I beg to move, in page 2, line 24 after "produce", to insert:

"or persons engaged in forestry".

Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss at the same time, the other five Amendments in my name on the Notice Paper?

Yes. That would be convenient.

This is a very small Amendment, but an important one. When the Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) it was thought that the definition of a co-operative society, in Clause 2, would include forestry societies. There has been a growth of co-operation amongst forestry societies, which is of great benefit to the preservation of woodland. The purpose of the Amendment is to make absolutely certain that persons engaged in forestry or forestry co-operative are included in Clause 2.

The Committee discussed this matter and there was general agreement about it, when I indicated that I would accept Amendments to meet the desires of the Committee. I have much pleasure in accepting them now.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have now reached the final stage of the Bill in this House. I am indebted for the help which I have received from all quarters in carrying the Bill through, from the Minister and his Department, those concerned with the Bill in the Public Bill Office, and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

As its progress has shown, the Bill has met with general acceptance from both consumers and producers in co-operative organisations and there is little purpose now in prolonging proceedings which have been so happily conducted during the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages.

This will be a useful and somewhat important Measure to many agricultural co-operative societies. At this stage we ought to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) for using his luck in the Ballot to introduce the Bill.

We all know that many agricultural and horticultural co-operatives need additional capital, and it is preferable for them to get that capital from their own members and also desirable that as far as possible they should get it in the form of share rather than loan capital.

I am glad that we have extended the Bill to cover forestry. I was always under the impression that in legislation the word "agriculture" covered forestry, but if there was any doubt about it, I am glad that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) has been able to put forward his Amendments to make the matter perfectly clear.

For simplicity and ease of operation, the Bill covers all industrial and provident societies, although we do not expect that the consumer co-operatives will take advantage of it, at least not on any scale, for the time being. On reflection, I am rather glad that the provisions of Clause 1 (6) makes societies go through some procedural operations before they can increase their maximum shareholding by rule, if they do not do it right away.

The Bill is very well drafted and will serve its purpose admirably, and again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Govan for introducing it.

I intervened very briefly on the Government's behalf during the Second Reading, and I do not want to take up too much time this morning.

I again express our thanks to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Go van (Mr. Rankin) for what he has done and the amount of work he has put in, not only in introducing the Bill, but in helping to shape it according to the will of the House and for giving us what is an extremely useful Measure.

Happy the man, as the hon. Member is, who can produce a Bill which gives pleasure to both producer and consumer! It is not always that way, as well I know in my present Department. The view of the Government is that the Amendments accepted during proceedings on the Bill are logical and have improved it, especially the not unimportant matter which we have considered today. It was a logical extension to apply the provisions covering agriculture and horticulture to forestry. I hope that it will not be long before the Bill is part of the law of the land.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill had its First Reading on 23rd November, its Second Reading on 22nd January, and its Committee stage on 15th March. It has made rapid progress through the House, but the dreadful thing is that even though it has had that rapid progress, more than 3,000 people have been killed in their homes during that time—basing that figure on experience of previous years. Nearly 1 million people have had to go to hospital for treatment of one kind or another. I believe that the Bill will make its contribution to reducing accidents in the home. As it did not have a detailed explanation on Second Reading, perhaps I can be permitted now to explain some of its details and its objectives.

County councils and county borough councils now have power to form home safety committees. They have that power under Section 28 of the National Health Act, 1946. By taking special powers, other local authorities can have their own home safety committees, but their powers are limited. The Act does not give the minor local authorities power to set up their own home safety committees.

At Folkestone, in my constituency, we have such a home safety committee which is working most successfully. Its success depends, as with all local committees, on the enthusiasm of the secretary and the hard work of the members, whose work helps to reduce accidents in the home.

The Bill gives power to urban district councils and rural district councils to set up similar committees. There are about 1,300 of those authorities which do not have their own home safety committees, and I hope that they will appreciate this opportunity.

In recent years and even in recent months there has been a growing appreciation of the need for safety in the home. Well-known magazines have published supplements pointing out the dangers in the home. Only this month, the current edition of the Reader's Digest has published such a supplement. Only yesterday I received from Smith and Nephew a very interesting document giving advice about safety in the home and the ways of dealing with minor casualties. I understand that the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) is a director of that firm and I congratulate him on drawing attention to home safety committees.

There is much I could say on this subject, but that would take up the time of the House. There has recently been a debate in another place on home safety, which I have no authority to mention. I must make it clear that the Bill will not give local authorities an opportunity for a spending spree. The annual cost of running the home safety committee in Folkestone works out at about £250 a year, which is less than 1d. per head of the population.

Translated into rateable value, it works out at less than one-quarter of a farthing on the rates, and that cannot be considered extravagant when we are trying to make a contribution towards saving life in the home. The figure of about 3,000 fatal accidents a year in the home is a figure of which we should take cognisance in this modern age and the cost of hospitalisation of the casualties must amount to £5 million or £6 million a year. It is very difficult to get statistics about accidents in the home. We have many statistics about accidents on the road and yet there are nearly 2,000 more fatal accidents a year in the home than there are on the roads.

If the House is good enough to give a Third Reading to the Bill, I think that it will be making a contribution to showing the public the necessity for taking the necessary precautions. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has a very lively organisation dealing with this matter, and the Bill will give the minor local authorities the opportunity of co-operating with it. In passing, I congratulate that organisation on the work it is doing.

May I say, in conclusion, how much I appreciate the help and support I have had from the Home Office in drawing up the Bill. It was most gratifying to me. I have had a large number of letters from home safety committees appreciating the fact that, when this Bill came to its Committee stage, we had a very good attendance of hon. Members, though, of necessity, because this is a non-controversial Measure, the Committee stage took only a very short time. Home safety committees are very encouraged by the fact that hon. Members of this House, at a time when we were having very late sittings, were able to support this Measure.

I commend the Bill to the House in the belief that it will open a new era and a new appreciation of the dangers that exist in the home.

I should like to commend the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) for bringing forward this small but important Measure.

It has always seemed to me to be very remarkable that when we know, as we do know and as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that the number of accidents and the seriousness of those accidents is greater in the home than outside, so very little mention is ever made of them and there is very little public concern. My astonishment is that it is necessary to have to bring forward a Bill even to enable local authorities to engage in this kind of activity. This would seem to me to be a matter about which the nation and the Government should be far more seriously concerned, and should be right behind the hon. Gentleman in doing very much more than is enabled here to see that this level of accidents is definitely reduced.

I am very happy that the hon. Gentleman has brought forward this Bill, and I should like to extend my compliments to him and at the same time make a plea that the Government should think much more seriously than it has done up to now—judging by the evidence that we have seen from the Home Office—about what they will do about it. We hear very regularly about flogging thugs and all sorts of other measures being taken to protect the public, but here is something going on day after day and we hear very little about it. I should therefore like to couple my compliments to the hon. Gentleman with the plea that the Home Office should get down much more seriously to this question than it apparently has done up to the present time.

I want only to ask one question. This Bill does not apply to Scotland, but Clause 1 (3) provides:

(3) There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament any increase attributable to the foregoing provisions of this section in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.

Why must Scotland be included in this financial provision? As I understand the various Acts concerning the distribution of the Exchequer equalisation grant in England and Wales, for instance, it means that Scotland receives a certain percentage of what is paid in England and Wales, irrespective of what services are being financed and assisted by the Exchequer. If that is so, why is it that Scotland should have to be mentioned in this subsection? We have no objection to receiving any extra money by way of Exchequer equalisation grants. We are delighted to receive it, but I should like an explanation of that point.

I should also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) on having introduced this Bill. In my own constituency, we have a fairly progressive local authority in this matter, which is a matter to which we ought to give more attention than we do.

I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and commend this Bill to the House. I think it is worth while spending a little time on it, because, as the hon. Member said, it had an unopposed Second Reading without any discussion at all and only a very short discussion in the Committee stage.

The Bill deals with an important subject, and the hon. Member has made, as I think, a most valuable speech in drawing public attention to the seriousness of the accidents that occur in the home, some of which, unfortunately, are fatal and many of which could, with forethought, greater knowledge and greater educational facilities, have been avoided.

My only doubt is whether the Bill when it is passed into law will succeed in fulfilling all the hopes which the hon. Member has for it. I hope it will, but I have some doubts about that, unless it is coupled with more energetic action, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) suggested, not only on the part of the Home Office but, as I would add, on the part of local authorities.

