have done so. I have now made this statement so as to inform your Lordships at the earliest possible moment of the fact that the Report has been received, and of the broad recommendations in it. Your Lordships will have observed that I am, with your Lordships' permission, publishing it in full in the Official Report. It is no part of my wish—quite the contrary in fact—to exclude any discussion upon the subject. I am publishing the Report in order that, if it is desired by noble. Lords, arrangements may be made through the usual channels for discussion of the Report whenever may be the most convenient time.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has, I think, entirely misunderstood the point made—and made with great propriety, if I may say so—by the Leader of the Opposition. It was not that the House should not be informed at the earliest opportunity of a decision taken, but that it is the immemorial custom in this House—which no one has been more gracious and consistent in honouring than the present Leader of the House—that, when an important statement is going to be made, the Opposition should be given notice of what is going to be done, at any rate a few minutes before the House assembles. I. myself, owe an apology to the House for not being in my place when the noble Lord began to make this statement. I was in the Chamber, and of course I would have been in my place when this started if the noble Lord had done us the courtesy—which I am sure his noble Leader would have done—of informing us that he was going to make this statement. It is not that we object to the statement being made at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope the noble Lord will in future conform to the regular practice of his Leader in these matters. We will, of course, give very careful consideration to the statement, and afterwards, if it is so desired, no doubt arrangements will be made for a debate.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, with regard to the suggestion by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, as to Lord Nathan not knowing the rules of this House, I should have thought that the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, when he put down a private notice question, would know that it had to be answered. I should like, from the back Benches, to emphasize that at any rate my noble friend Lord Nathan is not to blame.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question. He may or may not be able to answer it. It is a supplementary which I think will interest a wide public. As I understand it, Britain is to continue to fly Dakotas at 28,000 lb. Could he tell us why the manufacturers of the Dakota, the American operators and certain Continental operators insist that 25,500 lb. is the safety weight beyond which the aircraft must not be flown? Is it not a fact that Britain has to con-

309
form to that on certain Continental routes, if we wish our Dakotas to go to those countries?
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I recognize that the noble Lord's question is pertinent to the matters under consideration, but I would suggest to him that it would be wise to wait until he has had an opportunity of studying the Report. It is for that reason that I am causing it to be published.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF BRIDLINGTON ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act for extending Section 1 of the Act, to the Borough of Bridlington, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Walkden).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF BEACONSFIELD ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Beaconsfield, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Walkden).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF BENFLEET ORDER).
LORD WALIKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Benfleet, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Walkden).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
4.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I would like to make this observation with regard to the words of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, that I have acted with some speed in bringing the Report before your Lordships' House. I hope that your Lordships, and in particular perhaps I might say the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Viscount, will acquit me of any discourtesy which they appear to have felt. I would not wittingly be discourteous, but I was anxious to inform the House at the earliest possible moment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to give effect to Chicago Convention and regulate air navigation.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by the preceding subsection and without prejudice to any of the provisions of the Air Navigation Acts, 1920 and 1936, His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision—

(a) as to the registration of aircraft in the United Kingdom;

(b) for prohibiting aircraft from flying unless certificates of airworthiness issued or validated under the Order are in force with respect to them and except upon compliance with such conditions as to maintenance as may be specified in the Order;

(c) for the licensing, inspection and regulation of aerodromes, for access to aerodromes and places where aircraft have landed, for access to aircraft factories for the purpose of inspecting the work therein carried on and for prohibiting or regulating the use of unlicensed aerodromes;

(d)for prohibiting persons from engaging in, or being employed in or in connection with, air navigation in such capacities as may be specified in the Order except in accordance with provisions in that behalf contained in the Order and for the licensing of those employed at aerodromes in the inspection or supervision of aircraft;

(e)as to the conditions under which aircraft may enter or leave the United Kingdom or go from one part of the United Kingdom to another and, in particular, as to

311
the aerodromes to be used by aircraft arriving in or leaving the United Kingdom;

(f) as to the conditions under which passengers and goods may be carried by air and under which aircraft may be used for other commercial, industrial or gainful purposes and for prohibiting the carriage by air of goods of such classes as may be specified in the Order;

(g) for minimizing or preventing interference with the use or effectiveness of apparatus used in connection with air navigation, and for prohibiting or regulating the use of such apparatus as aforesaid and the display of signs and lights liable to mislead or endanger aircraft;

(h) generally for securing the safety, efficiency and regularity of air navigation and the safety of aircraft and of persons and property carried therein, for preventing aircraft endangering other persons and property and, in particular, for the detention of aircraft to prevent aircraft flying when unfit to fly;

(n) for regulating the charges that may be made for the use of aerodromes licensed under the Order for services provided at such aerodromes and for work done at such aerodromes on aircraft;
and any such Order in Council may make different provision with respect to different classes of aircraft, aerodromes, persons, or property and with respect to different circumstances and with respect to different parts of the United Kingdom.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "maintenance" insert "or repair." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to rectify an omission in the drafting of the Bill to extend "maintenance" to "maintenance and repair." There was some doubt as to whether "maintenance" is a sufficiently wide term. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, after ("maintenance") insert ("or repair").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (2) (c), to leave out from "landed" to the end of the paragraph. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. As the Bill is drafted at present, Clause 1, subsection (2) (c), gives the Minister power to arrange that he should have access for inspection purposes to aircraft factories. The Bill says: "… for the purpose of inspecting the work therein carried on." We on this side of the House think that that is far too wide a power and one which is
312
not really necessary. Already the Minister of Supply has the power to enter aircraft factories and inspect work carried on therein. Therefore, it is open to question as to why the Department of the noble Lord should also wish to have those powers. There are enough Government Departments already which are able to go into manufacturers' premises.
When the Minister says he wishes the power to go into a factory to inspect the work therein, it is worth while to remember that there is a great deal more than aircraft work going on in aircraft factories to-day. Bristol's are making motor cars, another aircraft manufacturer is engaged in the production of steel houses, yet another is now engaged in making furniture, and, I believe, another is making refrigerators. It does seem absurd that the Government should wish to take such wide powers to go and inspect all the work in aircraft factories, but they have those powers under the Bill as now drafted. If the Minister were willing to limit his powers to going into aircraft factories to inspect the work connected with orders for his Department for aircraft being produced for civil aviation, then I think none of your Lordships on this side of the House would object, even though we really think it unnecessary because the Minister of Supply already has this power. Even so, we would not object.
At present, however, this paragraph seems to me to be an example of what the Bill reeks of at the present time—the policy enunciated by the Minister on the Second Reading, that the Executive should take enormous powers in various directions and excuse the obtaining of these powers by saying: "We are awfully nice people, and we are not going to use them." That is the tendency of modern government, and we on this side of the House are endeavouring to check the Executive in that direction. That is why we feel there is a wider application and a wider principle involved in this particular case. We wish to limit the granting to the Minister of powers which we cannot see are necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("landed") to the end of line 34.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD NATHAN: I ought, perhaps, to remind the noble Lord opposite that the whole of this subsection is lifted from the

