AIR NAVIGATION (SEVENTH AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1954

HL Deb 07 July 1954 vol 188 cc498-525

4.37 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Air Navigation (Seventh Amendment) Order, 1954, dated and laid before the House on the 3rd of June, 1954, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose to be very short, in view of the serious ordeal which apparently this House is to go through to-morrow, and I do not want to keep your Lordships here late to-night. I trust that those noble Lords who will, I hope, support my plea will follow my example. I am very perturbed indeed about the far-reaching effect of this Order. My reason for seeking its annulment is that it appears to me a deliberate curtailment of the right of the citizen. There appears to be now no protection against any of the activities carried on by any State Department or any aircraft manufacturer: they can do exactly what they like, ignoring the interests of the citizen. There is no power now to sue in any court or make an appeal to any authority against what has become a great tragedy in the lives of a considerable number of people. The Common Law which existed, and I hope will still exist in the future, that no person or organisation, or the State, can damage the property or interests of any citizen without compensation, seems now to have become a "washout."

On June 29, my noble friend Lord Selkirk, in reply to a Question by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, made one or two rather significant statements and admissions; and I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to read one or two of them. He said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 188 (No. 85), col. 95): Her Majesty's Government are aware, and the manufacturers themselves are aware, that this inevitably causes some inconvenience to those in the immediate vicinity of airfields. But then he also said (col. 97): I must ask noble Lords to bear in mind that there is a conflict here between individual right and national interest, and we cannot pretend there is not. With regard to the second statement, it appears to me that the individual right to which the noble Earl referred has now become non-existent. Surely Her Majesty's Government do not intend to give aircraft manufacturers carte blanche to carry out any of their operations, with total disregard to the interests of the community. I cannot believe that such a thing can happen in this country, where the individual is supposed to be a free man with all the liberties that we expect as citizens.

It will be within your Lordships' recollection that both Lord Silkin—I am glad to see him here to-day, and I hope that he is going to say a few words—and myself, on April 7 of this year, referred to the precarious position of the interests of the citizen. The Times newspaper, in a leading article on this subject on June 5, referred to this matter, and concluded with a remark which I entirely endorse. It is quite short, and I will read it: If the right to sue is taken away, it should be replaced as a restraining influence by specific regulations laid down by the Ministry. Possibly such regulations could be made as part of an order under the 1949 Act. But in any case the general question of control of noise and vibration and the further crucial question of the control of the location of new manufacturers' airfields need the most careful examination. The Times also said—and again I entirely agree: It is a serious matter, however, to exempt airfields from the ordinary restraints of common law, without substituting any other form of control. The exemption of airfields owned or licensed by the Government may possibly be justified on the ground that direct public control is already exercised. But this is not true of manufacturers' airfields. I cannot see why the right to sue for damages should be taken away, although doubtless the Government are right to make sure that the aircraft manufacturers are not impeded by injunctions. I make the strongest possible appeal to Her Majesty's Government to think again on this most important question, with the idea of giving the ordinary individual some protection against the exploitation of property without the right to sue for damages. I have made the strongest case I can on the point that I feel is most important in regard to this matter, and there I am going to stop. I beg to move for Papers.

4.44 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I think that everyone will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has certainly made out a very powerful case indeed, and one which the Government will be at some pains to answer. The Amendment Order, as he said, extends the power of the Minister to prescribe the conditions under which noise and vibration may be caused by aircraft which are operated, being manufactured, or used, by private manufacturers. There was a similar power previously with reference to Government aerodromes, but this Order now extends the power to cover aerodromes of private manufacturers—manufacturers who are operating their own aircraft on their own licensed aerodromes or on Government aerodromes. As Lord Teviot has said, this is a very important matter for the subject, for the prescribing of conditions by the Minister does, ipso facto, exclude the jurisdiction of the court. The citizen can no longer sue a manufacturer or anyone else who is making a noise on an aerodrome provided that the person making the noise is carrying out the work which he is doing in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Minister.

So here we have the whole issue, as it were—the Department of the Minister against the subject, and the exclusion of the powers of the court—brought up into the sharpest and clearest perspective. Moreover, not only is the Minister the sole arbiter of the particular cases—as indeed he is in so many cases now—but he can prescribe over a wide field that there shall be no recourse whatsoever to the courts; that the subject shall have no power to object or complain of injury which he thinks is being done to him. I feel that in these circumstances it is obligatory upon the Government—indeed, it would be upon any Government—to make a very clear case indeed.

When the Question referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was asked of the Government last week the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who replied, said that the national interest is paramount. I feel certain that every one of us will agree that the national interest is paramount—there is no question of that. But to say that the national interest is paramount does not at all define the conditions under which these regulations are to be made. What most of us, I think, feel is that we do not want the Minister to act in cases where in fact the national interest is not involved—where there is a question merely of Departmental convenience, or where it is a question of ease of manufacture. It seems to me that to say that a manufacturer may make as much noise as he likes without anyone being able to complain, gives him such wide latitude that it is a very dangerous thesis altogether unless there is some sort of restriction by the Minister when he prescribes the conditions.

The problem of noise with which we are concerned is one of the great factors of our time, as we know only too well. Noise and the smell of fumes from buses and cars and the like are two of the great curses of modern times. Those of your Lordships who were brought up in the horse age know very well how much the human ear has had to get attuned to the variety of strident noises which impose themselves upon it at all hours of the day and, in many cases, during hours of the night as well. We have just been talking about the eye question and we have now come to the ear question. We are concerned as to whether this Order will affect the drive in which the Government and manufacturers are involved in trying to lessen noise.