It is a rather extraordinary commentary on life in Britain today that whereas the extent of the injuries that occur in the home is far greater and far more serious than the casualties that occur on our roads, serious as they are, very much less attention is given to them. They attract much less notice in the Press, and much less thought appears to be given to taking measures to prevent them.

As I understand it, this Bill does two things. First, it gives powers to the local authorities to promote safety in the home by publishing or making arrangements for giving information on how to prevent accidents; and, second, it enables the local authorities to make contributions to voluntary associations which exist for the same purpose.

Non-profit-making associations.

I am much obliged. I agree, voluntary non-profit-making associations, which exist in some parts of the country for this express purpose.

The hon. Member also says that one of his objects was to stimulate greater activity in this field on the part of some of the smaller and rural authorities. I think it should be known that many of, if not all, the larger authorities already have powers in this respect. I suppose, therefore, that it would be a fitting commentary to make that perhaps one might doubt whether they are adequately used. This Bill will not in itself do anything to stimulate those local authorities which already have these powers into making the fullest use of them.

I sit for part of the Metropolitan Borough of Islington, where, in recent years, we unfortunately had one or two serious occurrences resulting in fatalities to children through the use of oil heaters. That matter was brought to the notice of the Home Office and something was done about it, but the accidents which have been occurring all over the country as a result of the dangers inherent in oil heaters represent only a proportion of the dangers that arise in the home. With the development of all kinds of electrical, gas and oil heating it is becoming more and more common for risks of various kinds to arise and, valuable as all these aids to civilisation are, they involve the employment of some appliances which require some knowledge in their use, or which, if faulty or without adequate guarding or protection, can cause accidents.

I hope that the Bill will mean not only that additional powers will be given to the smaller authorities who do not possess them at the moment, but that it will provide the opportunity of drawing the attention of the larger authorities to the powers which they have at the moment, and which, in my belief, are being inadequately exercised.

That brings me to the question of the responsibility of the Home Office, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister of State—

I should require persuading that the activities of the Home Office are in order in a Third Reading debate on this Bill.

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was minded to pursue that matter only because of the observations of my hon. Friend.

I allowed the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) to say it because I thought that he was just going to sit down and that it would save time if I allowed him to continue.

Perhaps I may put the matter in this way: I was not quite sure whether the ultimate responsibility in this matter lay as much with the Home Office as with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, because of its responsibility for the general supervision of local authorities. It is surely in order to say that one of the questions which arise under the Bill is whether it is to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government, either through the Home Office or the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to give directions to local authorities to exercise these powers themselves, as is suggested in Clause 1 (1), or to give further encouragement to the voluntary societies of which we have heard, and which the Bill empowers local authorities to encourage by subventions.

I hope that we shall not fall between two stools, and find that local authorities are leaving the matter to voluntary organisations while those voluntary bodies are, perhaps, not engaging in the necessary amount of activity because they believe that the job should be undertaken by the local authority. That is the danger which appears to be inherent in the present position, and which is always inherent when there is any apparent division of responsibility.

The very fact that these are voluntary organisations gives them a special privilege to be able to help the people in their own neighbourhood. I am anxious not to do this work by means of an official body, such as a society for the prevention of accidents in the home. That would not work so well. It is a question of each local authority getting a body of workers around it, and the example of what has happened in Folkestone may help the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) in his thoughts.

We have a number of elderly people in Folkestone, and one of the problems that arise is that if one of them has a slight accident he or she may not be able to call for help. That makes the accident more serious, because it is not dealt with immediately. The local voluntary organisation, with the advice of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, has created a body of street wardens, and elderly persons are given cards which they can put in their windows to indicate that they require help. From time to time various people who know where the old people live voluntarily take the opportunity to walk down the streets to see whether there are any cards in the windows.

The best way of dealing with this problem is to see that it is given the maximum amount of publicity. At the moment people do not appreciate the number of accidents which occur in the home. Somehow, we all feel immortal, and that accidents will never happen to us, but always to other people. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Islington, East has drawn this question out in debate, because the more publicity that is given to it the more help we shall be able to provide to solve the problem.

I am obliged to the hon. Member. I have no doubt that the system which operates in Folkestone is an admirable one, which might with advantage be copied in other parts of the country. But my experience in London is that these arrangements are not nearly as good as they should be. Our hospitals are full of people who have received injuries because of accidents in the home, some of which could have been avoided.

I hope that as a result of the provisions of the Bill and the debate that we are having a new initiative will be taken by the Government to indicate to local authorities, great and small, the fact that these powers exist and should be used, and that each local authority should consider for itself whether it should take the initiative or whether it should stimulate and encourage such voluntary organisations as exist in its locality.

I do not think that there is any risk of the Bill's leading to a spending spree by local authorities, as one hon. Member suggested. That is not the risk; the risk is that these powers will not be used. The danger in this and other fields of local authority endeavour is not that there will be a spending spree but that there will be too much inertia. I have no doubt that in a number of localities numerous organisations which have been organised for this or for some other purpose will be quite prepared to make their contribution.

If the Bill is to succeed in its objects, however, more must be done to educate people to take the necessary precautions. There is an opportunity at hand in that respect. Progressively throughout the country homes are being converted to burn smokeless fuel. As a result of that policy and campaign, which has already started in London and other cities, new forms of heating will, for the first time, be introduced into homes which have hitherto been dependent upon coal and open fires.

Not all the occupants of homes are blessed with technical knowledge or even the commonsense which is necessary to know how to use them. As part of the smokeless fuel campaign local authorities are under an obligation to give advice and financial assistance to those people who are now being required by law to change their heating arrangements to electric, gas, oil, or solid smokeless fuel heating.

People require not merely a choice as to which is most appropriate, but also knowledge of how to use these fuels and what precautions are required. Here is an opportunity for local authorities to see—and not only in the particular parts of their areas being given over to smokeless fuels—that something is done to educate the people as to the elementary precautions which, if taken, could, and would, go a long way to reduce accidents in the home, which we are all so much concerned to see reduced.

I join in the congratulations offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). I admire the conscientious way in which he has applied himself to what, at first sight, may seem to be a small Measure. It is a machinery Measure, and only a machinery Measure, in that it fills a gap in the legislation and, as the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said, makes it possible for the minor local authorities to take part in home safety propaganda and to give funds to voluntary bodies. The reason why they have no power to do so at the moment is that the major local authorities get it from the 1948 National Health Service Act, but that does not affect the minor authorities.

It is a useful machinery Measure which will enable more county borough councils, urban district councils and rural district councils to do what they have previously been prevented from doing. Many of them have at some time wanted this power. It is not a power which my hon. Friend is giving them which he hopes they may use occasionally, but there has been a positive request that this power should be given.

The hon. Member for Islington, East referred to the Oil Burners (Standards) Act. I would remind him that there is coming before the House on Third Reading a complementary Measure, the Consumer Protection Bill, which will absorb that Act and will give the Government fairly wide powers in the interests of home safety and in the prevention of accidents. In many ways this Bill and the Bill to which I have just referred are complementary and should be looked at together.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised a point of great complexity. I had always regarded him as an expert in local authority finance, and I would have thought that his understanding was as good as mine. This reference to Scotland arises out of the fact that the rate deficiency grant applies under this Measure. Although it may seem strange that Scotland, which is not covered by the Bill, should be mentioned, the reason is that in Scotland the amount of the Exchequer equalisation grant is linked to the amount of the rate deficiency grant. It will, therefore, be consequentially affected, and this is a usual provision in a Bill which introduces a rate deficiency element.

Irrespective of what the rate deficiency grant is in England and Wales, and in respect of what services it is given, does not Scotland automatically get a certain percentage?

That might be so, but anything which has an effect on the rate deficiency grant, as this Measure must have, must consequentially have an indirect effect on the Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland.

The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) seized the opportunity to castigate the Government. I am not certain whether you would allow me to follow him in that connection, Mr. Speaker, but he made a point to which I should like to refer. He was not quite accurate in saying that there were more accidents in the home than outside. I am not certain whether that is a fact. What I think he had in mind is that there are more accidents in the home than on the roads. That is a relevant and direct comparison, particularly at the time when the House is likely to be much concerned with road safety and road safety measures. Although this is a machinery Measure, it provides an opportunity to make the point again that there are more accidents in the home than on the roads, and that we should therefore be much concerned with this problem.

