We have a remarkably short space of time in which to discuss the Clauses of a very important Bill, Sir William, but as we on this side of the Committee are anxious to co-operate in making as much progress as possible, I shall speak with brevity. I am sorry that urgent Parliamentary matters have prevented my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) from contributing his massive knowledge of these matters on this occasion.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give further information about the member- ship of the organisation? At the moment, it is limited to six countries, but it is the kind of organisation that will obviously benefit its members very much more the more countries there are that join. The benefits will increase in a geometric progression with the membership. Are negotiations taking place to induce other countries to join, particularly those countries that are contiguous to the area covered by the organisation—Italy, Switzerland and Ireland?

Secondly, the Parliamentary Secretary promised on Second Reading that he would investigate the possibility of the House receiving an annual report of the activities of the organisation. We should be very glad if he could make a statement on that matter now.

The number in the organisation is not in any sense limited. As a matter of fact, six seems to have become the standard number for European organisations to start with, but we hope, of course, that it will expand. The reason for this particular six is that they occupy the north-western European air space, where there is the greatest congestion of almost any part of the world.

The Italians were parties to the original negotiations, but withdrew because they thought that it would be very difficult to marry the requirements of civil arid military aviation. We believe that this problem can be overcome, and must be overcome, and we hope that, eventually, the Italians will see us overcome them and like to join us.

All other countries are welcome to apply, but because admission of a new country requires a unanimous vote it would not be right for us, or any other country to canvass, so to speak, recruits. That is a matter for the organisation as a whole, and it is in touch with one or two other countries. The onus for application rests on the other countries, but we hope that they will come in, and that the publicity of this debate, and similar debates in other countries will help to attract them.

The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) also referred to accountability to Parliament. My right hon. Friend has asked me to assure the House on this subject. The House will have the Annual Estimates, which can be debated, in which the moneys due to Eurocontrol will figure. Hon. Members will be able to put Parliamentary Questions to my right hon. Friend on the actions of his representatives on the Council, and we are promoting the idea of an annual report being published by the organisation which could be deposited in the Library for the Information of the House, as is the custom with other international organisations. I hope that those undertakings will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

The first Amendment to Clause 2, in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in Clause 2, page 2, line 21, after "inspection", insert "of the official archives or", appears to deal with the same point as the second Amendment in the name of the Minister. I propose therefore to select the second Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, after "any", to insert "record or".

We are grateful to my hon. Friend for putting down his Amendment. I think the only difference between us is a matter of drafting. The intention of the Amendment is to extend the proviso of this Clause to material other than documents; in other words, to records such as tapes and films.

The words proposed by my right hon. Friend would involve a tautology, because archives include documents. Records do not include all documents, and records are defined in Clause 8 of the Bill. We feel, therefore, that by eliminating this tautology and by gaining the point at which my hon. Friend is aiming we shall be able to satisfy the aim of this Clause.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert:

(a) by any person acting through legal process;

(b) by a constable acting in the execution of a warrant.

I doubt whether I can explain the Amendment in the short time that remains to me. Under Clause 2 as it stands two important steps for procedure of civil litigation are precluded. Firstly, the step in our courts of being able to oblige your opponent to disclose relevant documents, and secondly, to be able to oblige a witness to produce relevant documents. As the Clause stands both of these would be precluded, and the Amendment is intended to restore these rights to the litigant.

The effect of Clause 2 is to create a legal body that can sue or be sued in our courts. In the course of proceedings, although it is given this legal entity, it is given certain immunities, and, therefore, certain advantages, against other litigants. We know of those certain advantages in connection with the Crown, diplomatic privilege and other international organisations, but in cases of other organisations they are free from process against them. In this case, it is merely a partial immunity and, therefore, a considerable advantage to the organisation against other litigants.

The Convention in Article 25 gives the organisation full liability, in contract and in tort, and that is carried out in the Bill in Clause 2 (1), the first sentence of which gives the organisation the legal capacity of a body corporate. The whole intention in the Bill is to enable a person to sue the organisation, as one can see from Clause 7.

The Convention in Article 26 deals with the immunities of the organisation and that is carried out in Clause 2 (3) but that reduces, in my submission, the ambit of Article 26 of the Convention. To illustrate this; if a person is suing the organisation for negligence in directing aircraft involved, say, in an accident, if a person is suing the organisation for something which resulted in that—a negligence in the use of the organisation's property, its assets, vehicles, and so on—then that plaintiff is prevented by this Clause, as it stands, from forcing the organisation to produce documents relevant to those proceedings.