In another place on June 28, in a statement made on behalf of the Government, there was set out at length measures which are being taken to reduce aircraft noise. The Government are having a special study made of the by-pass engine in relation to the noise problem. They are having a detailed analysis of the noise of a jet-engine, operated with various alternative types of nozzle, on an open-air test-bed. They are experimenting with the construction of a brick baffle wall at London Airport. They are obtaining competitive tenders for the design of two types of mobile ground mufflers. They are also having a series of tests made by the College of Aeronautics under contract from the Ministry of Supply. Four aircraft manufacturers are employing a firm of consulting engineers to advise them on the use of specially designed pens for muffling the sound of aircraft the engines of which have to undergo running tests on the ground.

I am sorry to say that on the whole of this vast research—or what should be vast research—into one of the great curses of our time, the Ministry of Supply are spending this year the estimated amount of only £100,000. This seems to me a fleabite in comparison with what ought to be spent on this important problem. Your Lordships will have noted no doubt from the answer of Mr. Sandys in another place that most of the research is going to take place on noise made by aircraft while in the air or "running up" on the ground. But I take it that this Order is concerned mainly with noise in the manufacture of aircraft, or noise of engines being tested in testing beds. If that is so—and if it is not, I stand corrected—I cannot understand why the knowledge that we already have with regard to the blanketing of noise is not used by manufacturers.

If the Minister will make a journey down to wildest Wales, he will find that at the beginning of the Rhondda Valley, at Treforest, the British Overseas Airways Corporation have a factory where they have testing beds. One can stand talking near there with ease while aircraft engines are being tested at full revolution. I have seen at Schipol Airport, in Holland, engines being tested right on the aerodrome, within a comparatively short distance of the restaurant and waiting salon, without any noise being noticeable at all. When I asked my Dutch hosts who had invented and installed these remarkable testing beds, from which noise was so well excluded, I was informed that they had bought them from Britain, and that it was a British firm which had invented and installed them. When there are firms in this country doing that, I cannot understand why manufacturers of aircraft engines cannot seek the aid of their colleagues who make these testing bed mufflers; why they cannot instal them on airports, instead of appealing to the Government for this amenity.

There is little else I have to say, except that I think we must have a clearer definition from the Government of what constitutes the national interest. We have recently had a great deal of objection to the noise of helicopters over London. Of course, no one can object to the objection, but it has been misplaced, because the helicopter is an important machine of the future, and we must test it. The whole purpose of the helicopter is to fly into the centres of towns. It is no good having helicopters flying from the fringes of our cities; from the point of view of civil aviation, a good deal of their purpose is lost if they do not fly into the centres of cities. It is important that we should test the helicopter, and if there is noise that is one of the matters that should be tested. Personally, I should be prepared to put up with the noise.

Finally, I would ask the Government for these assurances. First that in prescribing, as the Order says: the conditions under which noise and vibration may be caused by aircraft (including military aircraft) on Government aerodromes, licensed aerodromes or on aerodromes at which the manufacture, repair or maintenance of aircraft is carried out by persons carrying on business as manufacturers or repairers of aircraft, the Minister will ensure that the noise and vibration are, in fact, necessary in the national interest; secondly, that "national interest" is strictly defined; thirdly, that neither administrative convenience nor manufacturing ease is sufficient to constitute "national interest"; fourthly, that the local population have every opportunity of making representations before the conditions are prescribed; and fifthly and lastly, that from time to time the position will be reviewed in the case of every single aerodrome affected by the Order.

4.56 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, this is another of those cases which I think it is right that your Lordships should examine. It is a proposal by the Executive to exempt certain sections of the community from the normal processes of law, and to do so on the ground of national interest. I submit that it is particularly important when this exemption affects the well-being, comfort and indeed health of considerable numbers of our citizens. For a moment I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—that of national interest. Of course, there can be no question in the mind of any noble Lord on any side of the House that the national interest must be paramount, if our nation is to be safe and lead in the air; but we must see whether the powers which the Minister asks for are really necessary in the national interest. This proposed Order covers the noise on the ground made by manufacturers of aircraft and repairers of aircraft on Government licensed aerodromes. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, would differ from that.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I would say, on unlicensed aerodromes.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

But aerodromes must be licensed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation if aircraft are to be allowed to fly from them. It would be appalling if the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, were to be accepted. That would mean that anyone setting up an aircraft works in a perfectly unsuitable field would thereby get immunity for all the noise made. I think if the noble Lord reads the Order, he will find that it is on aerodromes licensed by the Government on which the repair and manufacture of aircraft take place.

LORD TEVIOT

It is in the Order.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

I find it difficult to reconcile with the national interest the exemption from the processes of the law of a small aircraft-manufacturing company at a small aerodrome in Sussex, having no connection at all with the production of Service aircraft and engaged in the manufacture of small aircraft, or possibly doing what I would call jobbing repairs, if it makes a nuisance of itself. I believe that this Order is drawn too widely if it includes, as I understand it does, such concerns as I have described. I hope the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will inform me of the grounds of national interest upon which the small light airplane manufacturer can claim this exemption from the normal processes of law.