313
Air Navigation Act of 1920. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the point made by the noble Lord. Of course my Ministry is not interested in inspecting work in factories relating to refrigerators and the like for ordinary civilian use. I have heard what the noble Lord has said, and I do not wish to take any powers wider than are necessary for carrying on the duties which fall upon me. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord has said, I will willingly consider how the paragraph can be drafted so as to include some kind of limitation to meet the point raised by the noble Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: On that assurance, we on this side of the House, would be very willing to consult with the noble Lord and try to agree on some new wording. With the leave of the House, will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (2) (d), after "with," where that word first occurs, to insert "commercial." The noble Lord said: The next Amendment, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and myself, is to limit to commercial navigation the powers which the Minister claims for prohibiting persons from engaging in or being employed in connexion with air navigation. We do not think that the Minister should seek powers to limit an ordinary person engaging in or being employed in connexion with air navigation if it is in a private capacity. As drafted at the present time, it seems to me that the Bill would prevent any noble Lord who owned a private aeroplane having—if he were so fortunate in these days of taxation to be able to afford one—a chauffeur or someone else to look after the engine. The Bill at present would prevent the owner of such an aircraft having a single nut or bolt turned by a spanner in the hands of his chauffeur, unless the Minister so agreed. If the Minister would limit that power to commercial aviation—that is, to those flying for hire or reward—we would not grudge him obtaining it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, after ("with") insert ("commercial").—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD NATHAN: I have given very careful consideration to the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble
314
Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I am afraid that, however willing I might be, it is not practicable for me to accept it. The Paris Convention, which is now about to be superseded by the Chicago Convention, required that the pilots and crew of every aircraft should be furnished with certificates of competency and licence. Article 32 of the Chicago Convention contains a similar provision, and no distinction is made in the Chicago Convention between commercial and other aircraft. One of the objects of this Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil the obligations which it has undertaken under the Chicago Convention. We would not be able to do so if we accepted the limitation suggested by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I intervene for one moment? I think that the noble Lord is carrying the provisions of these Conventions a great deal further than they were ever intended to be carried, and I should have thought—I speak subject to correction—wider than the terms would warrant. What we were concerned with in those matters was international flying. There are many provisions about international flying (such as that you must not give preference to your own nationals, and so on) in which similar treatment has to be given all round. Does the noble Lord really mean that it is now part of International Law that If I have a Moth on my own little landing ground at Swinton and my own people look after it or I look after it myself, unless he supervises me I have committed some breach of either the Paris Convention or the Chicago Convention? I am perfectly certain that nothing of that kind is in the minds of the Americans.
Noble Lords are aware that there is a tremendous development in private flying going on in the United States to-day. There are three or four companies specializing in turning out small machines at very cheap prices. I hope that we shall have something similar. If you read the advertisements of those very successful companies you will see that their whole tenor is to the effect that you buy one of these aircraft exactly as you would buy a Morris car. You can take it away and look after it yourself and you can keep it in your garage or your paddock at home—it will take up the smallest possible space. It only requires a man to go round it with a spanner, and you can take it out at week-

315
ends or on holidays. Those companies are selling thousands of such aircraft—I forget what the estimate was, but I believe it was something like roo,000which will be owned by people all over the United States in the near future. It is really to be supposed that somebody belonging to a trade union, a certified mechanic whether he is member of a closed shop or not, I know not—must look after this aircraft before you can fly it from one paddock to another?
I am sure that the noble Lord is carrying this matter extraordinarily far. I am all for carrying out our duties under Conventions, but do not let us do twenty times as much as any other country is doing. I do not believe for a moment that people owning private aeroplanes all over the world are going to be subject to this restriction. The position is difficult enough now in regard to petrol. Do not let the noble Lord force us into pettifogging restrictions of this kind, which can only have the result of putting further handicaps in the way of private flying, which I feel sure Ira wishes to encourage as much as do noble Lords on this side of the House. If he intends to put this provision into an Act of Parliament something will have to be done about it.
I was very glad to hear the noble Lord say that it was his desire not to seek wider powers than he needed. I was horrified when he said on Second Reading that the proper thing to do when legislating was to cast your net as wide as possible, because somehow, somewhere—in some Dead Sea—you might find a minnow you wanted to enmesh. That is exactly the opposite of the view of the Committee on Legislation. I am not sure whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was a member of that Committee. Certainly one member of the present Government was a member of it. That Committee laid down the cardinal rule for delegated legislation that the power taken should not be any wider than the Executive required to exercise. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will have another look at this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I should like to support the noble Viscount who has just spoken and who has given a very graphic description of a very simple matter. Although it is simple, it does not seem to have occurred to the noble Lord who is handling this Bill. I
316
can tell him of individuals who have private aeroplanes which are located in fields behind their houses, and where a chauffeur is called upon to do the sort of work which we are now required to have performed by a recognized official. I hope that the noble Lord will look more closely into this matter, particularly if he is desirous of encouraging civil aviation—as I know he is. It does touch on a very important point. We want people throughout the country to take up civil aviation, and these little restrictions can do a great deal of harm.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Might I intervene to make one constructive suggestion? I do not wish to take up time, because we want to get through this Bill as quickly as possible. I do not think any of us on this side of the House would object to the Minister having power in respect of those employed in air navigation, because one must not be a menace to other people; but would he consider omitting the words "or in connexion with," because these are the words which really contain all the objections as regards a private owner having his own private person to look after his own little Moth? If the Minister could meet us on that point, I think we would be able to withdraw our Amendment.
LORD NATHAN: I recognize that those who have addressed your Lordships speak with very great authority upon this matter. I am bound to say to the noble Viscount that I was a little surprised by his reference to minnows in the Dead Sea. I think he would have some difficulty in finding minnows in the Dead Sea. But be that as it may, I understand that this provision does not substantially, or at all, differ from the position which exists at the present time, and of course the words of the Chicago Convention are words to which the noble Viscount gave his adherence when he so ably represented the United Kingdom at that Conference. Nevertheless, I am impressed by the arguments which have been advanced. I have said before, and I repeat, that I am anxious to encourage private flying and club flying for more reasons than one, and if a form of words can be found—and I will seek to find it—which will at the same time enable us to fulfil our obligations under the Convention and meet the point put by noble Lords who have spoken,

