HL Deb 07 December 1967 vol 287 cc792-808

3.49 p.m.


My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Control of road traffic at aerodromes]:

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?


I should like to raise a point on Clause 1 which is regarded as of some importance. Local authorities are not sure of the full implications of the application of road traffic enactments to airport roads. At present, airport authorities do not take out road fund licences for vehicles which never go outside the airport boundaries—for example, vehicles that are used only on the roads, apron, taxi-ways and runways within the airport. It is hoped that this clause will not be used to impose on aircraft operators a requirement to take out such licences for vehicles of the kind that I have indicated. I have not raised this point with the Minister. He may perhaps think it advisable, if he has not the information, to look into it and to write to me, so that the matter can be dealt with if necessary at the Report stage.


I should like to add a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Burden on this question. I think that the airports which are owned by municipal authorities are particularly concerned about this problem. As my noble friend has said, it has not been customary for them in the past to tax the vehicles which never leave the airport premises, and they are a little concerned at the moment lest what is said in Clause 1 indicates that in the future they will be asked to pay Excise licence fees on vehicles that never leave the airport. I would ask my noble friend whether, when he replies, he can give an assurance that for the future what is now set out in Clause 1 will not require these authorities to take out Excise licences for vehicles that remain on the airport.


Before the noble Lord replies, I would point out that there is another aspect of this with regard to the major aerodromes, not particularly the local authority aerodromes, where a great amount of public transport uses or is operated within the perimeter of the airport. From the point of view of safety, and matters of that kind, it is highly desirable that there should be some regulation though without necessarily impinging on the question of Excise matters. Perhaps the Minister would deal with this point as well, because it affects to some extent the complete freedom which may otherwise operate within the airport perimeter.


As I understand it, the intention here is not to make any difference at all to the Excise provisions for road traffic vehicles. The clause is concerned simply with the control from the point of view of safety and good organisation on airports, where there is a considerable amount of traffic, and to give the airport authorities concerned the kind of power which a local authority would have outside for the regulation for road traffic vehicles. The clause is into the point which has been raised, and let my noble friends know the answer.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [By-laws at certain private aerodromes]:

On Question, whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?


May I raise two small points on Clause 4? The first arises under subsection (1). As it reads at present, as I understand it, the definition of a "private aerodrome" would not include a busy flying club aerodrome or, for that matter, a mixed-user aerodrome; that is, one which is both civil and military. I am wondering if the noble Lord could confirm whether this is correct, and whether the words "a substantial amount of commercial passenger traffic" in subsection (1) should be widened to bring within its scope the special flying club.

My second point is this. I understand that there is considerable concern among private aerodrome operators that the runway approaches are not sufficiently safeguarded. They are, of course, safeguarded in airport authority and local authority aerodromes, but not in the case of private aerodromes. There was apparently a case recently where one of the runways at Southend Airport was endangered. A tree was growing just outside the perimeter of the aerodrome and in direct flight path with one of the runways. When the farmer was approached he was not prepared either to prune or to cut down the tree. Would the noble Lord consider the question of whether local by-laws for private aerodrome Operators ought to come under this clause?


Previously, of course, the by-law-making powers did not apply to private aerodromes. But there were representations from proprietors of such aerodromes, and it was with the intention of meeting their wishes that this clause was included. I imagine it will be generally agreed by the noble Earl and others than a universal by-law-making power for all private aerodromes would not be appropriate, and it was thought the dividing line would be whether there was at the aerodrome commercial passenger traffic. I confirm that the intention of this clause, as now drafted, is to confine this power to those airports where, as the Bill says, there is "a substantial amount of commercial passenger traffic".

The question of defining the "substantial amount" will be one for the Board of Trade. They can designate an airport which should be given this power of by-law-making, and I have no doubt that they will have regard to the total amount of the traffic on the aerodrome. If the noble Lord wishes to pursue further the precise definition of what is "commercial" or "commercial passenger". I shall be glad to look into it with him later.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Financial assistance for certain aerodromes.

7.(2) No grant or loan shall be made under this section in respect of, or in connection with, any of the aerodromes which were transferred to the British Airports Authority by the Airports Authority Act 1965.