The question of responsibility was discussed. No authority can absolve parents, or those who reside in the home, from their direct responsibilities. Our concern must be to educate and advise people so as to prevent these accidents from happening. That has always been the object of legislation.

The hon. Member for Islington, East was anxious that we should not divide our responsibilities too much between the local authorities on the one hand and the voluntary bodies on the other, with the result that no one undertakes this operation. I do not think that that is likely to happen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe referred to the home safety committees. I hope that, possibly stimulated by the Bill, we shall have more of these in being. This must be a co-ordinated effort between local authorities and voluntary bodies, but I would support any view expressed to the effect that either of those bodies should operate. There is a case for action on the local authority front, supported by voluntary action.

The Home Office is the sponsoring Ministry for home safety and is, therefore, pleased to support the Bill. There was an interesting debate on this subject in another place the other day, but I would be out of order in referring to it. Many worthwhile points were made and they are under consideration, and I will give consideration to what has been said in the debate today, particularly to the point made in the concluding remark of the hon. Member for Islington, East that we should not just leave it to the minor local authorities to find out for themselves that this Bill has gone through Parliament, but that we should bring it to their attention that they have these powers and that we would like them to use them.

I take note of the views which have been expressed that we should be as positive as possible in bringing to the notice of those concerned the developments in home safety, and I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, at the end to insert:

(6) No Order in Council under this section shall impose a limit of liability less than double the corresponding limit or limits contained in the First Schedule to this Act.

The object of the Amendment is to ensure that if the Minister exercises the power under this Clause to extend the limit of liability of an airline towards its passengers to domestic flights in the United Kingdom, and also to flights originating in or ending in other territories as specified in Clause 9, the limits which he will determine by Order shall be not less than double the corresponding limits in the Warsaw Convention as amended by The Hague Protocol, that is to say, the First Schedule to the Bill.

In commending the Amendment to the House I shall seek to establish four propositions. First, although in the case of international flights there is a balance of advantage both to the passenger and to the airline, in the case of domestic flights this balance is grievously upset and there is very much less advantage to the passenger than there is in the case of international flights.

Secondly, whereas, in the case of international flights to which the Warsaw Convention, as amended, applies, there is given notice on the ticket that the damages which will be payable in the event of death or injury to a passenger are limited in accordance with the Warsaw Convention, the amount of those damages is specified on the ticket, although in a somewhat roundabout manner, and the sterling equivalent is not quoted; in the case of a British domestic ticket, this does not apply, and the passenger is, therefore, unaware of the limit of liability imposed and, therefore, unaware of the limit above which he would be prudent to ensure his own cover.

Thirdly, £6,000 is a totally unrealistic limit to the damages which can be awarded for death or injury today, and, fourthly, that there is extremely good international authority for the proposition that the limit of liability imposed in the case of international carriage by air should not also apply in the case of domestic carriage.

One of the principal advantages to the passenger of the limit of liability on international flights is that, in the vast majority of cases where he suffers damage of the nature with which we are concerned, he is saved by other provisions in the Warsaw Convention from having to prove in a foreign court the extent of his damage and the liability of the carrier for it. But in the case of flights within the United Kingdom, and, to a lesser extent, in the case of flights originating in or ending at countries covered by Clause 9, this difficulty is very much less, because there is access to British courts if the accident arises in the United Kingdom. Moreover, if the passenger is sufficiently impecunious he can seek free legal aid to assist him.

I represent that because the balance of advantage to the passenger on a domestic flight is so very much less, the House should consider whether the damages to which he is limited should not be greater, so that the balance of equity is restored.

I should like to quote, if I may, the warning which appears on a British European Airways domestic ticket. It states:

"Condition of carriage

Subject to the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, and Orders made thereunder, passengers, their luggage and belongings are carried on the terms contained in the Corporation's General Conditions of Carriage, Regulations, Time-tables and Notices which may be inspected at the Corporation's Offices."

I represent very strongly that that is a totally unreasonable and inadequate advertisement to the passenger that the damage he can recover from the airline, except in the most extraordinary conditions, is limited to £6,000 and that if he values himself at higher than that he would be prudent to secure his own insurance. No reasonable person could believe that this notice on the ticket would convey that information. I suggest that unless that information is conveyed it is totally unreasonable to apply an unrealistically low limit.

Is the limit unreasonable and unrealistically low? I have been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, and I will, with permission, quote an extract from his letter to me. It is as follows:

"Out of 78 claims made in the four years 1957–60 arising out of death or personal injuries as a result of accidents to aircraft of one British Airline, 55 were, I am told, for less than £6,000. Of the 23 claims for more than £6,000, only two were for more than £10,000. These were claims not necessarily limited by the Convention, and they are the amounts claimed, not the amounts of damages actually established."

Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether these cases were all fatalities, or were some injuries?

I very much regret that I have not that information available.

This suggests, prima facie, that in 23 out of the 78 claims to which my right hon. Friend referred, a limitation of liability to £6,000 means potentially that in those cases the injured passenger was unable to recover the full damages which it is alleged he or she suffered. This, surely, is substantive evidence that the £6,000 limit has not been realistic in terms of actual accidents which have occurred.

Cany anyone reasonably believe that today £6,000 represents a reasonable capitalisation of an average passenger's earning capacity? A return of 5 per cent. on the sum of £6,000, if invested, means that an income of £300 a year would be the total income arising from damages of that amount. I think that this is a reasonable assumption, and that is why, in the Amendment, I have endeavoured to ensure that whatever limits the Minister applies in the case of domestic flights, they will not be less than double the £6,000 which is the corresponding figure in the Warsaw Convention.

I do not intend to argue the merits of the £6,000 limit on international flights, because we either have to accept the Warsaw Convention as amended by The Hague Protocol in toto, or reject it, and, in my submission, the balance of advantage is in favour of accepting it.

Lastly, I would refer to the concluding paragraph of Section 41 of Professor Drion's definitive work entitled, "Limitation of Liabilities in International Air Law," to which I was referred by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation in the letter which I mentioned earlier. It states:

"If there is any field in which unification of the law on a world-wide basis would be inappropriate it is the field of the amount of damages to be paid in the case of death or injuries, for in few areas local views and circumstances of a social and economic character are of so much importance. Unification of the law as a ground for limitation of liability, therefore, should be rejected."

It is often contended by those who seek to limit the power of the courts in this country to give redress to injured parties that it is administrably inconvenient to give the courts such powers. I would represent very strongly that the House should be extremely careful about giving a Minister power to deprive the courts of the ability to award the full damages which a citizen suffered unless the limits set are reasonable limits. If it is argued that limits are essential for domestic air operations, which argument I am not challenging, I think it relevant to remark that the American domestic air operations are not, to the best of my knowledge, governed by any limitation of liability.

In conclusion, I would suggest that if these four propositions which I have made satisfy the House, then the Amendment standing in my name should also commend itself to the House.

In rising to support the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I should like, if I may, to congratulate him on the admirably lucid and cogent way in which he explained the purposes of the Amendment and justified and adduced his arguments in support of it. This is really a very serious matter.

It is, of course, somewhat odd that a Measure of this importance comes before the House as a Private Member's Bill. Perhaps one might be permitted to ask how it is that it is not sponsored by the Government, as was the Act of 1932; because, like that Act, this Bill is intended primarily to give statutory effect to an international convention. But there it is, and I acknowledge that private Members have precisely the same rights as have the Government to introduce Bills of this importance. However, that does not absolve us from the duty of examining its provisions rather carefully.

In order to appreciate the significance of this Amendment one must consider the background of Clause 10. None of us quarrels with the idea of giving statutory approval to an international convention which governs international carriage by air. But Clause 10 suggests that the Government may, by Order in Council, apply the provisions of the international convention to flights within this country. Therefore, we have to consider whether it is reasonable that the same limitations on liability should apply to domestic flights as apply to international carriage. In my view, the same arguments do not apply in both cases, as the hon. Member indicated in the four propositions which he advanced.

The reason why it is right, in dealing with international carriage, to have an international convention ratified by Statute in the various countries is that if a passenger travels abroad in an aeroplane, whether a British plane or one belonging to a foreign company, and if as the result of an accident he meets his death, in order to recover compensation, his representatives may have to take proceedings in a foreign court. His representatives may be put to very considerable difficulty in proving that in some way the accident was due to the negligence of the airline. Therefore it has been laid down, and is accepted, that if an accident occurs, substantially—I am paraphrasing the provisions in the convention—liability should be assumed. The plaintiff, or the deceased's representatives, do not have to prove liability. But, as a corollary to that, a monetary limit on liability is laid down in the convention. I think that right for international carriage.