317
then I will put an Amendment on the Order Paper between now and the Report stage.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am sure that we on this side of the House are very grateful to the Minister. Let me intervene only to say that we have very little time between now and the remaining stages of the Bill, and we would ask for due notice from the Minister of the proposals he is going to put on the Order Paper. On that assurance, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.29 p.m
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (2) (d), after "at" insert "licensed." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Viscount Swinton and myself. This is an Amendment which needs only a few words from me. It is an Amendment to limit the Minister's powers in the licensing of those employed on aerodromes in the inspection or supervision of aircraft. We propose to limit them to the licensing of persons employed on licensed aerodromes. The Minister already has powers to regulate unlicensed aerodromes, and it does not seem right, if you allow an unlicensed aerodrome to exist, that he should then claim the power to license everyone employed at such unlicensed aerodromes. I will not recapitulate the arguments put forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, and by my noble friend beside me, because they all apply equally well to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Line 40, after ("at") insert ("licensed")—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD NATHAN: I can accept this Amendment in principle. There is, however, a modification of words with which I do not think I need trouble your Lordships, as it is only a drafting point. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, I will see that that drafting Amendment is put down.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2) (e), to leave out "or go from one part of the United Kingdom, to another and". The noble Earl said: As it stands, this paragraph appears to consist of three parts; two joined together, but the middle one, apparently, inserted at a later date. This middle part has very little bearing on the first part or the last part, but it very greatly extends the powers they contain. The arguments so ably advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, apply here to a very large extent. The first and third parts of the subsection are unobjectionable, in a sense, but I feel that the Minister should define accurately what he means by "conditions under which aircraft may enter or leave the United Kingdom or go from one part of the United Kingdom to another."
"Conditions" may mean a number of things. If the noble Lord the Minister means "routing," would he say "routing"? If he just says "conditions", it may mean a whole wide range of things; it may mean the colour of the aircraft; it may mean the weather; or it may mean that the owner of the aircraft has to ring up some central depot. I feel that the conditions which the noble Lord intends to impose are entirely different from those which relate to international aviation. This does not refer to commercial aviation; it applies to all aircraft. An aircraft is already licensed and the personnel are licensed. What conditions other than routing does the noble Lord wish to impose? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 43, leave out from ("Kingdom") to ("and") in line 44.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I would like to support the noble Earl's Amendment. I must say that I was surprised, when I read this Bill, to see what I may call these very "sloppy" words: "as to the conditions under which aircraft may enter the United Kingdom or go from one part of the United Kingdom to another." Unfortunately, many aircraft go back to the manufacturers on a lorry from the place where they have landed—those which have to be mended as the result of an accident. There was once a saying: "The landing is good if the pilot steps out unhurt." That is a fundamental truth in aviation. Under this subsection,

319
as at present drafted, the Minister could regulate how the aircraft is to go from where it has landed to the place where it is to be mended. I suggest that when the Road Transport Bill is passed the Minister, in his nationalized aviation services, may find himself in conflict with the Minister of Transport as to how he wants the aircraft to be moved. The Minister of Transport may desire it to be moved by another method. The noble Lord the Minister should look again, first, at his powers, and secondly, at the drafting of the Bill.
LORD NATHAN: Both the noble Lord who has just spoken and the noble Viscount have had experience in the administration of the Air Navigation Acts. The point to which reference has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in his Amendment, the imposition of conditions with which aircraft must comply when going from one part of the United Kingdom to another, is not a new provision. It is transferred from Section 3 of the Air Navigation Act, 1920, as amended by the Air Navigation Act, 1936. What is new in this particular provision is not the conditions affecting aircraft moving from one part of the United Kingdom to another, but the power to pie-scribe conditions extending to aircraft entering or leaving the United Kingdom. The conditions required as regards aircraft generally would apply to aircraft going outside the United Kingdom as well as to those flying between points in the United Kingdom. Broadly, the aircraft must be registered, must bear the prescribed nationality and registration marks, and must carry the name and residence of the owner. It should be certified as airworthy; the personnel of the aircraft should be of the prescribed number and description and have the right certificates and competency of licences; and the prescribed documents and journey log book should be carried.
Noble Lords will realize that these conditions apply not only to United Kingdom aircraft but also to foreign aircraft flying within the United Kingdom. The aircraft has to possess the nationality of a contracting State. It must comply with the provisions of the Order as to general safety—for instance, as to the dropping of articles from aircraft. It must not land in or fly over any prohibited area, and the British persornel of the aircraft
320
must be provided with certificates of competency and licences issued or rendered valid by the competent authority within His Majesty's Dominions. The conditions as to maintenance of airworthiness must be complied with, the prescribed certificates as to airworthiness must be carried, and the aircraft must conform to orders made by the officers of the Police or of Customs and Excise. What is new here is not the matter to which the noble Lord has drawn attention, but that the conditions applying to internal aircraft may be made to apply in addition to aircraft coming into or leaving the United Kingdom. I am afraid, in the circumstances, that I cannot accept the Amendment moved.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: If the Minister is reluctant to accept this Amendment, would he consider a redrafting, so that we can be clear that it means flying and not going from one place to another, possibly by ground transport?
LORD NATHAN: The whole of this Bill relates to air navigation.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No.
LORD NATHAN: Indeed, yes. I would ask the noble Lord to refer to the title of the Bill, which is the Air Navigation Bill. Indeed, these provisions are to take the place of those in the first part of the Air Navigation Act, 1920 It is only amplification.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am sorry that the Minister is receding from that co-operative spirit which he showed at the start. This Bill is a Bill to deal with air navigation, but it deals with many ground services and many things other than flying. All I am asking is whether he will look again and see whether he should not clarify the drafting of this Bill in order to make quite sure that it does apply in this particular case to aircraft actually flying, and not to aircraft going from one place to another, as is now stated in the Bill.
LORD NATHAN: I will certainly look into it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:The noble Lord's jurisdiction extends ever Northern Ireland. Do these conditions apply to Northern Ireland in the same way?
LORD NATHAN: I think I am right in saying that they do. I never like to answer off-hand with regard to the application of a Bill to Northern Ireland, but I see that subsection (2) of Clause 6 says: "It is hereby declared that this Act extends to Northern Ireland."
LORD GIFFORD: Whether the noble Lord accepts this Amendment or not, it does seem to me that he has not quite considered the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—namely, that the first part of this paragraph deals with aircraft going to and from this country, that the middle says something about aircraft inside the United Kingdom, and that then, after a comma, it goes back again to deal with the aerodromes at which aircraft arrive in and leave the United Kingdom. It seems to me that it might be redrafted so that the part dealing with aviation to and from other countries is together. It could then go on to deal with aircraft moving inside the United Kingdom.
LORD NATHAN: When I am looking at the subsection again I will certainly consider the point made by the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I understand the noble Lord to say he will look at the subsection again. As I understand it, his statement that there is no extension of existing regulations is hardly borne out. Section 3 of the Act of 1920 is perfectly clear; it deals with certificates of airworthiness, the licensing of personnel and the books to be carried. It has nothing to do with the conditions under which aircraft may pass or goods and passengers be carried. If those are the subjects which are intended to be covered by this clause, the noble Lord can find them elsewhere in the Bill, because they are already provided for. If there is some other contingency for which he wishes to provide, can we ask him to prescribe it more accurately, so that we know exactly where we stand in regard to this matter?
LORD NATHAN: I do not know to what document the noble Earl was referring, bat if he will refer to Section 3 (f) of the 1920 Act as amended he will find the words "the conditions under which aircraft may pass, or goods or passengers may be conveyed by aircraft" and so on, including the words "from one part of the United Kingdom to another." That is the 1920 Act as amended by the 1936
322
Act. It is quite likely that the noble Earl had not the document before him in a convenient form, but I have in front of me a copy of the Air Navigation Act of 1920 as amended by the Air Navigation Act of 1936, and it is from that that I have just quoted.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I know those passages in the Act, but that is no reason why, if we can usefully do so, we should not in the new Act improve upon the drafting and the provisions of the old. While there are, I quite agree, a number of conditions with which aircraft have to comply, whether they are private aircraft or commercial aircraft, I think there is a great deal of force in the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that you ought not to get that sort of thing in by an omnibus provision, particularly if the omnibus provision is unnecessary. The right place, as he said, in which to lay down these conditions, if they are with regard to log books and so on, is in the subsection dealing with the log books and the books which an aircraft has to carry; and if the conditions are dealing with the qualifications of personnel who shall fly the aircraft, the proper place for them is in the subsection dealing with personnel.
If you take in every obligation under these general words, you might just as well not have these detailed sections at all but merely have a clause to say that every person is to comply with such provisions as may be laid down in order to meet national or international law. I do not believe there is a difference of substance here. When you are putting out a new Act, and particularly when you are putting out a new Act which is to give effect to international conventions, I think you want to be very careful with your drafting so that he who runs may read. It is not a question of giving the Minister more powers. I see he does not seem to think there is very much in this.
LORD NATHAN: Certainly I do.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I thought he was sneering it off. I really think there is quite a lot in this. It applies not only to Englishmen but to other nationals. It is important that people should find in legislation, in simple language and in the proper place, the obligations which are being imposed upon them. When we are