My second point is this. If, in the national interest, a large section of aircraft manufacturers engaged in manufacture and repair must have exemption—and I do not dispute that they must have exemption, if it is really in the national interest—is it right that they should have this exemption without any safeguard to the aggrieved citizen that he can bring forward his complaint with an assurance that it will be properly dealt with? On the last occasion when your Lordships discussed this subject, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that public opinion would sway in these matters, and that the Minister would bring pressure to bear on manufacturers. Those assurances are comfortable, but inadequate. I do not believe that this Order should go forward in its present form unless we first have an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that there is to be some machinery, beyond an assurance by the Minister, that safeguards the rights of the aggrieved citizen.

It is not for me to advise on machinery, but, in all humility, I will put forward one suggestion for consideration by the Government. My suggestion is based on an admission, that, in the vast majority of cases, the national interest must be paramount. The assurance that the citizen desires is that the manufacturer who is causing this nuisance to him is using all the modern resources for sound suppression and is spending all the money that could normally be expected to be spent in trying to get rid of the nuisance. Could not the Government set up a Committee of what I would term outside, disinterested experts, such Committee to have knowledge of what are the latest developments dealing with this problem of sound? Then, if and when the citizen is so aggrieved that he feels he is not being dealt with fairly, the matter could be referred by the Minister to this advisory Committee—I suggest only an advisory committee to the Minister, with no executive powers—whose function it would be to inquire whether everything possible had been done by the manufacturer in question. That Committee, if satisfied, with knowledge supplied by the Ministry of Transport and other Departments, could say to the Minister and the aggrieved person: "Yes, everything possible has been done": and then, in the national interest, the aggrieved person would have to accept that position.

If, on the other hand, the Committee were to say: "We feel that the manufacturer has not done everything he might do," then let that be made public, and let the aggrieved person and the Minister have knowledge of it. Then I, personally, would be content that public opinion would be such that the firm in question, and the Minister in question, would be forced to act. That is only one suggestion I make; there may be others. Unless we have a clearer definition of "national interest" in relation to these small civil aircraft firms, which I believe should not have this exemption, and unless we have some further assurance that there is a safeguard to the citizen who is forced to suffer because of the national interest, I would earnestly press the Government to suspend the pushing through of this Order to-day. I would ask them to take it back, and bring it forward again with the larger description of "national interest" I have asked for, and some undertaking that there will be machinery—advisory, if you like, but at any rate some form of machinery—which will safeguard the rights of the citizen who has to suffer in the national interest.

5.6 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I had not thought of taking part in this debate this afternoon, and I did not put my name down, partly because I have had a professional interest in this particular problem, in so far as I have acted for an individual who has had recourse to the courts. I have advised him, and he has been able to arrange his particular dispute to his satisfaction, and I hope also to the satisfaction of the aircraft manufacturer. However, as I have no particular interest in the matter to-day, from that point of view, there is no reason why I should not say a few words. I find myself this afternoon in the happy position of agreeing almost entirely with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye; I think it is almost a unique position, because I do not remember having agreed with him so cordially on any other matter that has ever come before this House.

It is a serious problem that we are facing this afternoon, and we must recognise that it is also a difficult problem. There is a serious conflict between the public interest and the rights of the individual. We all have to recognise that, in particular, the development of aircraft at the present time has to go forward; that it must not be capable of being interfered with by the action of an individual, and that an extension of the existing protection may, therefore, be necessary. It is an essential part of the production of aircraft that they should be tested, and there is no known method at present of testing them without making a certain amount of noise. In this small island of ours it is inevitable that this testing must interfere with the normal lives of individuals and the comfort and enjoyment of their premises. Therefore I believe the public interest would require that it should not be possible for an individual to stop the process of testing aircraft.

This statutory instrument, however, goes much further than that. It is one thing to say that the individual must not stop the testing of aircraft, but it is quite another to say that he must not retain his rights to claim damages if he has suffered serious loss as a result of the action of an aircraft manufacturer. There are many people who have been literally ruined as a result of the activities of aircraft manufacturers, particularly in the testing of aircraft: people whose homes have been rendered valueless and unsaleable, whose livelihoods have been interfered with, and whose normal enjoyment of their homes has been rendered nugatory. Those people, if this instrument became effective, would have no remedy whatever.

At the present time they have the normal remedy of an application to the courts for an injunction, and for damages. As I have said, it would be reasonable to allow the Government to take away from the individual the right to obtain an injunction from the courts; that would be in the public interest. But is it reasonable for them to take away from the individual the right to damages if he has suffered? This is a serious constitutional point. In the normal course of events, any individual who suffers as a result of the action of somebody else is entitled to go to the courts and seek damages. Here we are taking away those rights, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye said, we are imposing upon the aircraft manufacturer no obligation to take the slightest precautions to prevent suffering of private persons. It would perhaps be reasonable if the individual had a right of action provided that he could satisfy the court that no reasonable steps had been taken; or, better still, if the manufacturer was under an obligation to satisfy the court that he had taken all reasonable steps. But there is nothing of that in this Order. It simply takes away, by one stroke, the rights and remedies which the individual has had throughout. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, rightly said, it goes much further than the manufacture of aircraft for purposes of defence: it applies to any manufacturer of aircraft in the country.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

Or repairer.

LORD SILKIN

Or repairer. Is that really necessary in the public interest? Nobody in this House is suggesting that the repairs are not necessary, but is it necessary to go so far as to deprive the citizen of his rights at Common Law? Furthermore, this instrument takes away from the manufacturer and the repairer any inducement to take active steps to minimise noise or nuisance. He is given a complete indemnity. No action can be taken against him, so why should he take any steps? What is his particular concern to take steps, which may be costly, to minimise or reduce the amount of noise or nuisance?