3.58 p.m.


had given Notice of two Amendments, the first being, in subsection (1), to leave out; " Subject to subsection (2) of this section", and the second to delete subsection (2). The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and if it meets the convenience of the Committee I will deal also with Amendment No. 2. Both Amendments stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and myself. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will recall that during the Second Reading of the Bill my noble friend Lord Jellicoe raised the question of why, under subsection (2) of this clause, the British Airports Authority was specifically excluded from the benefit of the clause. The clause gives the Government power to make grants and loans towards expenses incurred in the development of aerodromes in Great Britain; and the specific purpose of this Amendment is to bring back within the scope of this clause the British Airports Authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, partly answered my noble friend's question on why the Airports Authority was to be excluded when he said, during the Second Reading debate, that any new airport which the Authority took over, in addition to the four major airports it at present controls, would be covered by the clause. If this is so, it seems strange logic that the Airports Authority should be granted the benefit of this clause in one instance, for airports which it takes over in the future, but not in regard to the existing airports under its control. In fact, this seems to assist my argument.

The second point I would make on this Amendment is that, while I realise that the financial provision under the Airports Authority Act 1965 already give the Authority borrowing powers, the provisions, so far as I am aware, do not include special finances for the Authority in cases where it is directed by the Government—this is the important matter—to do something contrary to the criteria of sound commercial grounds. One has in mind the case where the Government insist, for reasons of planning or social necessity, that the line of a runway shall be altered. One also has in mind the question of the future development of Stansted.

The noble Lord may reply that in such cases the Airports Authority Act permits the Government to make loans to the Authority at very reduced rates of interest. If this is his answer, he will be missing my point entirely. The point of my Amendment is that any Government direction made to the Authority which is outside the criteria of being in the Authority's "best commercial interest" should clearly be shown and separated as a Government responsibility. This only follows the line laid down by the Government themselves in their White Paper Nationalised Industries (Cmnd. 3437), from which I quote the following: Where there are significant social or wider economic costs and benefits which ought to be taken into account in their investment and pricing these will be reflected in the Government's policy for the industry: and if this means that the industry has to act against its own commercial interests, the Government will accept responsibility. (Where necessary, the Government will make a special payment to the industry or make an appropriate adjustment to its financial objective.) Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether or not the British Airport Authority was ever consulted before this clause was drafted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 39, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2) of this section").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)


The noble Earl is now, in effect, asking that we should go back on an Act which went through this House comparatively recently; namely, the Airports Authority Act 1965. That Act, which was given a good deal of very detailed consideration by Members of this House, laid down the borrowing powers of the Authority in respect of the four named aerodromes. Probably the most important theme which went through the discussions which we had on that Bill was that there should be the minimum amount of interference by a Government Department in the workings of the Airports Authority. It was thought that the financial arrangements which were made under that Bill would give the Airports Authority that kind of financial independence which it sought, and which the House thought it should have. I must say it is rather strange that the noble Earl, and indeed his noble friend Lord Jellicoe, should come along so soon after the passing of that Act to ask us, in effect, to vary its provisions.

The noble Earl asked about the possibility of the Authority having to borrow more money, if the cost of extending Stansted was higher than that which was envisaged at the time when the Airports Authority Act went on to the Statute Book. If Stansted, because of the realignment of runways or for other reasons, involves expenditure of a higher order than that which we then contemplated, it will still be possible for Her Majesty's Government, through the Board of Trade, to make a once-and-for-all grant on this account. Nothing that is said in this Bill, so I am advised, would rule out the possibility of an increase in the borrowing powers of the Airports Authority or a once-and-for-all grant on the special account of Stansted.


I am sorry, I did not understand the noble Lord. Is he saying that under the Airports Authority Act 1965 a grant may be paid for special purposes such as Stansted?


What I am saying is that under the powers which Her Majesty's Government have, irrespective of the Airports Authority Act, a grant could be made to the Airports Authority for this particular purpose. I am not saying that the Government are consider ing making a grant, nor that it should be made. I am saying that in the correspondence which the Government have had with the Airports Authority—and this covers the question of consultation raised by the noble Earl—Her Majesty's Government have said that it would be necessary for them to raise, by way of landing fees and so on, the necessary revenues to service the capital charges which the new airport at Stansted would involve. This is the policy which I thought we had agreed, and this is how it would be applied in the case of Stansted. But, in addition to any special grant, I am saying that it would be possible for the Airports Authority to ask for its borrowing powers to be increased, and it was envisaged at the time the Airports Authority Bill went through this House that by the beginning of the 1970s an extension of the borrowing powers would be required. I should have thought that that would meet the kind of case which the noble Earl has in mind.