323
producing a new Bill to deal with these matters, I think it is well worth while spending a little time, and getting the expert draftsmen to spend a little time, on putting it into that form which will be easiest for the flyer, whatever his nationality, to understand.
LORD NATHAN: Far from deprecating what the noble Viscount was saying, I was smiling because he used a form of words—" that he who runs may read"—which I have myself used in this very connexion. I am as anxious as the noble Viscount is to see that legislation shall be clear to the citizen. One of the difficulties in a matter of this kind is that if one is too detailed one overloads the Bill. It is the purpose for which the Order is required which is really the relevant part of subsection (2) (e). When I saw the noble Earl's Amendment, I had not suspected that he was going to raise this point; I thought he was going to raise a point about differentiating between one part of the United Kingdom and another. That would not have been a good point, but I thought, in view of the part he has taken previously in the discussions in this House on these subjects, that that was more likely to be the aspect of the matter to which he wished to direct attention. I have told your Lordships that I am going to have a look at the subsection, and while I am looking at one part of it I will, of course, look at the other part.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord. I am sorry he thinks I have a one-track mind, but perhaps I may be able to correct him on that matter on some other occasion. I must apologize for not having an up-to-date and amended copy of the 1920 Act, but I think the subsection he quoted comes in as a proviso and not as a major operative part of the Act. Accordingly it has a somewhat different weight from that which is given to it, in the same words possibly, in this Bill as it stands. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, at the end of subsection (2) (f), to insert:
"provided that the Minister shall not make available to the three Government-owned Corporations opportunities for the carriage of
324
passengers and goods under conditions more favourable than prescribed for any charter service."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, which aims at putting into the Bill the undertaking the Minister gave on the passing of the Civil Aviation Act—namely, that there shall be no undue discrimination against charter companies in favour of the three nationalized Government Corporations. Of course we accept the noble Lord's assurance, but Ministers come and Ministers go, and we should feel much more comfortable if the undertaking were not merely in the form of a verbal undertaking, but were written into the Bill.
The particular paragraph which I am moving to amend says that the Minister may regulate
" the conditions under which passengers and goods may be carried by air and under which aircraft may be used for other commercial, industrial or gainful purposes and for prohibiting the carriage by air of goods of such classes as may be specified in the Order."
I am moving to add the words—
"Provided that the Minister shall not make available to the three Government-owned Corporations opportunities for the carriage of passengers and goods under conditions more favourable than prescribed for any charter service."
I am not suggesting that the Minister should not have powers to prohibit certain classes of goods being carried; what I am suggesting is that if he prohibits that for one lot of people he should also do so for the other lot. I hope the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment, which only puts into writing a verbal undertaking given by him on another occasion.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD NATHAN: I hope I may reassure the noble Lord at once by saving that I regard my obligations as extending to charter companies no less than to the three Corporations. I have had some meetings with the representatives of the charter companies, and I think I may fairly claim that they were satisfied with the reception they received and the assurances that were given to them. The charter companies need be under no misapprehension that there is any desire or intention on the part of my Ministry—the contrary is the case—to damnify them in relation to the statutory Corporations.

325
I am not proposing, with the noble Lord's permission, to discuss the wording of his Amendment, because he will not misunderstand me if I say the wording would scarcely be apt. What is raised is, however, a question of substance on subsection (2) (f). This paragraph does not relate to the particular position so much as the general position of the circumstances—I will not use the word "conditions"—under which passengers and goods may be carried by air. Broadly speaking, they would be of general application irrespective of who the passenger or goods carrier might be. I will tell the noble Lord frankly that hitherto my efforts to find a form of words which would give effect in legislation to the intentions which I hold, and which the noble Lord holds, have been unsuccessful. I have been unable to find a form of words which would answer the problem. It is easier to insert it in relation to a particular situation. The noble Lord will remember that in the Civil Aviation Act there is a provision to which the noble Lord referred, I think, on the Second Reading.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Section 40.
LORD NATHAN: It is that no discrimination be exercised by the Minister between Corporations and others in the matter of aerodrome facilities. That was a limited and particular matter. I would willingly give the noble Lord the assurance that the obligation there imposed in respect of a particular matter would apply not only in particular cases but generally to the relations between the charter companies and the Statutory Corporations. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that Ministers come and Ministers go, but I am giving an assurance on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I am asking your Lordships' House to allow this paragraph to go as it is drafted. It is not the law of the Constitution, but I think it is the practice that when Ministers give undertakings, then the Department for which they speak, whoever may be the Minister at a particular moment, consider themselves bound by the obligations so given. I have experienced that myself as a practitioner, and also since I have been a Minister. I have been told that my free and complete liberty of action was restricted by undertakings given by a predecessor, and undertak-
326
ings given to one House of Parliament or another. If there were a simple or clear form of words I would be willing to accept it. I have been unable to find it, and therefore I ask that your Lordships' House will accept my assurance in its place.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think we should all accept the Minister's personal assurance, of course, but he really has enunciated a very revolutionary and strange doctrine, which is that what Parliament desires shall be the law shall not find its place in the Act of Parliament, but shall find itself merely in a Ministerial assertion. Of course, the Minister will carry out the undertaking which he gives, but he knows quite well that that has no legal effect at all. If he died to-morrow, or was elevated to even higher office—both are possibilities; one, at any rate, we hope not a probability, and I refer of course to the former—I am not at all sure about his successor being bound. These things are very awkward.
In any case, what is quite certain is that Governments come and Governments go, as well as Ministers, and no future Government is going to be bound by an undertaking given by this Government. How often have I heard Ministers get up at that Box and say, "Well, what have we to do with it?" They say that whenever it suits them, but, whenever they want to rely on it they pray in aid something which we did together. When they want to go on an erratic course, they say, "Of course we are not bound in any way by any undertakings given or the policy enunciated by a previous Government"—of which Government they were members. Therefore, this undertaking certainly cannot go further than the lifetime of the present Government, which may not be so very long.
The noble Lord had a very distinguished practice as a legal practitioner, and I know what his practice would be in regard to this. If a matter is taken into Court, what a Minister or anybody else said in Parliament is of no avail at all. The Judge merely looks at the Act of Parliament and rules on what is written in it. You are not allowed to quote to a judge the debates in the House. That is where our legal system differs from certain foreign judicial systems. Therefore, it certainly is right that if this is what is desired—noble Lords certainly