I am in a dilemma in asking the Government to go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, goes in asking that this instrument be taken back, though I think it needs taking back for the purpose of serious amendment. If it were taken back—if I do not say it the noble Lord who is to reply will—what would happen? In the meantime, in view of the publicity which has been given to this matter, it would be open to anybody to go to the courts to seek an injunction. So far as I see it, as the law stands at present, there would be no answer to it. Nobody wants a situation of that sort. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, does not want anyone to be able to go to the court and stop the testing of aircraft engines. Therefore, the dilemma we are in is that for the Government merely to take the Order back is not the right solution. But if I myself and other noble Lords do not press that, it does not mean that we do not feel most strongly that this Order is inappropriate. It goes too far; it deprives individuals of their Common Law rights. So I beg the Government, if they do not take it back, to bring forward another Order at the earliest possible moment, limiting themselves to what is strictly necessary—that is, to aircraft manufacture and repairs which are specifically in the public interest—and providing the citizen with a right to get damages if he can make out his case: he always has to do that. If he does make out a case that he has suffered damage, and the manufacturer is not taking reasonable steps to minimise it, then the Order ought not to deprive him of the right to obtain damages.

My own personal view, for what it is worth, is that this Order is ultra vires. I think it is going beyond the powers that are conferred upon the Minister under Sections 8 and 41 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. That is a legal point, and Her Majesty's Government can accept it or otherwise, as they please. I have given the matter careful thought, and that is my own opinion. I think the Government would be well advised to study this Order again and not lay them-selves open to the possibility of attack on the ground that this Order goes too far and is not sanctioned by the relevant sections of the Act. There is a remedy to this problem. It is possible to take steps to reduce noise and vibration. They are costly, but I submit that, in the aggregate, the cost of these steps would be considerably less than the loss, damage and suffering that is being caused at the present time throughout the country by the existing noise and vibration. It should not be entirely a matter of money. I hope, therefore, that the result of this discussion, for which we are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will be that the Government will think again, and that we shall have an assurance that this statutory instrument will be modified in the direction that has been suggested in this debate.

5.18 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I think we must all have a great sympathy with the people on whose behalf my noble friend has raised this Prayer, because there is no doubt about it that in many ways they are and have been suffering great inconveniences. Noble Lords who spoke have suggested various alternatives to the Order for which they seek annulment, and I should like to mention one or two of those first of all. I am not a lawyer myself and, therefore, I cannot possibly pronounce on the legal practicability of giving the citizen the right to sue for damages and, at the same time, the inability to obtain an interim injunction. To a layman it does not sound right, but, coming from the lips of so eminent a lawyer as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I assume there must be some way of doing that.

The other thing which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested was that we should withdraw this Order and make a new one because, among other things, he thought this was ultra vires. I am not fitted to argue at this Dispatch Box whether any Order put forward by Her Majesty's Government is or is not ultra vires. It is certainly a matter which would have to be considered by a lawyer, and he would have to challenge them in some way in order to get that matter cleared up.

LORD SILKIN

To clear up this point, may I say that I have not the slightest intention of challenging the Order in the courts. I put this forward merely as a piece of friendly advice, but I have no interest in challenging it.

LORD HAWKE

I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does not intend to challenge it. One cannot get away from the fact that we live in a jet age and that jet engines make a frightful noise, particularly when they are being tested on the ground, when the noise is likely to be more prolonged than when they are taking off for flying. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, showed some slight misunderstanding here. When these engines are being tested at the works, they can be, and are, enclosed in sound-proof structures. It is when they are put into aircraft and have to be tested under flying conditions that the sound is emitted. It does not come from the works.

LORD OGMORE

I am not under any misapprehension at all, having visited many aircraft factories and aerodromes. What I meant was that the sustained noise which people complain of generally is more likely to come from an engine which is out of an aircraft and is being repaired, maintained or perhaps manufactured, than from an engine which is in an aircraft and is being run up or tried in that aircraft. In my short experience, if there was any major work to be done on an engine, the engine was generally taken out of the aircraft so as not to injure the frame. It can then, I suggest be put into some sort of machine or bed which is noise-proof.

LORD HAWKE

If it goes back to the works, there are the noise-proof beds there and at the major places where it stands to be repaired. The production of this noise is vital to our defence programme as well as to our export trade. The question is, to what extent can we reduce the noise that we cannot help creating? This particular problem is only one of many vexing problems which are at the moment in charge of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. It is certainly not the least of them. As noble Lords have said, it is one of the great problems that face us to-day. What was the situation before this Order was issued? There were in this country something like 270 active aerodromes, both Government and civil, and out of these there were twenty-two that were not licensed for passenger flying. All, except these twenty-two, were exempted from any law-suits in respect of noise and vibration, under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, and its orders and regulations. The other twenty-two aerodromes are used by manufacturers for testing and the like, and I am assured that all twenty-two are being used by manufacturers who are producing aeroplanes definitely in the national interest.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

Would the noble Lord include Redhill aerodrome, where there are adjacent to a residential area one or two small manufacturers engaged on civil aircraft only?

LORD HAWKE

Among my papers I have a list of all the twenty-two, and my recollection is that, quite definitely, Redhill is not in the list of twenty-two. Whether it could masquerade under another name or not, I do not know.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

But if this Order goes forward, the Red-hill civil aircraft manufacturers could make as much noise as they cared to and could get exemption from the law: is not that so?