When the Warsaw Convention was adopted in 1929, it was carried into law by the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, with which I had something to do. At that time, I thought it reasonable that the provisions of the convention should apply to domestic carriage. But I think the House should appreciate that conditions of air travel, particularly within the confines of the United Kingdom, are very different today from what they were in 1932. Then there was little domestic air travel. Today there is a great deal.

In thirty years British European Air ways has developed tremendously its services between London, Manchester, Birmingham, Scotland and Orkney and Shetland, and so there has been a tremendous change and increase in the amount of purely domestic air travel; particularly in the case of British European Airways, but not exclusively so. Thirty years ago there was far more international air travel. That was then the pattern of air travel, but that is not the case today. Therefore, to my mind the first question which arises is whether the international convention should be adopted at all in relation to Clause 10. I am not convinced that the case has been made out—

Order. I can understand the question arising in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that it arises in connection with this Amendment.

It arises only as part of the bigger question. If it is desirable that the Government should have power under Clause 10, I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton that that power should be subject to certain very important considerations. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member concentrates on one of them, and to that I will devote my argument, although it did not seem to me the only relevant consideration which arises on the broader question.

This is the most important aspect of Clause 10, because if the Clause was operated, if an Order in Council was made, the same limitation on liability would apply to a domestic internal air carrier as applies in the case of international carriage. Why should it apply? The limitation on liability is reasonable if we are dealing with a foreign air line, but is there any reason why there should be any limitation in respect of a British company. There is no limitation on liability at common law. A person who carries passengers, or goods for that matter, whether by air, sea or land, whether by rail or in a horse-drawn conveyance, has no limitation on liability at common law. The liability is absolute for negligence. Regarding the carriage of goods, the liability of a common carrier is far greater than that of anyone else, apart from an innkeeper. Therefore, prima facie, there is no case whatever, in my opinion, for limiting liability on the carriage of passengers by air.

If there is to be some limit, we should carefully consider what that limit should be. I am prepared to concede, as did the hon. Member for Tiverton, that the ground for imposing some limitation of liability, even in the case of the domestic air carrier, is it releases the dependants or representatives of a deceased person from the obligation to prove negligence, although, of course, in such cases it would be difficult to refute negligence. The sole question, then, is, what should be the limit? Surely it ought to be no less than the representatives of a deceased person, killed as the result of an accident in an aircraft, could reasonably expect to recover in order to provide adequate compensation for the dependants of the deceased. In other words, they should be no worse off than if the deceased had lost his life in a train accident or been killed on the roads.

The dependants of passengers who unfortunately meet with fatalities are entitled to know, it should be a matter of public knowledge, that the monetary compensation will be paid to them in accordance with the ordinary principles of common law, which have regard to the size of the family, the needs of the dependants and the state of life in which the person who was killed had been living. Cases vary according to the conditions of the person who loses his life, but on any footing £6,000 cannot be adequate to cover all cases. It may be adequate to cover some cases, but why should the allowance be limited to £6,000? The hon. Member for Tiverton suggests £12,000. But for this Amendment, I might have put down an Amendment asking for an even higher limit. I am content, however, with the present Amendment because I believe a limit of £12,000 in these cases is far more reasonable than £6,000.

Those of us who, like the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) who sponsored the Bill, have had experience of dealing with these cases in the courts know that on numerous occasion quite substantial damages are recovered for personal injury. The hon. Member for Tiverton has given figures in relation to accidents which have occurred in the last four years, showing what amounts have been paid. I support the Amendment and I hope the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South will be persuaded to accept it. I hope he will not feel that he is under an obligation to observe slavish obedience to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention when considering conditions of internal domestic air travel.

This seems to be entirely a matter for Parliament. I hope that if the hon. Member is not prepared to accept the Amendment the hon. Member for Tiverton will carry it to a Division, in which I am sure he would have a great deal of support.

I am very pleased to support the Amendment. I agree with much of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) to the effect that there should not be a limit on this compensation. As he explained, there is no limit in accident cases of other kinds.

This Amendment would protect the dependants of any unfortunate people killed or injured in air accidents. It would double the present amount of compensation, which is £6,000, and that would be a decided improvement in view of changing money values. We are now in 1961 and, since 1945, we have seen a tremendous growth in air travel all over the world. In this Amendment we are dealing with domestic air services. We have seen the expansions of services run by B.E.A. to many of the main towns in Great Britain. In addition, large and important independent airline operators are operating services and running charter flights to various towns. There is likely to be an enormous expansion in the next few years. B.E.A., by advertisements in the Press this week, has announced special services to Glasgow.

I had hoped, like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, that the Government in the past would give some attention to this matter. We trust that this Private Member's Bill will soon have its Third Reading. With the great changes in air transport and expansion of services, in a short time thousands of people will be travelling by air to our big cities instead of going by road or rail. It is important that their dependants should be protected by adequate compensation in the case of accidents, and themselves if injured.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East that there is no reason for a limit in the compensation in the case of air accidents. Some people believe that there is more risk in air travel than in other methods of travel, but, when we consider the number of accidents on the road, we know that is not so. There is no limit in the case of road or railway accidents and there should be no limit in the compensation amount for air accidents to passengers. I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment which will raise the limit to no less than £12,000. I hope that the Government will accept it and that it will be incorporated in the Bill.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for giving me notice that he intended to move this Amendment and of the remarks that he would advance in support of it. I am also grateful to other hon. Members, on both sides of the House, for their interest in this very important point in the Bill. Although I shall ask them to agree with me that this is not a desirable Amendment, I assure them that I do so not without having carefully thought out the various points which have been advanced. I hope that I shall succeed in persuading hon. Members that there are very strong arguments to the contrary which ought to outweigh those which have been put forward for the Amendment.

At the outset, I should say that Clause 10 is a part of the Bill which it is not essential to have in its present form for the ratification of the treaty. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) rightly said that this is a matter for Parliament and that Parliament can reach a decision on it which it thinks appropriate. I certainly shall not be arguing that here is an international treaty and we simply must follow it. I shall rely on what I believe to be the merits of the Amendment. One has to look at the background first. The Warsaw Convention was embodied in the Carriage By Air Act, 1932, to which the hon. Member has referred. The 1932 Act included a Section in substantially the same form as Clause 10.

In spite of that, no Order was made under this provision for twenty years. Application of the Air Navigation Order came into force in 1952, but it is interesting to note the previous position. These things have been rather left at large. Airlines are not common carriers, either of passengers or of goods. Therefore, they are free to limit their liability in such manner as seems appropriate to them and which is recognised by the law. They were advised in the period before 1952 that there was some difficulty about limiting their liability.

12.30 p.m.

I believe, although I have not verified this, that the source of that advice was the case of Nunan v. Southern Railway. They were advised that there were difficulties about limiting the liability and, therefore, totally excluded it. The position until 1952, when the Warsaw Convention was applied to non-international carriage, was that the airlines, of this country, at any rate, totally excluded liability to passengers for death or injury. Payments made were ex gratia. That is obviously not a very happy state of affairs.

It was to remedy that that the 1952 Air Navigation Order was made applying the Warsaw Convention, more or less unchanged, to non-international carriage, so that at present there is the existing limit of £3,000 for death or injury which is a very low limit indeed. The main purpose of the Bill and of The Hague Protocol is to raise that limit to £6,000, or whatever the sterling equivalent may be of the gold francs which are referred to in the Convention.

I mention that because it is the background against which the powers in Clause 10 should be viewed. If, for example, the 1930 Act should be repealed by this Bill coming into force, and no Order were made under Clause 10, we would return to the common law position and the airlines could, and, indeed, would, be forced to exclude all liability. Thus, the common law position is one to which we should not want to return in this respect. The effect of the first Amendment is simply to limit and curtail the power of the Minister and—I am afraid to inform right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, the power of the two Houses of Parliament—to specify the conditions under which The Hague Protocol should be applied to non-international carriage.