327
desire it on this side of the House, and the Minister equally desires it—the right thing to do is to put words into the Bill. As I understand it, the Minister himself admits that on these words as they stand he, or another Minister of Civil Aviation, could differentiate as between one commercial carrier and another. I think he is quite right. Without the words being inserted I think he could impose differential conditions. Indeed, it bas been one of the commonest practices, in Acts of Parliament dealing with transport matters, to put in special and precise provisions to ensure that there shall not be discrimination or differential treatment. That has been common form in our legislation.
That being so, if we pass this paragraph as it stands the Minister has the undoubted right to differentiate. It being the common desire in all quarters of the House that the Minister shall not, in practice, differentiate, then in all common sense we ought to put words into the Bill to provide that the Ministers shall not be free to differentiate. I do not believe for a moment that it is beyond the capabilities of the draftsmen. We see Bills coming here, and from the things that are put into them you would believe that draftsmen could draft anything under the sun, on the earth, or under the earth. We did not find any difficulty in drafting the words for Section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act, which said in relation to aerodromes that the Minister shall not differentiate in his treatment as between one user and another. If it is perfectly simple to find words with regard to aerodromes, it really is equally simple to find words appropriate to the Minister's actions in dealing with other conditions. We will not press this matter to a Division now, because I feel the Minister, who wants the same thing as we do, should have the opportunity himself of putting down an Amendment. I must say, particularly in view of his statement that he had no intention of discriminating, that if the Minister does not put down an Amendment I hope my noble friend will put this one down at the next stage, and then we must press it to a Division.
LORD NATHAN: In view of the friendly nature of the discussion, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words. I imagine what noble Lords have in mind
328
is that where circumstances are alike there shall be no differentiation between the two. That is putting it quite shortly. As a matter of personal interest I would like to add a word to what the noble Viscount said about undertakings given by a Minister. Some years ago, as a practitioner, I had occasion to write to the Treasury drawing their attention to an undertaking or assurance given to another place by Mr. Winston Churchill, who was at the time Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was long after he had ceased to be Chancellor of the Exchequer and a different Government was in office. I was not concerned then politically but as a legal practitioner. I pointed out that a certain undertaking had been given by Mr. Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury replied to me and said: "Well, we do not recall this. Can you give any references? Because if Mr. Churchill gave that undertaking of course we shall honour it." That was their reply, although at a time when there was a different Chancellor of the Exchequer and a different Government. I was very much impressed by that as a principle.
Since I have been a Minister I have been impressed by the fact—I refer to one particular thing, although I need not refer to it in detail—that when I would have wished to make a change I was assured that an undertaking had been given to your Lordships' House and that I could not act in breach of that assurance without coming down to your Lordships' House and explaining the whole matter. In other words, I could not act on my own motion, although there were no legal obligations, because there was an established practice. So far as the legal position is concerned, of course, what the noble Viscount said is perfectly correct.
5.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It goes even further than that, where a Minister has given a pledge. These things vary between political and administrative matters. The Government would be bound by common practice on many matters, once a ruling has been given as to whether a particular thing should be done. I entertain no doubt at all, however, that on a matter which is really a political matter, another Government would incur no breach of faith at all if, being a fresh Government coming in, they said: "The position is different and we wish to differentiate; we propose in future to

329
differentiate." They would in fairness, of course, be bound to give notice. But that would no: be the case if Parliament had wanted to impose obligations and had put them in an Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I hope the noble Lord will try again to frame words to meet the common intention of all of noble Lords on all sides of the House. I would be willing to withdraw the Amendment on this undertaking: first, that the Minister will try to find a form of words; and secondly, that if unsuccessful he will let us know twenty-four hours before the next stage of the Bill, so that we can put down an Amendment. In that case we should have to press it to a Division. We do not want to do that; we would prefer to have an agreed form of words. But we must ask for time to enable us to put down an Amendment again.
LORD NATHAN: I will try in this matter to agree a form of words with the noble Lord, and, of course, in any case I will not take him by surprise.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (2) (g) to leave out from "navigation" to the end of the paragraph. The noble Viscount said: This Amendment proposes to limit the Minister's powers for making a general black-out over London, for closing down all private radio stations and radio experiments, and for stopping electrical treatment in hospitals. I would say that there are few activities the Minister could not pursue if he has the right to take the powers defined in the Bill. We all appreciate that the Minister must have powers to prevent interference with the Use of apparatus in the vicinity of aerodromes, but on the Second Reading of this Bill it was the Minister himself who mentioned the electrical apparatus in Westminster Hospital as being dangerous in relation to interference with aircraft. In time of war certain action had to be taken.
It does seem to us that the Minister is asking for excessively wide powers. We have certain other Amendments on this clause, including one which the Minister
330
himself, will move, to limit his power to say that the lights of London mislead planes and that therefore there must be an order for London lights to be put out. He will surely say that only the lights which are of danger to aircraft must be put out. We feel that these powers are far too wide. I would like to remind him, if he feels these powers are necessary, of what Mr. William Pitt once said: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the excuse of tyrants and the creed of slaves." Those words of Mr. William Pitt seem to me peculiarly applicable to the powers asked for by the Minister in this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD NATHAN: I would ask the House to consider this Amendment in association with my own Amendment, that the word "mislead" in the last line of paragraph (g) should be omitted. The result of the acceptance of my Amendment would be that these powers could be exercised only when the matters complained of represented a danger to aircraft. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I consider these powers essential; they are more essential than ever in the present state of the public mind, when there is a good deal of anxiety about safety. I regard this provision, as amended by the exclusion of the word "mislead," as being vital for the purpose of helping me ensure safety which, beyond all, I am making my objective.
The use of radar and radio has greatly increased the extent to which other apparatus may cause interference. The lights and beacons of international standards, as well as our own domestic standards, are not restricted nowadays to the vicinity of an aerodrome. There are ground signs of an agreed international standard pattern used to indicate geographical positions to aircraft and, in some cases, the state of affairs at aerodromes. A false beacon on an air route might involve an error of navigation with serious consequences, especially if petrol wore running low in the aircraft concerned. By excluding the words: "mislead or" I have endeavoured to meet the points which were put by noble Lords very clearly on Second Reading. All the powers sought for in this paragraph, therefore, relate to the question of danger, and I am sure that I shall have your Lordships with me in asking that, in the