LORD HAWKE

I understand, no.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

We must get this clear.

LORD HAWKE

It is not in the list of twenty-two aerodromes.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

May we get this clear, because I think your Lordships will agree it is important? There is at Redhill, let us say, a small aircraft manufacturing concern, a worthy civil aircraft manufacturer. If that Order goes forward, that small civil aircraft concern can get exemption under this Order.

LORD HAWKE

Redhill is not among this list of twenty-two. Redhill is already protected, and the manufacturer there can make noise without risk of being sued for damages.

LORD SILKIN

No, the noble Lord must be wrong. The new protection is a two-fold one: first, under present conditions there is no protection merely on the ground of testing. No protection at all is given. Secondly, it brings in a new lot of airfields. This Order provides a dual extension. If at Redhill they are engaged solely in testing aircraft, then at the moment they cannot be protected.

LORD HAWKE

I understand that at Redhill they are protected at this moment. If I prove to be wrong in my statement, I will certainly take any opportunity I can of correcting it. The airfield which has provided the immediate reason for this Order is at Dunsfold in Surrey, and is used by Hawkers to assemble, test and finalise the Hunter fighter. Recently, a local resident sued the firm on account of the noise they were causing and the case was settled out of court. Immediately, there came the possibility, if not the probability, that similar action would be taken by other people living near to this field or to any other field. The danger was not so much of damages (which incidentally would tend to fall on the taxpayer, as swelling the cost of the machines) but of an interim injunction which might paralyse a field and deliver a crippling blow at our defence programme and exports while the case was being decided.

I know that several noble Lords have suggested, as I have said before, that it should be possible to sue for damages without the possibility of obtaining an injunction, and I said at the time that it did not sound to me, as a layman, a very proper legal course, but I could not pronounce in this very real conflict between public interest and private rights. The Minister had to come down, and come down quickly, on the side of what he must conceive to be public interest. The Minister could have succeeded by turning those fields into either licensed aerodromes or Government aerodromes, in which case they would have obtained automatic protection, but in the one case this would have been rather an abuse of the system and, in the other case, it would have resulted in employing a body of quite unnecessary controllers to serve what in effect would have been a legal fiction. His alternative course was to make this Order, and in so doing he has brought the twenty-two unlicensed aerodromes into the same fold as the other 250 or so active ones. I submit that, in the circumstances, it was vitally necessary to take immediate action, and this Order was the best way of taking that action. He could not, in fact, have failed to take action to prevent the possible paralysation of our defence programme.

In doing this we have had to take away some of the rights of the subject, and it is important to consider what we have put in in place of those rights. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye produced the original suggestion that there should be some form of consultative commission—something on the lines that we have for the railways—whereby an aggrieved citizen could complain and make sure that the operators on the airfield were taking the maximum amount of precautions to stop the noise. My right honourable friend the Minister will undoubtedly be interested in that suggestion, which certainly has some farreaching and wide effects.

First of all, what we have put in the place of the rights taken away is that in the Order it is clear that the Minister may prescribe conditions under which noise and vibration may be caused. It would be possible for the Minister to meditate and cogitate and finally to prescribe such conditions, but it would be extraordinarily difficult to put anything on paper which is flexible enough not to paralyse the operations and, at the same time, is effective enough to provide relief. Every airfield varies in this matter, and the state of experimentation against noise is not really ripe for any precise regulations to be made. There is a danger of starting works which may turn out to be of the wrong sort. There are still doubts and disputes as to the best way of dealing with this noise. In fact, I have been told of a technical conference in the United States where one manufacturer said that he had the most wonderful answer to the whole of this problem, and another manufacturer said that it was not of the slightest use at all. So there are still doubts among technical people, and by producing regulations there would be a danger of freezing remedies into a shape which ultimately was found not to be the best remedy. Of course, any regulations would tend to freeze these remedies on those particular lines. For that reason the Minister has thought it best, in the first place, to rely on the co-operation of industry, knowing that a great deal of research, both on Government and on private account, is being carried on into this question of jet noise.

First of all, what is happening in the field of research? My right honourable friend the Minister of Supply, in reply to a Question in another place, circulated some information in Column 901 of the the OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons) of June 28, to some of the contents of which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred. I can summarise the most relevant points from the statement in the following words: research and experiments are being conducted, both privately and under Government auspices, into all aspects of jet engine noise. It is being tackled particularly on four fronts: first, the problem of the shape of the nozzle through which the air enters the engine, which is the thing that produces the shrill whine; secondly, various forms of muffler to damp the roar at the rear of the engine; thirdly, screens of various sorts to surround the aircraft while it is running on the ground; and fourthly, a special study of the by-pass engine which is likely to be less noisy than the conventional jet.

The latest information I have is that the Ministry of Supply have actually placed orders for four mufflers—two for single-engined aircraft and the others for multi-engined types. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, the Ministry are going to spend £100,000. He rather derided that sum of money; but there is a large sum of money, the total unknown, which is being spent by firms, universities and research institutions, so it would be wrong to say that £100,000 is the sum total of what is being spent in trying to solve the problem. Perhaps the most hopeful line at the moment lies in the experiments which act on the air when it leaves the jet and provide something in the nature of a gigantic exhaust box. Of course, in addition to these scientific methods operators can do a great deal by taking the precaution to run jets in a place where, either because of geography or because of wind conditions, they are least likely to be offensive to the neighbouring inhabitants.