Clause 10 of the Bill, the one proposed to be amended, says, in subsection (1):

"Her Majesty may by Order in Council apply the First Schedule to this Act,"—

that is, the Convention—

"together with any other provisions of this Act, to carriage by air, not being carriage by air to which the Convention applies,"

that is, non-international carriage—

"of such descriptions as may be specified in the Order, subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may be so specified".

All that one does by amending Clause 10 is to say that no such Order shall name a figure of less than double the figure for international carriage as to limit the discretion which can be exercised by the Minister and endorsed by the House, because this is affirmative Resolution procedure.

I understand that the case of the mover of the Amendment is that there should be a lower limit below which an Order in Council shall not permit this discretion to go.

The Amendment proposes to cut down the discretion in Clause 10, as the Bill stands, because, the Minister will be able to make an Order applying the terms of the Convention with such modifications as he thinks fit.

rose—

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have completed this point. Then that draft Order must come for affirmative Resolution to both Houses of Parliament, and then the subject of discretion may be raised.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if this Amendment is not accepted it would be open to the Government, by Order in Council, to place an even lower limit?

As Clause 10 stands, it leaves a wide open discretion and when the Order comes to be made, then is the time for hon. Gentlemen to exercise pressure on the Minister. Thus, there is every opportunity at that time, and in whatever circumstances may be prevailing, to apply whatever course seems best to hon. Members of this House or another place.

The effect of the Amendment is not to say that the Minister must make an Order. If such stringent restrictions were imposed on the Minister he might be driven into the position of saying, "In these circumstances, I do not feel that I can make an Order", and the House would not be able to do much about it. It is not a good idea to adopt that procedure and, on the whole, it has not been the practice of Parliament to write this sort of limitation into a Clause which confers powers on Ministers. Of course, if the House so desires, it can do that, but, considering our normal manner of procedure, I suggest that that would not be a good idea.

I will now deal with the arguments that have been put forward on the assumption that, if an Order were made, it would apply to international limits, and I will not conceal my own view that if an Order is made it should adopt the international limits. The Amendment is comprehensive. It applies to freight as well as to persons, although I realise that the mover was mainly interested in the carriage of persons. I appreciate also that the human element is the main consideration in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen taking part in this debate.

Since this is the Report stage, one has to look at the form of the Amendment as well as to what is in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton. The Hague Protocol makes no change in the limits of freight compensation from those laid down in the Warsaw Convention, nor is there any pressure for them to be changed. There was no pressure to change them during the conference and everyone is quite happy with existing arrangements. The limit is 250 gold francs per kilogram or roughly £2 10s. per lb. averdupois. If the consignor does not like that, all he need do is to make a declaration at the time of consigning, and pay an additional charge.

Probably most consignors—I would say almost certainly—want a low basic rate for freight and the facility to declare a high value and to make extra payments when they dispatch a particularly valuable cargo. Almost certainly that is what they want, and that is why they are content with the existing arrangements. Alternatively, they may think that they can arrange private insurance to cover these additional amounts more cheaply than the higher rates quoted by the airline companies.

For example, we do not want the basic compulsory rate to be large enough to cover a consignment of diamonds, because if it were we should have to raise the general level for basic freight. De Beer's would probably prefer to negotiate private insurance to pay for that.

While everybody who is concerned with this arrangement is happy about it, my hon. Friend's Amendment would make it compulsory to alter the arrangement and to double the basic rate of compensation for freight consignments, and I cannot think that that is what the House should do. In drafting the Amendment my hon. Friend has not addressed his mind to that distinction between persons and goods.

I will pass from that, because I do not want to appear to be taking merely technical points, and I turn to the question of passengers. The hon. Member for Islington, East is coming very near to the centre of the problem when he says that he is opposed to any limit being fixed at all. Not merely was he coming near to the centre of the problem, but, unfortunately, he was getting near to the outer boundaries of what is in order. If we try to fix a limit which will take account of any case which may arise, including some extremely valuable lives, we fix a figure which is astronomically high, and we are virtually saying that there should be no limit at all. That is what it amounts to. There is no point in merely doubling the figure, because there will still be people with fancy incomes which are far above it.

My hon. Friend quoted an extract from a letter which he had received from the Minister. This was an extract from a letter which the secretary of the British European Airways Corporation wrote to me in February when I raised this point with the Corporation. It had occurred to me, and I think that hon. Members will agree that we are slightly attracted by the idea of raising the compensation for being killed or injured in an air accident. I took the point up with the B.E.A. and the secretary sent me the figures. He sent a copy to the Minister, and in that way the figures reached my right hon. Friend. I will read the paragraph in full, because it is a little more than was in the Minister's letter:

"I find that out of 78 claims"—

made against B.E.A.—

"in the four years 1957–60 arising out of personal injuries as a result of air accidents"—

that includes deaths and personal injuries—

"55 were for less than £6,000"—

the claims are not for proved damage—

"and of these 34 were for less than £3,000. Only two of the 23 claims for more than £6,000 are for more than £10,000…. Thus it seems to me that £6,000 is a reasonable figure to take but, as I have said, any figure must be arbitrary."

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the logic of that argument? If there are only a few claims over £6,000, that is an additional reason for supporting the Amendment, not for opposing it.

The hon. Member is not following the argument. I said that we faced the dilemma of having no limit at all, to cover all cases, or of fixing a limit which will meet the average run of case and leaving the exceptional case to be insured beyond that. Once we have decided to have a limit—and the form of the Amendment presupposes a limit—then we are left with the practical question of where to put the limit to meet the general run of cases and to leave only the exceptional case to be met by insurance. That is the relevance of these figures. They establish that, on the whole, £6,000 is a reasonable figure.

That approaches the question from the broadest possible angle, but there are other considerations which come midway between the technical point with which I started and this broad approach, and they are, I believe, conclusive. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Islington, East have spoken throughout as though the distinction were between international and domestic carriage, but, of course, that is not the position and that is why we are quite differently placed from the United States. There, broadly speaking, they can say that carriage is either domestic or international, but in this small island we have to look very closely at what is meant by "international carriage" in the Hague Protocol.

It is set out in the first Article of the First Schedule to the Bill. It reads:

"For the purposes of this Convention, the expression 'international carriage' means any carriage in which, according to the agreement between the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination…are situated either within the territories of two High Contracting Parties or within the territory of a single High Contracting Party if there is an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State, even if that State is not a High Contracting Party."

That is complicated enough but, broadly, it means that if one is travelling from the territory of one contracting party to the territory of another contracting party, that is international carriage and any other journey, any journey where the destination is in a country which is not a contracting party, is non-international carriage. For people travelling from Britain, one is speculating, because it depends on who ratifies the Warsaw Convention, but a high proportion of journeys will be of non-international non-domestic carriage, so that the case based on the balance of argument falls to the ground.

The great advantage which one gets under the convention is that one need not sue in a foreign court and prove negligence. Negligence is presumed in one's favour. One can sue in one's own country because of the jurisdictional consequences of the convention. That is the great advantage, and what we pay for that advantage is the limitation. My point is that precisely that advantage applies also in relation to a good deal of non-international carriage, all of which is international in the ordinary sense of the word though non-international in Warsaw Convention terms. There, too, if the convention is applied one is able to sue in the courts of England for an accident which happened abroad and negligence is presumed in one's favour. One will get paid.

That argument is nothing like as strong as it looks. If two different figures were to be adopted, it would result in this position. A passenger in an aeroplane who was travelling from England to the territory of another contracting party would have the limit of £6,000 if he were injured. Somebody sitting on the seat beside him and going to the territory of a non-contracting party would have whatever limit were fixed in the Order. It might be £12,000.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the same situation exists as regards two passengers on a jet aircraft flying from, say, San Francisco to London stopping at New York, with one passenger getting off at New York and another going on to London?

Yes, it does. At the beginning of this part of my argument I drew a distinction between a vast continental country like the United States, where domestic carriage constitutes an enormous proportion of the total carriage, and a small country like ours. It can be said, broadly, that a passenger is either on an aircraft going across the Atlantic or the Pacific, or up to Canada, or down to South America, or he is making a domestic flight. There is a tremendous amount of domestic flying in the United States. In this island, on the whole people do not get on a plane at one point and get off again inside the island while most of the passengers go on. That is an important distinction.