331
circumstances, I should not be pressed to accept the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I wish to be quite frank about this. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and I put down our Amendment at the same moment, practically, as the Minister put down his. His Amendment does go a long way to meet us. I do think that some powers are necessary. Might I mention the final Amendment on the Order Paper which refers in particular to this subsection? It makes provision for an appeal by anyone who is an owner of apparatus (an owner not of land, but of apparatus) and creates a right of representation as regards any Order the Minister makes. In due course, when we come to that, I hope that the Minister, seeing that we have conceded these powers, will allow some form of appeal or representation to any one affected by the use of the powers by the Minister. Perhaps the Minister will give us his views on that now.
LORD NATHAN: We have not reached that Amendment, but if it is agreeable to the House to discuss it now in association with this, I shall be very ready to make some observations upon it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps it would be better not to deal with that Amendment until it is reached.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Then in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment which we have just been considering.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD NATHAN: The next Amendment I move formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("mislead or").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (2) (h) to leave out from "aircraft," where that word occurs a third time, to the end of the paragraph and insert "for any of the purposes specified in this paragraph." The noble Lord said: On the Second reading the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, drew attention to what he regarded as an ambiguity, or at all events a lack of clarity, in the phrase: "unfit to fly" appearing in paragraph (h). I am now proposing to
332
indicate that the right of detention to prevent aircraft flying when unfit to fly shall be in relation to the safety, efficiency and regularity of air navigation, the safety of aircraft and persons and property carried therein, and for preventing danger to other persons and property. The right of detention would only be exercised for those purposes; that is, the purposes of ensuring the safety of aircraft, persons and property. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, leave out from ("aircraft") to the end of line 18, and insert ("for any of the purposes specified in this paragraph")—(Lord Nathan.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: There is a question which I would like to ask upon this matter. It strikes me that the Amendment does rather widen the Minister's powers of detention. On the Second Reading our complaint with regard to the power of detention was that it was not clear whether the power was applicable to aircraft being unfit to fly or to conditions of weather being unfit for flying. By the next Amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton and I have aimed at clarifying this point. This Amendment by the Minister gives him power to detain if it is considered that air navigation is not satisfactory. I would like to know how the Minister and his officials are going to construe "the safety, efficiency and regularity of air navigation." It does seem to me that it would be better to accept the next Amendment, and not this one.
LORD NATHAN: May I give one example? Suppose that those responsible at the airport were to come to the conclusion that there was icing on the propellers of an aeroplane, that the baggage had not been satisfactorily loaded or that the requirements as to centre of gravity had not been complied with. They would, in my opinion, be rightly entitled to say that the aircraft must not fly because it would be exposing to risk the aircraft and the persons in it, and, possibly, people on the ground. This provision is one which, as its opening words denote, is "for securing the safety, efficiency, and regularity of air navigation, and the safety of aircraft and persons and property." In those circumstances, I trust that, having regard to the Amendment which I have put forward with a view to meeting the noble Lord, he will feel able to accept it.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am sorry to persist, but the noble Lord the Minister has enunciated something new—a principle which, I think, is going to have a wide effect in aviation circles. In effect, he has said that the decision of the captain of an aircraft is to be subordinate to someone else—that is, a decision as to whether conditions are fit for flying, how the aircraft is loaded and whether the centre of gravity is correct according to the loading. The captain's decision on these matters is to be judged by someone else and the captain is no longer the man primarily responsible. That is a very serious statement, and I think it enunciates an entirely new principle. I believe that the Minister would wish to think again as regards that particular matter. We, in British civil aviation, have never yet surrendered the prime responsibility of the captain for the safety of the aircraft and passengers. Yet the Minister is now saying: "We are going to rely on someone above the captain who can overrule him." Does the Minister really mean that? I am willing to accept that the Minister was speaking extempore, but what he has said does, I consider, enunciate a very new and, to my mind, dangerous principle.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I wish to ask: With whom rests the liability? The most important thing, of course, is safety. I have always understood that the decision in these matters rests with the captain, even when air liners are concerned. I have often discussed with airline operators the question as to who takes the decision whether an aircraft should take off or not. As regards weather conditions, it has always been the practice in British airlines—and I think also with Americans, for I have discussed this matter with them—that the responsibility rests with the captain and not with some other officer or officers—the manager, or whoever it may be—of the airline at the airport. I have always understood that if the captain decides that he is not going to fly, he is fully entitled to take that decision, and that he cannot be overridden in that decision—as he certainly ought not to be—by the officials of the airline operating company.
If, on the other hand, the captain thinks it is all right for him to fly, the airline operating officials do not interfere with him. That is the position as between the persons responsible inside the operating company. If that is right, then I would
334
have thought that the decision should be the decision of the captain, and not the decision of the Minister's officials on the airport. If the Minister is correct in what he is now enunciating, if he has a right to stop a captain flying an aircraft, he has also a duty to stop him flying the aircraft if the aircraft ought not to fly. It seems to me that in this case a right connotes a duty, and a duty implies a right. That carrying the responsibility a very long way; it is making the Minister's officials take the place of the captain, and it is a tremendous responsibility.
Observe that this is not a case of dealing only with our own airlines; it affects the lines of all nationalities and any aircraft which is about to leave an airport. I think we ought to know very clearly where the responsibility rests, and I would like to know whether it is a matter which has been agreed internationally. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong for the Minister to have this right, although I am inclined to think—for a great many reasons which I will not go into—that it must be the captain's responsibility. I have considered this matter a great deal, in consultation with operators, and I think that in the long run you must leave the decision with the captain. I believe there is a great concensus of opinion in favour of that.
But let us be quite clear that, whichever way this goes, it goes, so to speak, the whole hog. It means that on all the international airfields of the world the person who is going to decide whether an aircraft is going to fly or not fly will not be the captain of that aircraft, whether it be a British, American, or a Scandinavian aircraft, but an official upon that airfield. I am not at all sure that that is a wise thing to do. I am not going to say anything offensive about the way that airfields may be run all over the world, but they vary in efficiency. There will be a certain relativity in this matter, and I can imagine myself in certain quarters of the globe where I would much rather rely on the captain of the aircraft in which I was travelling to say whether I was to take off or not than upon the ground officer of the particular airfield upon which I happened to have landed.
Let the Minister observe this. He is not only assuming a tremendous duty here; he is assuming a pretty heavy liability, because if the right and the duty to decide whether the aircraft should fly or not rests