I spent yesterday morning at Dunsfold where the engines and fuselages of the Hunters are fitted together and then tested and assembled for delivery. I experienced the noise from twenty yards range upwards, and nobody attempts to deny that it is a tremendous noise. It appears to be most intense at a position which I can best describe as being that of third man and long leg if the nose of the engine is facing the bowler. But in a motor car quite close to it, with the windows up, the noise is appreciably reduced. The precautions which are being taken on that particular field are these. There are available for testing several sites which are used according to the prevailing wind, as far as possible to prevent the maximum noise from impinging on the houses round about; screens are used, and there is some natural muffling as well from rising ground and trees. Hawker Aircraft Limited have ordered, and hope to have ready before very long, a big structure in the shape of an acoustic pen into which the whole machine can be put, with a muffling chamber to take the exhaust at the end, and they hope that this will be effective. Similar and other steps are being taken at other manufacturers' airfields. All these things which are being done at the moment are, of course, not absolute remedies; they are in the nature of palliatives—some are better and some are worse, though we have hopes that the muffling chambers, when ready, will prove to be much better than palliatives.

I think we must realise that we live in an age of noise and, whether we like it or not, we are going to have to endure far more noise than we should have dreamt about a few years ago. One must remember that there are some extremely noisy operations in industry which the operatives have to endure for the whole of their working lives—weaving, boiler-making, shot blasting, riveting and steam hammering. These noises have been with us for generations. The difference to-day is that we can in no way escape from the noise of industry by retiring into the country, because aircraft are everywhere, overhead if not on the ground. Indeed, there are few places to-day which are immune from the popping of some form of internal combustion engine "down on the farm." It is a long time since I personally experienced perfect silence for any length of time in our countryside.

All this is the price we have to pay for living on a small island which is a leader of industrial development, in the air and on the ground. Industrial progress has always created nuisances far ahead of our being able to solve them. To-day we are at least more conscious than we were of our moral duty to clear up the nuisance we create in industry. We are slowly tackling the pollution of our rivers; we are even starting to tackle the problem of smoke, which has been with us for over a hundred years. In the past, remedies have lagged far behind the abuses they sought to cure, but I think the time-lag is definitely shortening, and some of the finest brains in our country are to-day engaged on trying to solve the particular problem of this noise almost on the heels of the progress which has brought the noise.

I hope that I have managed to convince your Lordships that though we have, of necessity, taken away some liberties from the subjects living near these airfields, we are doing everything possible to limit the discomfort which they suffer. It is, however, a very difficult problem and it would be idle to pretend that we expect to find a solution within months. In the meantime, we are using all the immediate palliatives which the brains of Government scientists and private contractors can suggest. It would be wrong to think that the Government or private contractors are satisfied or complacent: they are not. In many directions the nation is paying a price for progress in the air. The people concerned in the industry are always willing to accept for themselves the discomforts and dangers of the pioneer. It is their great regret that they have not yet been able to remove the discomforts to outside parties, but they are working.

These suggestions which I have mentioned and those put forward by noble Lords will have the consideration of the Minister, because, rather appositely, he will have an opportunity of speaking on this very subject in about a week's time in another place. During the interval he will be able to digest the various suggestions, some of which are most interesting, that have been made to-day, and he will be able to announce any conclusions to which he wishes to come. I only hope that, in the meantime, I have managed to satisfy my noble friend that it would be folly to press this Prayer and so risk crippling our air defence.

5.43 p.m.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate. I thought it only fair to the noble Lord who has just spoken that I should listen to the case he had to make out on behalf of the Government. I was profoundly disappointed. It seems to me that there are two questions involved: first of all the difference between national interest and private rights; and secondly, the steps that are being taken to remedy this state of affairs. As regards the second, it did not seem to me, with respect, that the noble Lord made out any case of any real activity. From what he has described it seems that there is no sort or kind of real financial incentive to the manufacturers concerned. As I understand it, these manufacturers are using the resources of the Government and getting repaid for it. If, by any chance, at the end of the experiment they say, "We are very sorry; we have done everything we could think of, but have failed," the only people who will suffer financially are the taxpayers, because the cost of the experiments will be included in the cost-plus basis on which aeroplanes are built—I understand that is correct.

LORD HAWKE

Is not the noble Viscount putting forward a very strong inducement for manufacturers to continue the maximum number of experiments if they are being paid for by somebody else?

VISCOUNT HUDSON

No. Because the incentive to see that the experiments are successful should be a financial one, so that, if they fail, firms will suffer in their own pockets.

LORD HAWKE

It is also a moral one as I brought Out.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

I am concerned with the effective question of finance which, over a long period of years, I have always understood to be the most effective incentive one can get. Morality comes into it, but as between moral and financial incentives I think the more effective incentive, even with big firms, is the financial one. A fault I find with this Order is that it contains no sort of suggestion of a time limit within which an individual firm should take steps, either by using existing known methods or by the invention of new methods, which would effectively diminish, if not entirely eliminate, this noise.