He also asked about the difference between the case of a completely new airport taken over by the Authority as against the four named in the Airports Authority Act. The difference is that it was possible to assess the capital cost of those airports; it was possible to see what kind of job they would have to fulfil; and indeed we have found that the assessment then made about the profitability of this group of four airports has more than been made good. The four airports taken together are in fact making a considerable profit, and, on their account there does not at present seem to be any need to contemplate an addition to the borrowing powers. If, however, the Authority wishes to take over other airports, then the considerations in the White Paper, which the noble Earl very fairly quoted, might well apply, but they would have to be considered on their merits.


I am afraid I am not fully satisfied with the noble Lord's argument. As I understand it, he first of all accused us of going back on the Airports Authority Act. I do not think that applies at all. In fact, we were basing our arguments on Her Majesty's Government's White Paper. Where I think the noble Lord is confusing the issue is in talking of Government powers to increase loans to the Authority, when it is, of course, grants with which we are concerned. This is where the criteria come into the matter. I am afraid that I cannot ask the Committee's leave to withdraw this Amendment.


May I make it perfectly clear that I am talking about two possibilities under the Bill as now drafted. One possibility is the extension of the borrowing powers of the Airports Authority, and I am also saying that the subsection to which the noble Earl refers does not affect the Government's general powers, subject to the money being voted by Parliament, to make grants of a non-repetitive kind, under contract or equivadent, to pay for services rendered. So I should have thought that the particular case of Stansted, which I gather the noble Earl has in mind, would be covered. If he is still not satisfied and would wish to make a better case, I suggest he raises the matter again on Report stage.


With that assurance, I am quite willing to do that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.10 p.m.


I should like to speak to Amendments 3 and 4. The amounts involved in the loans under the clause are likely to be small, and it is not considered necessary that they should be made from the Consolidated Fund. If they were, it would involve rather complicated arrangements which are not provided for in the original Bill, anyhow, and it would be necessary to empower the Government to borrow money for the purpose. It is thought that a much more simple and straightforward course for making both loans as well as outright grants would be to make them from Departmental Votes. This, I am advised, is the normal practice so far as loans are concerned where relatively small sums are involved. The subsections to be deleted are those which would have been required for loans made directly from the Consolidated Fund. They are not required in the case of loans made from Parliamentary Votes. The money for both the grants and the loans which may be made under this clause will now be provided under a slightly amended Clause 20. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 14, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Beswick.)


May I just say from this side of the House that I am sure we welcome these two Amendments. I am also sure that they are extremely practical.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.


I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 25, leave out subsections (5) and (6).—(Lord Beswick.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Detention and sale of aircraft for unpaid airport charges]:

THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, in subsection (1)(b), to leave out "twenty-one" and insert "forty-two". The noble Earl said: I am sure the purpose of this Amendment will be perfectly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, as the matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe on Second Reading. As drafted at present, the clause gives power to an aerodrome authority, in the event of non-payment of airport dues or charges, to detain and sell any aircraft after a period of only 21 days. While one appreciates that there is a good case for this power, I suggest it is a pretty harsh penalty to allow an airport authority or airport operator to sell an aircraft after giving only 21 days' credit. One could have the absurd example where, perhaps for the sake of £200, an aircraft worth over £1 million is sold.

Before drafting this Amendment we tried to find from practical people what would be a practical period of time. We consider that the present 21 days' limit would cause concern, particularly to overseas owners of aircraft or to anyone who fell ill. As the noble Lord will see, we have taken 42 days as a more practical period of time, and I trust that, as he implied on Second Reading, he will find this acceptable. I should perhaps add that we have not based our calculations on the number of days allowed under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, as seemed to us to have been done by the draftsmen of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 1, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("forty-two").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)


I understand from the noble Lord that he is complaining not about the harshness of the penalty but about the time within which it shall be decided whether the penalty should be exacted. As I indicated on Second Reading, I was inclined to think that a period of 21 days was too short and I said that I would have a look at it. However, we did not take the 21 days from the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, as the noble Lord has apparently indicated. There the time limit is seven days. Everyone thought that seven days was too short, even though, surprisingly enough, the communications all over the world in 1847 were probably not so good as I hope they are to-day. It was thought that leaving seven days as a precedent and putting in 21 days was reasonable, but the noble Lord still thinks that it is unreasonable. He seems to have taken the number which we thought of and doubled it, making 42 days. I thought he had perhaps gone a little too far, but if he cares to compromise with me and say 28 days, I shall be glad to make provision at Report stage.