My point is that for two passengers sitting beside each other the limit for one would be £6,000 and the limit for the other would be £12,000. It would simply depend on the stopping place or the destination. That is not a very good idea. It would lead to great confusion in the minds of passengers about what they would get if they were injured and what insurance cover they should take out. It would involve them in all the litigation that could ensue once argument started about whether it was international or non-international carriage. If the air navigation Order states the same figure for both passengers, they will not be concerned to litigate about the boundary line between them.

The same passenger would have different figures according to whether he booked straight through on an international journey or whether he booked for the first half of his journey and got off then and rebooked for the second half, because if he booked straight through it might be international carriage, or it might be international carriage depending on whether the ultimate destination was out of the convention countries. If he broke his journey, it could have an effect according to the nature of the country in which he broke his journey. If the air navigation Order tries to draw a distinction between international carriage and non-international carriage in the terms of the convention, there would be three categories of people to deal with and there would be even worse confusion.

The position would be intolerable in the matter of freight, because if part of a cargo was to be off-loaded in one country and part of it in another the part which was off-loaded in the first port of call might be non-internationally carried. The part which was off-loaded in the next country would be internationally carried, both in foreign countries. All this would have to be sorted out and the proper declaration made on the first consignment of the freight and the appropriate surcharge paid on each parcel.

I hope that I have said enough to show that a quite impracticable complication would arise if this small country tried to operate two different systems side by side according to whether the carriage fell within the exact terms of the Warsaw Convention, or whether it depended upon our own air navigation Order. For those reasons, I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

I hope that hon. Gentlemen on both sides who have supported it will think again when they realise its nature and understand that in any case we, the Government and Parliament, have complete discretion in Clause 10 as it stands to make any Order that we see fit when the time comes. Therefore, all one would be doing now would be anticipating a future debate and cramping and limiting ourselves and the Minister to one solution, considered rather quickly this morning. Further, freight is covered inadvertently.

I ask my hon. Friend, having raised this subject and provided us with this very valuable debate, to withdraw the Amendment so that the Bill can stand as it is.

We have all listened with the utmost interest, and some of us with the utmost disappointment, to what the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has said. I had hoped that in the light of the arguments adduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) he would have seen fit to accept the Amendment which, as he spoke, seemed, and still seems, eminently reasonable.

We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South for promoting the Bill. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and others, it is a Measure which is rather unusual for a private Member to introduce. It is a very important Measure and its predecessor was introduced by the Government. A Measure of this kind should have been introduced by the Government some time ago. Unfortunately, it has fallen to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South to introduce it. We are all delighted that it is here and that we are likely to see its passage into law at no distant date.

I tried to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South. As I understood him, he was against the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton to double the lower limit, because it might be of such a large amount as to prevent the Minister who is to make the Order in Council from so making it. He used that argument. I know that it can be said to be a form of blackmail, but the hon. Gentleman did not mean it in that way.

I said that, if we were to make the conditions too stringent, the only effect would be to prevent the Minister from promulgating them.

That is one of the points I wanted to make in my brief observations. The hon. Member seemed to think that £12,000 was too high. As the hon. Member for Tiverton pointed out, we must bear in mind the change which has taken place in the value of money and 5 per cent. on £12,000 would bring in only £600 a year. That is not a large sum by way of compensation for death or very serious injury, bearing in mind what is paid by way of ordinary wages nowadays.

Therefore, many of us think that £12,000 is a reasonable sum, and I had hoped that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South would think so, too. It is astonishing that the argument should be advanced, that, if we make the lower limit £12,000, it will in some way inhibit the Minister who has to make the Order in Council and prevent him from making it because he thinks that the sum is so outrageous. The real inference from what the hon. Gentleman said is that the Minister would not make the lower limit £12,000 in any case. That is an additional reason for us to keep the Minister up to scratch and ensure that when the Order in Council is made the lower limit is of such a sum as to be reasonable in the eyes of most of us.

The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South mentioned the carriage of goods. He said that the sum put in might be unreasonable in that case. Is that argument valid? As I understood him and as I read the Warsaw Convention, it is possible for the Minister—in fact, the Clause gives him powers—to vary the limits for different classes of loss. What might be reasonable for a passenger might definitely not be reasonable for goods.

That is true, but the Amendment takes that power away from the Minister and forces him to fix a limit of double the Warsaw Convention sum for both passengers and goods.

This limit is not a sum which a carrier has to pay out for loss or damage. It states his maximum liability. He is not under any obligation to pay more than the value of the baggage.

I was about to make that point, but the hon. Member has made it for me and I shall not repeat what he said.

I do not wish to detain the House, except to express the hope that if the Minister intervenes he will come down on the side of the angels, if I may describe the hon. Member for Tiverton and other hon. Members as angels, and support those of us who think that this is a very reasonable Amendment which should be incorporated in the Bill.

I should like to reiterate what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, that if the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South seeks to take the Amendment to a Division, many of us, I hope the majority of us, will vote in favour of it in the hope that it will be carried.

I have just emerged from the process of putting a Private Member's Bill through the House. Consequently, I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), whose feelings, I am sure, were like mine. I hoped that my Bill would go through with the utmost ease. I am certain that he will agree that those of us who have doubts about the Clause are animated by the desire to make the Bill as effective as possible to meet the demands of today.

Air travel is, of course, increasing at an exceptional rate. This applies not only to the passenger side, but also to the freight side. A few weeks ago, I was in an aircraft, which, in 1957, carried the Queen to Canada, and which is now being devoted entirely to the carriage of freight. That is an indication of the tremendous change which is taking place in the use of air travel and the speed of that change.

I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South had to say about the proposed Amendment, which has my full support in its purpose of trying to raise the lower limit to £12,000. The hon. Member, if I followed him correctly, did not seem to be opposed in principle to that idea, but he said that it would limit and curtail the powers of the Minister. He went on to say that the Minister has complete discretion as to the amount of compensation that can be inserted in the Order. His fear seemed to be not the amount of money involved, but that we would curtail and limit the powers of the Minister and affect his discretion.

The hon. Member then went on to say that we could influence the Minister in the direction. I assume, of inserting £12,000 into his Order. What is the purpose of those of us who believe that £12,000 is necessary except to bring pressure to bear upon the Minister to insert that sum? The hon. Member would, therefore, seem, as I have said, to have no objection in principle to the amount or to its insertion.

The only way in which we can bring pressure to bear on the Minister in framing the Order is at this moment, through the procedure in the House. I do not know of any other way. In this House, we have often to consider Orders. Since I have been in the House, we have dealt with thousands of such orders and never once have I discovered any means whereby I could bring influence to bear on the Minister in the framing of his Order other than through the procedure afforded by the House.

Today, we are asking the Minister seriously to consider the insertion of this sum. I agree with the hon. Member that it is with persons that we are most concerned. It may be true enough—I have no knowledge to the contrary—that those engaged in the carriage of goods are satisfied with the present position of insurance cover. The Minister, however, knows perfectly well that as this traffic grows they may not continue to be satisfied with the present provisions.

I am chiefly concerned with the passengers because I make frequent use of air travel. When I heard the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) read out the conditions of carriage from a ticket similar to the one which I shall be using this evening, I grabbed mine to make sure that the words he was using were the words on the ticket. All that the hon. Member has said about the conditions is absolutely justified. I have been travelling by air for fifteen years and this is the first time that I have read that particular passage.

That shows, I think, our confidence in the aircraft which carries us, or perhaps that we may have a fatalistic attitude at heart and insurance may not seem to be so important to a person who is in the aircraft. It is noticeable that a disaster has never affected the number of persons who travel by air. As a matter of fact, after every disaster the number of people using aircraft seems to bound upwards. The hon. Member gave us figures which he had obtained from British European Airways and pointed out that only two persons, or their relatives out of 78 concerned had claimed more than £10,000, and 55 had claimed less than £6,000.

At an airport today one sees an increasing number of people taking out the private insurance which is offered. It may well be that one factor influencing claims today is that the claim covered by the ticket is fortified by the personal insurance which the passenger has probably taken out just before his journey. I think that we should keep that in mind.

I am myself opposed to that form of insurance. I never use it. I might even regard it as being unlucky now. I have never participated in it because I regard it as exploiting the air passenger, and I think that it ought not to be permitted. Such insurance is, in my judgment, a Government function, and the Government ought to be providing the security at the increased level suggested in the Amendment.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he ever takes out one of those insurance policies it will not in the least affect the claim he makes if he is killed or injured. I speak of him making the claim because, if he is killed, he will make it through his legal personal representatives. Knowing the hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt that he will be keeping a very close eye on them. These insurances—

Which insurances?