On the point about the definition of "national interest," I think that everyone concerned will realise that the climate of public opinion has definitely changed in the last few months, even in the last few weeks; and that in many cases the defence about a thing being "in the national interest" is wearing pretty thin. We all admit that in the last resource national interest must prevail—no one will deny that. But there has been an enormous gradation in various Ministers in the past—and even in the present, for that matter—in their exact definition of where "national interest" begins and ends. I can only suggest to the noble Lord that he should advise his colleagues, more especially those in some of the Service Departments, of what I say: that public patience is wearing rather thin and that the climate of public opinion is very definitely veering towards a much stricter and more limited definition of "public interest" where it conflicts with private enterprise or private property than has been the case in the past.

It is also worthy of note that this question of noise is not one between a small number of people owning property and a large national interest; it is a matter increasingly affecting not tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands of persons living up and down the country near these various aerodromes; and it therefore becomes far more important and affects far more people than a narrow question of taking a piece of land belonging to a private individual. I agree that the Government cannot withdraw this Order, because of the danger of leaving themselves open to injunctions and payments for damages; but I do not see why the Government should not consider allowing this Order to stand and considering at a very early stage superseding it by a new Order which would take account of these various points, with some set time limit for these operations and inventions. The noble Lord talked of £100,000 as being quite a lot of money, because the work was supplemented by other inquiries being made privately by firms. But the total, even supposing it is doubled or trebled, is still a fleabite in relation to the total problem; and, quite frankly, had this sort of question arisen during the war it would have been solved in no time at all, because the Prime Minister would have put through one of his famous minutes, "Action this day"; and action would have followed. I think my noble friend Lord Hawke had better advise his colleagues to see whether some really drastic action to expedite what is being done could not be taken.

5.48 p.m.

LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but in reply to what has just been said by my noble friend I would suggest that the noble Lord has not been quite fair. The general idea is that people who are making these noises are not aware of them; that they are rather careless of the public interest. I know sufficient to know that the people who are making these noises are very concerned: they are doing everything they can, using the Government facilities and their own, to try to reduce the noise nuisance of which they are perfectly well aware. If we are to have these high-powered aeroplanes, and to have high priority in the air, and to lose no time in catching up, I beg your Lordships not to presume that nothing is being done, and not to interfere with what has been done.

I have no doubt that if I lived near such an airfield I should feel as savage as do the rest of these people—I am well aware of that. But this work is necessary. I know of organisations that have taken their testing apparatus to various parts of the country, in order to get away from populous areas. Instead of doing this work in the most convenient places, they have gone to inconvenient places. These people, I repeat, are well aware of the nuisance they are creating. But it is a nuisance which is part of the price we have to pay for this tremendous drive which we are putting forth with regard to jet engines. We do not yet know the whole story, but I am sure that as time goes on facilities will become available for reducing noise. In the meantime, I support the Minister in suggesting that my noble friends do not press this any further. They have aired their views, and I am quite sure that the Minister and all concerned will now know of the anxiety that exists in your Lordships' House about this problem. The rest of the world, and particularly those who suffer from the nuisance, will learn of the interest that your Lordships are taking in this problem, and I am sure that those who are making this noise will take to heart everything that is being said, and will do their best to quell the nuisance as soon as they can.

5.52 p.m.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

My Lords, I also, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson and the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, had not intended to take part in this debate. But I really do not think that the House is being quite fair to my noble friend, Lord Hawke. I have very great sympathy with those who have raised this debate. Of course, we all know that the noise caused on aerodromes, especially by racing engines on the ground, at places where 'planes are manufactured, is a very real nuisance. I speak as a sufferer myself, for I live in the neighbourhood of one of the largest aircraft factories in this country, and I know from my own experience how wearing is the sound that comes from it at certain hours of the day. It causes great irritation to us all. The question is: what practical limit is there? The suggestion has been made that, though the noise should be allowed, because we cannot, from the national point of view, allow the manufacturer to stop work upon which he is engaged, house owners should be allowed to claim damages. Over how wide an area? Take a place like that at which I live. It is a fairly highly populated district. Are you to say 100 yards, a quarter of a mile or half a mile? I live about a mile away from the factory. Can I claim? Are you going to have these myriad claims put in from every householder in the neighbourhood of every aerodrome in the country, enterprising solicitors and other lawyers encouraging their clients to put in claims? I believe that you would reach a situation which would be quite intolerable from the national point of view.

LORD SILKIN

May I be allowed to intervene to deal with the question which the noble Marquess has just asked?—it was not entirely a rhetorical one. The answer to it is that anyone who goes to the court goes at his peril. Anyone who claims damages has to prove damage. If he fails to prove that he has suffered actual damage then he becomes responsible for paying the costs of other people. I can assure the noble Marquess that people will not lightly go to court.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

A great many people, I think, will. There is no definite distance, no definite outside limit, beyond which a claim cannot be put in.

The sort of suggestion which has been made is that this is a new situation which has never occurred before. But it has. Look at the railways. There are large numbers of people who since 1840 have lived in close proximity to the railways. We all know that, as we travel out from the great London stations, we see immense numbers of houses practically abutting on the railway. Great roaring trains run past them at every hour of the day and night. There is much whistling, and abundance of other noise—indeed, the noise is far greater than that which is experienced in the neighbourhood of aerodromes. Do the people living in those houses get compensation? Not a penny! And they never have done. The reason, I suppose, is that when the relevant Act was originally passed in 1840, or whenever it was, it was considered that the individual must give way to the greater good of the community. And we are now considering, I think, a case of that kind.