335
with him, and not with the captain or the air line operator, then obviously he in, creases his liability. If the decision of his officer upon the airfield has been a wrong decision, and the aircraft has an accident, then an action may very well be brought for negligence. He will be a party to that action, and he will have to defend his officer in a Court of Law, wherever it may be. I am sorry to have taken time over this issue, but it is such a tremendously important one, both nationally and internationally. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it makes for safety; but it makes for safety in a great deal wider and much more complicated way than he is really envisaging. He may want to consider this matter a bit more closely.
LORD NATHAN: Both the noble Lord and the noble Viscount have opened a subject which has a very great and fundamental importance, a subject far wider than I had intended to raise and far wider than rests, in my view, on this Amendment. Certainly nothing that I have said—I was really giving examples on the spur of the moment—is to be assumed to be a statement of new policy or a fixed conclusion. Obviously the matter which has been referred to by the noble Lords opposite is of fundamental importance, and can be dealt with only after the gravest consideration. It is indeed a serious matter. But, having acknowledged the importance of the point put, I must indicate to the noble Lords opposite that they have misinterpreted my Amendment, or read more into my Amendment than I think it is capable of bearing. The matter at issue is not whether an airport controller shall be entitled to send an aircraft off, or whether that responsibility shall remain within the exclusive domain of the captain of the aircraft. The whole point at issue is as to the controller's right to detain. It is only a question of his detaining an aircraft if safety would be affected were he to allow that aircraft to take off. It is merely a question of keeping an aircraft back, not of sending it off. It is an abundance of caution, if you like, to seek that that power shall be taken and exercised by the airport authorities.
I should have thought it is very unlikely that any conflict would arise in a matter of that kind between the airport authorities and the pilot. I have to look at the question also from the
336
point of other aircraft in the air. We may, in the interests of the safety of other aircraft in the immediate neighbourhood of the aerodrome, have to prevent an aircraft which is ready to take off from actually doing so. Frankly, I think that possibly it was not clearly apprehended by the noble Lord opposite that this power is what I may call a negative and not a positive power; it is merely the power to detain, and not the power to send off. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lords will find it possible to agree to this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I have listened with great attention to the points raised, but it seems to me that, notwithstanding the fact that you take a negative power, if you do not use your negative power you would not escape the liability of the representative of the Ministry of Civil Aviation or the airport people if, not having stopped an aircraft taking off, an accident unfortunately happened later.
LORD NATHAN: I would suggest to the noble Earl that that will arise on the making of the Order. All that is sought here is the power to make the Order to enable aircraft to be held back in the circumstances to which I have referred, when, for instance, the safety of the aircraft itself or of others would be likely to be affected.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I thank the Minister for his explanation. On the understanding that as a result of this discussion nothing at all impinges upon the final responsibility of the captain for the safety of his aircraft and of his passengers, and assuming also that the Minister was giving an example, and perhaps not a very happy technical example, of checking the loading and centre of gravity of the aircraft, and not enunciating any policy, we on this side are willing to grant him these powers.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved at the end of subsection (2) (h), to insert: "and for regulating and enforcing the load which an aircraft is permitted to carry." The noble Viscount said: I put this Amendment down in order really to give the noble Lord the Minister an opportunity of making a statement on policy. I am not sure that the words are actually required, because I presume they would be implicit

337
in the certificate of airworthiness, which would have to show the total all-up weight of the aircraft. The Minister has made an announcement to-day on the subject of Dakotas, and I think that your Lordships will probably wish to consider the matter, and then decide whether to raise it on another occasion. On that understanding—assuming that I am right about the certificate of airworthiness—I will formally move my Amendment, merely to be sure of the position.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18 at end insert: ("and for regulating and enforcing the load which an aircraft is permitted to carry").—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD NATHAN: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. We are entirely at one in this matter. I am advised that I have ample powers which will not be added to by the words suggested.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, at the end of subsection (2) (h), to insert:
"(i) for requiring persons engaged in, or employed in or in connection with, air navigation to supply meteorological information for the purposes of air navigation;".
The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount has put down an Amendment dealing with what I believe to be the same subject matter. I was not entirely clear as to what precisely the noble Viscount had in mind, but if it is what I apprehend it to be, then there is no difference between us, except as to the wording and the place where it should go. I am advised that the appropriate place is that suggested for this Amendment. The wording is designed—I hope successfully—to meet the point raised by the noble Viscount.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Nathan.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Minister. I am sure that his form of words is better than mine and is in a better place than mine, and I readily accept it. While we are most anxious to give him this power, he has already, on another matter, been good enough to give enlightenment to the House, and I think that on this matter of meteorological information your Lordships would be extremely grateful for a
338
little information from him as to how the powers which he possesses, and which we are confirming under this Bill, are now being exercised. Important as are these weight matters—in respect of which the Minister quite rightly said he wanted to tell the House, at the earliest opportunity, what he was doing—I am frankly much more anxious about the apparently chaotic state and absence of meteorological information for aircraft flying about Europe to-day. This is an extremely serious matter, and it applies irrespective of whether aircraft are properly laden or not. With regard to those aircraft which have come to grief, and others which have nearly come to grief, there is no doubt that they were not in the least overloaded and were on their lawful occasions.
I am sure that the Minister can help us by telling us what are the arrangements in connexion with meteorological information. We have recently had the spectacle of passengers bound for Paris (I quote from a paper, and if it is wrong I am sure I shall be corrected) sitting for hours at Northolt, within half an hour's drive of London, waiting to know whether they could fly to Paris or not. That is a most extraordinary thing, when a telephone message from Le Bourget ought to be able to state what the position is at that airport. There has been the tragic case of an aircraft starting for a French airfield (and I think there have been cases of aircraft starting for Swiss airfields) with inadequate knowledge of the weather conditions at the port to which it was destined. There have been aircraft in flight apparently unable to get any weather information en route. Finally, we have had cases where aircraft, having got into bad weather, and finding that they cannot land at their port of destination, have had no means of ascertaining to which port they are to be diverted.
These are all simple elementary safeguards which ought to be available to every aircraft which flies. They are not dependent on blind-landing equipment. Every airfield must know the condition of the weather in its area. Every airfield must have ample facilities, by means of wireless telephony or wireless telegraphy, to inform the port: of exit what the condition of the weather is at that airfield, and along the route. Every aircraft flying on any national or international route has wireless telephony or wireless telegraphy,

339
or both, by which it can both give and receive this information. There must be thousands and thousands of these wireless sets available after the war. During the war it was the simplest thing in the world. Wherever an aircraft flew, it could give a wireless signal in order to get its "fix," as it was called, and to receive a report on the weather. I know, having been flying every day almost for years, that every half hour one received a wireless report on the route along which one was flying. Bombers were being brought back to this country in the height of some of the most complicated operations. Airfield after airfield was closed down by fog or ground mist, and yet so perfect was the organization that even when r,000 aircraft were out on a raid over a target in Germany they were brought back safely to some airfield or series of airfields fortified by F.I.D.O. or, by God's grace, clear of fog.
Yet we have this extraordinary position now, in peace-time, when there are only a few air liners flying. You do not know what the weather is at a European capital an hour's flight away; you cannot, apparently, get a weather report en route; and you do not get directions as to where you are to be diverted. The position is very serious and quite intolerable. I do not think that I have over-stated it. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord who has to-day given us his assurances about the all-up weight of these aircraft, and who has been most anxious to promote safety everywhere, will tell us, in this vitally important but relatively more simple matter, what is being done for the safety of those who fly, and—this is less important but not unimportant—for the convenience of those people who sit for hours waiting to know whether they can take off, and who might get into a taxicab and catch the "Golden Arrow" to Paris. It really is a very important business, and I am sure that the noble Lord, with his courtesy and wide knowledge, will now enlighten us as to what measures are being taken.
5.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think the question of the meteorological services is a very important one. Anyone who flew before the war and then advanced into the war period suddenly realized what an immense change it meant to flying when one had really first-class meteoro-
340
logical services. It is a matter of deep regret to-day that when you fly about you find that the services have deteriorated—I will not say to the state they were before the war, but a very long way, compared with their condition during the days of the war. It is at the present time of tremendous importance to emphasize that fact.
We have, perhaps, allowed ourselves to be unduly worried by recent aircraft crashes. From what the noble Lord has said, I understand that he is quite confident, from the Report he has received, that the standards of safety set down for the Dakota aircraft are thoroughly satisfactory. I take it that that is substantially the nature of the Report he has received. I am glad to hear that that is the case. I think it is a very good thing that the Air Safety Board were not drawn into accepting a reduction in weight which was not essential. I support what the noble Viscount has said about meteorological conditions being vital. It is not possible to do too much in keeping the meteorological services on their toes. I would like to ask the noble Lord: Are meteorologists encouraged to fly on all possible occasions? Are they encouraged to experience themselves the weather which they have forecast, so that they can forecast the weather more accurately in future? I have much pleasure in supporting what has been said on this aspect of the matter.
LORD NATHAN: It is common ground between us that this whole problem of meteorological services is one of first-class importance. I do not think that the noble Viscount expects me to make any full statement on this Amendment, and, in any event, I do not feel that the moment is opportune for me to do so. It might involve going into questions to which the noble Viscount referred—one of which relates to matters which are at present the subject of an investigation. I await the report from my Chief Inspector of Accidents before I make any comment on that matter. I think it would be useful to have a discussion on meteorology, and it would certainly be of great service to me. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has given Notice that in the course of next month he will move a Motion on questions relating to radar, and the like, and I wondered whether it might not be possible for him to extend the scope of his Motion to include meteorology. If he could do