Any air insurance is an entirely separate matter and does not affect the amount of the other claim.

That is a very depressing intervention. I merely suggested that the fact that an individual has been privately insured may affect the amount of the claim. I do not know, and I imagine that the hon. Gentleman cannot say definitely that it does not. It may affect the attitude of those who are left behind, because, if there had been no private insurance, their claim might have been for £10,000, for all we know. I do not know where we could find statistics to enable us to decide one way or another.

Is not that system already in operation with regard to motor cars? If a person has personal insurance and he is unfortunate enough to meet with an accident in a car, there is no question but that he draws his private insurance irrespective of what he may obtain as a result of the car accident. He draws it irrespective of the motor insurance.

I am sorry if I did not make plain what I meant. The fact remains generally that, since persons have, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South has admitted, been claiming up to £10,000 and more, it is clear that at least a fraction of the travelling public feels that the proposed limit of £6,000 does not meet the requirements of those using air transport. It is an argument in favour of raising the limit. The hon. Member has said that he is not opposed to the insertion of the higher sum if the Minister so decides when framing the Order. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the Amendment.

I appeal to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), even at this stage, to reconsider his attitude. He has introduced a very important Bill. I am sorry that he has, as it were, dug his toes in—perhaps out of amour propre; I do not know—and I hope that he will, on reflection, realise that he should, as a practising lawyer himself, accept that there is much to be said for the point made in the Amendment. Those of us who have had on occasion to try to assess the amount of damages for which we should apply in cases of injury have frequently found ourselves in serious difficulty in regard to the amount set by the Warsaw Convention.

The real question is: what is the amount of damage sustained by the person or his family when an accident occurs? In ordinary circumstances, as the hon. Member knows, the court comes to a decision and, unless the defendant is not in a position to pay, the amount considered reasonable is accordingly paid. Insurance is taken out against that.

In the cases we are discussing, negligence is presumed to be present. I can understand it being argued that, after all, if a company runs certain flights, it is in some difficulty if negligence has to be presumed and, consequently, some sort of limit ought perhaps to be provided for lower than the correct amount which ought to be paid. But what we ask is that when an accident occurs the amount assessed by a judicial body or by agreement should be the amount which the sufferer is entitled to obtain.

I cannot see what the argument is against that proposition. Either it is right, in a case of negligence—and negligence is presumed—that the sufferer should be compensated according to the amount of damage he has sustained, or it is wrong. If it is right, we should so provide. Why should those who suffer be called upon to bear a part of the damage for the suffering incurred in consequence of the negligent action of someone else? There is no question of contributory negligence in these cases, and there cannot be. The proposition is accepted judicially, and all lawyers have accepted it completely. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South is asking for a limitation to be set on an accepted rule of law that a person suffering is entitled to damages. Whom is he trying to protect?

Let us come to the next point at issue; and I hope that the Minister will accept it, because it is undeniably the law. Whether it be goods or personal injuries, the hon. Member is driven back to saying that it is not right for people to be made to pay as much as they ought to pay. He cannot say that in the ordinary cases because, in fact, the individual has to pay. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that there is an international arrangement, and one understands the reason for that arrangement. I am not too happy about a limitation in the case of an international arrangement but, as he himself has said, the limitation is imposed in the case of international obligations because other nations have agreed to accept the jurisdiction of courts other than their own and, consequently, they are not in a position to argue about the amount of damages which it is right to pay. Various countries have different approaches to the question of the amount of damages which ought to be payable. They base their views on principles or decisions which may be different from those which prevail in our courts. One can, therefore, understand a limitation being applied in such a case.

However, in our own internal affairs it would be ridiculous to try to maintain an unreasonable rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) was quite right when he referred to the case in which only two people are involved. If only two are involved, a sum of over £10,000 does not impose such a tremendous hardship on the carriers of the passengers or of the freight because their insurance rates will not be unduly affected. The hon. Gentle man may not accept the principle that I put forward. He might say, "Why not let the passengers or the people who consign the goods pay this money?" All that my hon. Friend has got to do is to put a few pennies into a box and he can get an insurance policy when he travels. But he does not even bother to do that. Consequently—and this is the tragic position—in cases where these accidents occur and where travellers are injured, their relatives are deprived of any amount in excess of the maximum which is payable, at present up to £6,000—

At present, the maximum is £3,000.

The hon. Member is quite right. I meant when the Bill becomes an Act.

I only interrupted so that nobody outside the House should be misled. When the Bill becomes an Act it will not come into force until there has been further ratification of the Warsaw Convention. Therefore, it is desirable that the public who read about this debate shall know that for some indefinite time to come the amount will still be £3,000.

So much the more deplorable. I do not think it is unreasonable to introduce a Bill whereby the amount shall be increased from £3,000 to £6,000. It is important that people should not suffer through the negligence of others and through no fault of their own. That is the important point—through the negligence of others, which is presumed.

The only question that remains is whether a £12,000 limit is unreasonable. I may be asked whether there are cases in which people have suffered to the extent of £12,000 or whether there are likely to be such cases, and my answer is undoubtedly "Yes." Two cases have been reported in which people have suffered to the extent of over £10,000, and as traffic continues to increase we shall find that these cases are bound to increase in number. I cannot understand how anybody can deny these arguments. I hope that in the circumstances the hon. Member will be persuaded that we are right.

It is very clear from the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has raised points of substance which have been reflected in the anxiety displayed in a number of speeches. As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said, my hon. Friend put his case very cogently. He was also supported forcefully by the hon. Member for Islington, East.

At the same time, I must say that I concur in what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I am sure the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) is not right when he says that my hon. Friend has been guided in this matter by amour propre. One of the reasons that we have been able to secure for this important Measure such a fair wind in the Second Reading and in Committee has been that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South has gone to a great deal of trouble to explain the provisions clearly and lucidly at every stage and to enter into discussions with hon. Members.

I think, though, that this amendment raises considerable difficulties. There is a lot of force in the argument that different levels of liability for other than international flights will produce anomalies which are regrettable, and perhaps litigation as to what sort of flight it was—whether it was a domestic or an international flight. One can think of a number of examples. It might be thought anomalous for a fare-paying passenger to be subject to a lower limit of liability than, say, a gratuitous passenger, or a stowaway, or a deportee travelling other than of his own volition.

It is true that this anomaly, if it is an anomaly—and that is open to argument—has existed in other countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton has referred to the United States. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South pointed out, until 1952 when the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) Order was made, the same anomaly existed in this country. The position in the United States is somewhat different so far as air travel is concerned. There is a good deal of force in what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South said about that.

The first point I want to make is that a good deal of argument is reflected in debates and discussions among international organisation as to whether it is a good or bad thing in principle to have these different levels of liability. At the same time, I think there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton said when he pointed out the view expressed by Professor Drion in his work "Limitation of Liabilities in International Air Law", that the unification of law as a ground for limitation of liability should be rejected. That is not all that the Professor had to say on the subject. He wrote a great work of some several hundreds of pages showing that that was not the only factor that had to be borne in mind.

I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. If, following that argument, there should not be variations of limitation of liability, then he should be advocating that the liability ought to be more than £12,000 in this country so as to correspond with compensation in other cases, such as the railways.

I am not now prejudging the issue. Many people say that different levels of liability for other than international flights create anomalies and difficulties and, perhaps, increased litigation. At the same time, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton that to found a limitation of liability on unification of the law, or merely for technical convenience, is not sufficient. But Professor Drion wrote his book, weighing all the legal difficulties in relation to these limitations of liability. He came to the conclusion that a limitation of some sort was justified, first, because of the general effect on fares, and, secondly, because of the ability of the more valuable passengers to insure.

The Professor had in mind that, if there were no limitation, there would be unlimited liability without proof of negligence, as the law stood, and that would mean that air carriers would have to make provision, by insurance for liabilities, at a level which would not apply to the majority of passengers, and this would tend to put up costs and fares. Then, there is the ability of a more valuable passenger, such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) to insure if he wishes. He does not have to, but if he does, then it does not affect his general right to damages.

I cannot quite follow the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary, who is usually so clear. Surely the number of air accidents is but a fraction of the number of road accidents, and that is something which should be taken into account in considering limitations of liability.