Obviously, there must be an effort to find a way of limiting the noise, some new invention which will abate the nuisance. We are all agreed on that, and from inquiries which I have made in the last few minutes I learn that every possible effort is being made in that direction. There is a sort of assumption—so it seemed to me as I listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson—that, if only people had tried, a remedy would have been found long ago. He said that if the Prime Minister had sent out one of his minutes, as he did in the war, the nuisance would have been dealt with within twenty-four hours. Well, the Prime Minister is still there. It is still open to him to send out a minute. But I think that he would be far too realistic to think of doing such a thing. So far as I know, this is rather a novel problem. A very careful study is being conducted concerning it at the present time, and I hope and think some remedy will soon be found. I do not say that a complete remedy will ever be found. None has been found yet for the noise caused by trains. But I think that every effort must be made to find one in this case.

As for Lord Hudson's suggestion of a time limit, whilst it sounds attractive I do not quite see what is to happen at the end of the time limit. A certain date, presumably, would be agreed, and after that date the protection given would suddenly lapse. Then everyone, I take it, would immediately be able to go to the court and make as many claims as they like. I do not think that, in practice, the noble Viscount would find that that would work.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

I think that a manufacturer faced with that possibility might be stirred up to the greatest possible activity.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think it would only cause most extraordinary anomalies. There would be people who, during the period when this was to operate, would receive one kind of treatment, and then at the due date all their neighbours would receive a completely different form of treatment. I do not think that that would work.

My Lords, I do not in the least complain of the raising of this matter in this House—indeed, it is just the sort of difficult problem which can very properly be dealt with here, where we are accustomed to considering such problems from a broad national point of view. But I do ask noble Lords to believe that every effort is being made, and will continue to be made, to solve this problem. In the meantime, it is just one of those unhappy situations which cannot be immediately cured, and would not be cured if people were allowed to put in claims. Indeed, if they were allowed to put them in, then the situation, from a national point of view, would be much worse.

LORD OGMORE

Before the noble Marquess ends his speech may I intervene to say just this? I think that, possibly through his not having been here throughout the debate, he may have misunderstood the general tenor of it. What a number of us were saying was this. We did not at all object that this Order should be made, if it was in the national interest; but we wanted a clear definition of "national interest." As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, pointed out, there might be cases where it was a matter purely of the interest of private people. We are not prepared, in that sort of case, to allow manufacturers to make noise without anyone having the right of action against them. That was the basic point of our contention

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What exactly is in the national interest? You might have a private industry doing very valuable work for the country, but you could not say that it was in the national interest, in the sense in which the noble Lord is using the term.

LORD OGMORE

This is a Government statement. As we understand it, they have said that the Order has been made because it is in the national interest. That was the Government statement, not ours. We asked what is "the national interest." While we agree that the Government should have this Order in "the national interest." we ask: Will you please define what you think is the national interest, as we have not heard a definition?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I understand that all the twenty-two fields which are concerned are being used for purposes of the national interest. I trust that the noble Lord will believe that. Personally, I would go further. For the moment, though, perhaps I may return to the analogy of the railroads. There was an unhappy situation where, in order that the country should be prosperous, it was necessary that certain individuals must suffer. What I would not agree with is the suggestion of some noble Lords that there is no inducement to the manufacturers to put this thing right. Apart from the lack of popularity with their neighbours, there is also the condition of their own workpeople who suffer from this noise. They have every inducement to put the situation right. I do not know when that will be. I think this is something which has to be submitted to for the time being, in the circumstances which the Government have to consider. I certainly do not think that an attempt to annul this Order would be anything but disastrous and unrealistic.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, I should like to ask the Government one question, as I was mentioned by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. There are twenty-two aerodromes which this Order may exempt. As I read the Order, it will still be possible for anyone to be number twenty-three or twenty-four or twenty-five, should they start a private manufacturing or repairing aircraft works or an airfield. If that is so, the trouble may extend far beyond twenty-two. That is the point I should like to get clear.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I understand that that is correct; but does the noble Lord really anticipate that there will be more new airfields set up to create new noise nuisances?

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

That is my objection to the Government's taking this very wide power. I do not object to the twenty-two aerodromes, if they are necessary. What I object to is the blank power for others, in the near future.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I think the noble Lord's point is covered when I say that the Minister is having a week or so to digest all the things that have been said in this debate. The point he raised never occurred to me, but I am sure that it will be carefully considered by my right honourable friend.

6.2 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, this debate has developed a long way from the attitude I adopted in approaching the subject and has moved to the technical question of aerodromes. The noble Lord who replied—and I thank him for his reply—need not be under any apprehension that I am going to try to divide the House. If I had intended to do that, I should have given the Government Front Bench every indication beforehand that I was going, to do so.

I should like to make two points. Apropos of what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said just now, will the Government see to it that the question of the location of any new factories for the manufacture of aeroplanes or any new aerodromes will be seriously gone into? The noble Marquess the Leader of the House told us how he is suffering. I am suffering, too, and if they had only listened to the local people they would have known what was going to happen and that there was a perfectly good site five or six miles away at which they would not have had any of the troubles they now have. The other point is with regard to the national interest. Of course, the national interest always must come first; but when the Government see that the national interest is going to damage the value of the property and wreck the lives of a great many people, I would ask them, before they embark on anything of the sort, to take into sympathetic consideration the situation these people will be in by the carrying out of these things in the national interest. That is all I have to say. I thank noble Lords very much indeed for having joined in the debate. I am very glad the noble Marquess the Leader of the House takes the view that it was worth while. I am not going to divide the House, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.