341
that, I think it would be a useful occasion on which to discuss the matter.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I accept that suggestion, but I do not agree that the matter is not appropriately raised now. After all, when powers are sought one is quite in order in asking the justification for those powers, what use is being made of them and what use is going to be made of them. I do not want to press the noble Lord, but I do not withdraw anything that I have said, either as to the vital need of these services or as to the very unsatisfactory state of affairs at present. I think it would be convenient that a full and considered statement should be made at the earliest opportunity, because people are anxious, and rightly anxious, about this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, after ("Order") insert ("and").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (2) (n), to leave out "and for work done at such aerodromes on aircraft." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on the Second Reading. Although our Amendments are expressed differently they have the same effect. In the circumstances, I hope it will not be thought discourteous if I move the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, leave out from ("aerodromes") to the end of line 45.—(Lord Nathan.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Far from thinking the noble Lord discourteous, I am grateful to him for having accepted our Amendment. It is rather unique to see the Minister, one of the Leaders of the Opposition and another member of the Opposition Front Bench so much in agreement, showing that all our minds are thinking alike.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"provided that the Minister shall not make different provision between the same classes
342
of aircraft, persons or property with respect to similar circumstances and localities between such owned by the three Government Corpora tons and those owned by any charter service."
The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment, and it raises the same principle of non-discrimination against charter companies which we debated earlier. There is no need for me to recapitulate the arguments, but I do not think in this case that the Minister can say there will be great difficulty in finding suitable words. I only hope that he will get up and say that I have found suitable words for the purpose. Failing that, we will be content if he will give us some expression of view, as on a previous Amendment—that is to say, first, that he is with us in spirit; secondly, that he will try to find suitable words; and, thirdly, that if he cannot find suitable words he will give us due notice in order that we can again put down some similar Amendment. On that basis we will be content.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD NATHAN: What I said on the previous occasion in regard to the same points but not the same paragraph will, of course, apply in this instance.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: In that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) The Secretary of State shall, before making any Order under paragraph (g) of the last preceding subsection, cause to be published, in such manner as he thinks best for informing persons concerned, notice of the proposal to make the Order and of the place where copies of the draft Order may be obtained free of charge, and take into consideration any representations with respect to the Order which may, within such period not being less than two months after the publication of the notice as may be specified therein, be made to him by any person appearing to him to have an interest in any land which would be affected by the Order; and at the end of that period the Order may, subject to the provisions of this section, be made with such modifications (if any) of the original draft as the Secretary of State thinks proper."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises the question as to whether someone who is affected by the Minister's exercise

343
of his powers in minimizing or preventing interference with the use or effectiveness of apparatus used in connexion with air navigation can have a right of appeal. There is one drafting error in my proposed subsection. It should not be, "to have an interest in any land"; it should be, "to have an interest in any apparatus "The real purpose is to make quite sure that someone who has some apparatus, perhaps forty or fifty miles away from an aerodrome, and is directed by the Minister to close it down or to carry out expensive modifications, shall have some right of representation before the Order comes into effect. I lifted most of this Amendment from the provisions of the 1936 Act, which gave to those who owned property or land affected by Orders of the Minister, as regards pulling down factory chimneys, or anything of that nature, the right of making representation. I cannot see any objection to giving the same opportunities of representation to those affected by the new developments of radar as were given under the 1936 Act to owners of property. I bug to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Balfoar of Inchrye.)
LORD NATHAN: I thought I recognized the Amendment as having the origin which the noble Lord mentioned. However, I cannot accept it in this particular instance, for this reason: In all these matters of safety, especially in dealing with apparatus of one kind and another, the ability to act with speed is essential. I am sure that I should never be forgiven—nor would anyone else upon whom rested the responsibility of administration—if I did not take effective action in time when I knew what that effective action ought to be. The noble Lord will remember that, in any event, I could make an Order to be put into immediate operation, but there is a negative power in Parliament to pray for the annulment of the Order. While I recognize the general principle which the noble Lord has in mind, in this particular instance, for the reasons I have given, I cannot accept it, especially as those affected would have a certain tempus poenitentiae during which they could make representations which could be taken up in one House of Parliament or another.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I think on the grounds of emergency the Minister has made out his case, and I instituted, and the Prison Commissioners do not press my Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Commencement, and interim and transitional provisions.
5.—(1) Sections one and two of this Act shall come into force on such day as His Majesty by Order in Council certifies to be the day on which the Chicao Convention comes into force in the United Kingdom.
5.51 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: This Amendment is designed merely to correct a drafting slip. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 30, leave out ("in") and insert ("for").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PRISONERS' EARNINGS.
5.53 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: I beg to ask the first question standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Calverley.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government to review the scale of earnings of prisoners in Leeds and similar prisons; and whether they will instruct the Prison Commissioners to make it possible for prisoners to earn half an ounce of tobacco per week or its equivalent in sweets.]
LORD MORRISON: I have been asked to reply to this question. It is many years since the prisoners' earning scheme was instituted, and the Prison Commissioners are about to undertake a review of its working as a whole, in the course of which the question of raising the level of earnings will receive full consideration.
LORD DARWEN: I am very much obliged for that answer.

TERRITORIAL ARMY RECONSTRUCTION.
5.54 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Calverley.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government when the Army Council proposes to announce its policy for the reconstruction of the Territorial Army, and especially to state the terms of service of both officers and men.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords,
346
it is hoped that full particulars of the reconstruction of the Territorial Army and terms and conditions of service for officers and men will be ready for publication in the very near future. They will be issued first to the Territorial Associations and Commanding Officers and subsequently on a wider basis. Copies will be placed in the library as soon as they are ready.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the

Urban District of Ashford;

Urban District of Hucknall;

Urban District of Rugeley;

Rural District of Welwyn:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.