Perhaps before the next stage I could discuss this point with the noble Lord. In that case I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?


I wonder whether I may mention one point on subsection (7) of Clause 9. Subsection (7) specifies those bodies which will be given powers under this clause, but it does not include the privately owned aerodromes. Obviously, this would seem totally unfair to any aerodromes such as Southampton Airport, which handles a considerable amount of traffic. It also seems illogical, and if private aerodromes are important enough to warrant bylaws under this Bill why cannot they be granted the same privileges and remedies under this clause as other aerodromes?


I think the noble Earl and his noble friend Lord Jellicoe are on a good point here, and it seems to me that we ought to do something about it. They have not put an Amendment down, but again before Report stage I will certainly look into it and see whether we can meet the point which the noble Earl has made.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Power to provide for the mortgaging of aircraft]:


I beg to move Amendment No. 6. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer at the same time to the following Amendments relating to Clauses 12 and 13. The proposal in this Amendment is to redefine the overseas territories to which the provisions of this Bill should apply. It was thought that the original definition would be too wide in certain cases; for example, it would have authorised Her Majesty in Council to legislate for countries such as Brunei, in which we have no jurisdiction. We are responsible for the foreign policy of that country at the present time but we have no power to legislate for it, and the original terms of the Bill would have brought in Brunei. On the other hand, the original terms would not have included a territory such as the New Hebrides, for which, although it is a condominium, we might have wished to legislate in the future. I am suggesting, therefore, that the new words relevant overseas territory and to aircraft registered in any such territory. would be much more suitable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 19, leave out from ("any") to end of line 22 and insert ("relevant overseas territory and to aircraft registered in any such territory.")—(Lord Beswick.)


I wonder whether I could raise one point on Amendment No. 6, as the noble Lord is taking them all together. It concerns the question of mortgages. As I understand it, the U.S.A. Federation Act 1958, Section 503, covers "all persons"—that is the term they use, I think—on the question of mortgages. I believe that in the United States that gives some assistance to people undertaking mortgages of their aircraft, as it not only protects inside the U.S.A. but protects, apparently, throughout the world. I do not know whether that ties in at all with this Amendment.


No. Frankly, I cannot understand the point which the noble Earl is getting at here. I should like to; and it is probably my fault. Obviously we cannot legislate here for any other parts of the world. What we are doing now is seeking powers to ratify a Convention which will apply to those other parts of the world where the Convention is ratified, but we cannot say, as Her Majesty's Government in this territory, that Governments of other countries shall observe legislation which we ourselves pass, except in so far as it relates to this Convention under which the other countries accept an obligation by virtue of their ratification of the Convention. In this respect, I should have thought that what we are proposing to do here is virtually on all fours with the legislation in the United States: but if, on consideration, the noble Earl can see any flaw in my argument, he will probably let me know.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 [Power to give effect to Convention on Rights in Aircraft]:


This and the next Amendment are consequential Amendments. I beg to move the first of them.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 15 and insert ("relevant overseas territory").—(Lord Beswick.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.


This is the second consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 30, leave out from ("any") to end of line 32 and insert ("relevant overseas territory").—(Lord Beswick.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Provisions supplementary to sections 11 and 12):


This Amendment is in two parts. As to the first part, on page 12, line 44, the insertion of the proviso will have the effect of ensuring that the Order in Council relating to these relevant overseas territories will not have to be laid before Parliament in the United Kingdom. It is not thought appropriate that these detailed, technical matters should take up the time of Parliament here, and there are precedents for not including them, by way of the Affirmative Resolution procedure. The second part of the Amendment is really consequential upon the three Amendments to which we have just agreed. Given the different definition of an overseas territory, it is necessary to mention the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I therefore hope that these words, which are really spelling out the new definition of overseas territories, will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 44, at end insert— ("Provided that this subsection shall not apply to an Order which applies only to a relevant overseas territory. ( ) in the two last foregoing sections and in this section "relevant overseas territory" means any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, any colony and any country or place outside Her Majesty's dominions in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction.")—(Lord Beswick.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 [Extra-territorial regulation of certain British-controlled aircraft not registered in the United Kingdom]:

On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?


On the Question, That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill, perhaps I may raise one point with the noble Lord. In line 9 of page 13 the words "chartered by demise" are used. As I am advised, this expression is more known to Parliamentary draftsmen than to practical aviators, and it seems that it would be comparatively easy to devise a form of charter, hire or lease which did not constitute a charter by demise and would therefore escape the admirable intentions of this clause. I appreciate that this point could be better dealt with in the form of an Amendment, but perhaps the noble Lord would consider this point so that a suitable Amendment may be drafted before the next stage of the Bill.


The noble Earl was kind enough to give me notice of his fears about this wording, and I have looked into it. It seems to me that his fears are not justified and that the present wording in fact carries out the intentions of the Bill.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Time limit for prosecutions arising out of accidents]:

4.28 p.m.


This Amendment defines rather more carefully the meaning of the word "accident". At the present time there are some slight differences between the definition of "accident" contained in the Civil Aviation Act and the regulations which flow from that Act. In effect, what we are now proposing to say is that an accident shall include an incident. There are cases where there is no actual accident, where there is no destruction of aircraft or loss of life, but where there might have been a very near-miss and an inquiry is called for. The words now proposed will make it quite clear that the Department would have the power to have an inquiry into an incident, even though there was no actual loss of life. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 14, line 19, at end insert— ("( ) In the said section 10 and in this section "accident" shall be construed as including any fortuitous or unexpected event by which the safety of an aircraft or any person is threatened.")—(Lord Beswick.)


On behalf of noble Lords on these Benches may I say that we welcome this Amendment. I think we all know that many incidents occur during every year of aviation which are never really looked into.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

LORD BESWICK moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following new clause:

Minor amendments relating to British Airports Authority, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.

".—(1) Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to the Airports Authority Act 1965 and paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Air Corporations Act 1967 (which require the fixing of the common seal of the Authority and of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to be authenticated by the signatures of the chairman or a member of the body concerned and also by another person authorised to act for that purpose) shall be amended as follows:—

  1. (a) in the said paragraph 8(1) for the words from "the signatures" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the signature of the secretary of the Authority or some other person authorised by the Authority, either generally or specially, to act for that purpose",
  2. (b) in the said paragraph 11 for the words from "the signature" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the signature of the secretary of the corporation or some other person authorised by the corporation, either generally or specially, to act for that purpose".

(2) It is hereby declared that in the said Act of 1965 "pension", in relation to a person, means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of him, and includes a gratuity so payable and a return of contributions to a pension fund, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto and any sums payable on or in respect of the death of that person."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to simplify the procedures under Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Air Corporations Act 1967. Under that paragraph the common seal of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. has to be authenticated by two signatures: that of the Chairman of the Corporation, or some other member authorised by the Corporation to act in his stead, and that of some other person authorised by the Corporation. Both Corporations and the British Airports Authority, who are under the same obligation under present legislation, have expressed to the Board of Trade the view that the procedure laid down is cumbersome and wasteful. It is proposed to simplify it in the manner suggested in this new clause.

Subsection (2) relates to the pension provisions. Here the new wording proposed is simply to avoid a certain amount of doubt that is felt by some about the present wording of Schedule 1 to the Airports Authority Act 1965. Under that Schedule, it seems doubtful whether the word "pension" can include a lump sum. It is proposed now to adopt the definition of Section 92 of the Transport Act 1962, which is the same as that of the 1954 Act, with the addition of a reference to sums payable on, or in respect of the death of a person. As I have said, this re-definition of the pension powers of the Airports Authority is one that seeks only to avoid doubt. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 17 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Beswick.)


Perhaps I may say that the clause is quite a lot to assimilate in 24 hours. I think it was put down only yesterday. But I am sure it is well-founded and perhaps one should congratulate the Parliamentary draftsman on producing this lengthy clause in order to streamline the managament of B.O.A.C.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Financial provisions.]:


I made reference to this Amendment when we were discussing Clause 7. It is necessary to enable loans, as well as grants, to be made from moneys voted by Parliament which may be included in the Annual Estimates in the usual way. Repayments of capital and interest on loans will be made to the Board of Trade and surrendered to the Treasury as Exchequer Extra Receipts (a technical expression with which noble Lords present may be familiar) or, to use another expression, Appropriated in Aid of the Board of Trade's Vote. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 3, leave out ("other than") and insert ("including").—(Lord Beswick.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:


This rather complicated Amendment is a further exercise in streamlining. Its simple purpose is to extend to Northern Ireland the new clause which the Committee have just accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 15, leave out line 37 and insert— ("sections 16 and 17 section (Minor amendments relating to British Airports Authority, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.) so far as it relates to the Air Corporations Act 1967 sections 18 and 19").—(Lord Beswick.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.