The hon. Gentleman must address himself to proof of negligence. This leads to the point raised in this debate about whether or not £6,000 is a reasonable limit. One can see the arguments both for and against it. We must not, however, look simply at the figures for claims. Those figures do not relate to awards, and we cannot tell how far the claims alleged not merely negligence but reckless conduct. If there is reckless conduct on the part of the carrier, or his agents or servants, then article 25 of the Convention operates to deprive the carrier of the limitation on liability. It may be that we could analyse these claims a little more fully to see their basis, but I cannot give the additional information for which I was asked earlier in the debate.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton will not press this Amendment, and that the House will allow him to withdraw it. The Amendment was only put down yesterday.

That is incorrect.

It appeared on the Order Paper only yesterday.

It is important that the Parliamentary Secretary should not do an injustice to the hon. Member for Tiverton. It is clearly stated that the Amendment was handed in on 19th April, not yesterday.

I thought that I had amended my words and that it would be fair to say that it appeared on the Order Paper yesterday, although it was put in the day before.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South has pointed out, this amendment raises questions about its form. It is a difficulty that the Amendment covers, as it stands, both freight and passengers. We can of course, discuss this matter further. The House has not exhausted its rights. The limit of liability for flights not covered by the Convention must be fixed by an Order in Council, which is subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. At the same time, I appreciate the point put by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan that hon. Members want an opportunity to discuss the contents of the Order.

One way of dealing with this matter would be for me to undertake to circulate to hon. Members who have shown an interest in this matter a copy of the draft Order, which would give them the opportunity to see whether it is reasonable or not and is meeting the points which have been raised. I undertake to bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend and to weigh carefully the arguments which have been put forward. Although all the argument today has been one way, a good deal of thought must be given to the question of how far it is desirable to create, once again, the anomalies we removed in 1952.

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman proposes to circulate a copy of the draft Order only to those who have spoken in this discussion. It is more than probable, since £12,000 seems by the Government to be unreasonable, that a lesser limit will be in the Order, and it is unlikely that we will be entitled to make representations for a higher amount. What happens, except that we are offered this courtesy?

What about hon. Members who have not spoken in this discussion?

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has put a fair enough point. I was not suggesting that we should limit this facility simply to those who have spoken today. Probably the most effective way of dealing with it would be to do what is done on other occasions—to put a copy in the Library.

It is desirable for further consultations to take place, not only with hon. Members but with the Air Corporations and other carriers, to ascertain whether the view is still that these anomalies are undesirable. It is reasonable to consult with those interested if the House has it in mind to make a considerable change in the law.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to give an undertaking that, if this Amendment is withdrawn and the Minister submits an Order which includes the sum of £6,000, and the House rejects that Order, the Minister will then introduce another Order embracing the limit of £12,000? Thus, if the House lost its opportunity today to insert the £12,000 limit, the Minister would give it another opportunity of doing so. Unless he did that, we could reject his arguments for the Order but could not amend it.

It would be playing right into the hands of the Minister to help to withdraw the pressure which the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South has said that we are putting on him about the figure of £12,000. Without imputing to the Minister any motives which are not consistent with good Ministerial practice, when the draft Order comes before the House, he would ensure having sufficient hon. Members behind him to be able to put his will into practice.

The House is now in the position that the Amendment has found considerable support but has been resisted by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who is in charge of the Bill. The Minister has expressed sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment and has pointed out certain technical disadvantages. He has made an offer which we ought to examine, although I do not regard it as satisfactory. His offer is that before the Government make an Order requiring an affirmative Resolution he will circulate it to those hon. Members who are interested and will put a copy in the Library.

That does not go far enough. The Order would be put forward with the backing of Her Majesty's Government, and although there could be a debate the Whips would be on and, whatever the view of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and other hon. Members opposite, they would be obliged to support the Government.

We are now dealing with a Private Member's Bill on which private Members on both sides of the House are entitled to express their opinions as private Members, and this is essentially a matter on which they should. I hope that the matter will be tested in a Division so that the Government can appreciate the views of the House, unless the Minister is prepared to say that if the Amendment is withdrawn he will not propose any Order which does not contain a provision for liability for passengers double that in the international convention.

I appreciate what he said about freight, and I imagine that my hon. Friends are not so much concerned with freight, and my suggestion would give him the protection which he wants in that respect. If he would give the House an assurance that in any Order liability for passengers will be £12,000, I would be content, but otherwise I would not be a party to assisting the hon. Member for Tiverton to withdrawing his Amendment.

Mr. Bell—a question. I use the word "question" because I think the hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

Under the Standing Order, I do not think so.

Before the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) winds up, may I make a suggestion? The Bill has to go to another place, and I understand that the Minister's chief, and, I hope, only, objection is that the Amendment does not differentiate between passengers and goods. Could not an Amendment be made in another place which would satisfy the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South and my hon. Friends and the many hon. Members opposite who have supported the Amendment? What we want to do is to lay down the liability about passengers in the Bill and not in an Order which is subject to change from time to time.

I certainly undertake that consideration will be given to framing an Amendment of that kind, but I do not think that I can give a formal undertaking to make such an Amendment. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Islington, East for his helpful suggestion, but he will appreciate that it would be wrong to pass an Amendment precisely in this form. I am reluctant to give an undertaking even though it limits the liability to passengers, because there are wider considerations arising out of the anomalies which I have mentioned. We have also to bear in mind that in 1952 the House deliberately decided to remove those anomalies and to have no differential levels between international and domestic travel.

In those circumstances, it seems reasonable in the light of what has been said to have consultations with the interests concerned so that they can have an opportunity of putting their point of view. I fully appreciate what has been said, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will appreciate the strong feeling which has been expressed. I was trying to do all I could without giving a formal undertaking, which it would not be right for me to give. What has been said will be carefully borne in mind to see whether the matter can be dealt with by an Amendment in the House of Lords, or in the Order. It would be quite wrong for the Government to push through an Order which was contrary to the sense of the House if, after further consideration, it was found that there were no arguments to put in the balance against those expressed today.

It might be convenient if the House accepted this Amendment, enabling the Minister then to have his consultations and to make any consequential Amendment which he may wish to propose in another place.

I believe that my right to speak is technically inexhaustible when the Bill has been to a Standing Committee. I think that that is correct for the hon. Member in charge of the Bill.

Perhaps I ought to make the position clear. Standing Order 52 says:

"When a bill has been committed to a standing committee, or has been so committed in respect of some of its provisions, then, on consideration of the report of the bill or such of its provisions as was so committed, the rule against speaking more than once shall not apply to the Member in charge of the bill"—

but that is not the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell)—

"or to the mover of any amendment or new clause in respect of that amendment or clause."

As the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South is not the mover of the Amendment and is not in charge of the Bill, he can speak a second time only by leave of the House.

I think that I am the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. It is the Bill which I introduced and moved on Second Reading, and I find it difficult to know which hon. Member would be in charge if not myself.

The hon. Member is quite correct.

I am much obliged. I feel sure that the House would have given me leave to speak, but, as a matter of courtesy, I wanted to answer the points which have been made.

I have the greatest sympathy with the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made. Indeed, the fact that I wrote to B.E.A. as early as February shows that that is so and I am certainly not resisting the Amendment in any pernickety wish for meticulous consistency, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) once described as the hobgoblin of little minds.

But the difficulties of accepting the Amendment are insuperable. My hon. Friend was good enough to give me notice that he was to put down the Amendment, but he will appreciate that that was only yesterday and that there has not been much time to consider such an important innovation. The present liability was laid down in the 1932 Act and it would be combined with further action under Clause 10. I have been slightly hampered about considering the Amendment because it was put down at a late hour, and in consideration upon Report one cannot deal with the intention behind the Amendment, but only with its actual drafting. On the whole, it is preferable for Amendments of this fundamental character to be considered in Committee when there is leisure to deal with them and when something can be done to put them into proper form for Report.

That being so, I must say to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that the form of this Amendment has insuperable objections to it at this stage. We obviously cannot do this in relation to freight. It would be very damaging indeed to double the maximum liability for freight, negligence being presumed. Inevitably, it would follow that the insurance cover of B.E.A. and the others would be substantially increased in cost, and it would inevitably follow that they would have to put up their basic freight rates. There is no doubt about that, and that is not a thing which we ought to do in a rather hurried way and on 24 hours' consideration. I think that point is a most serious and important one. The ramifications of this matter are very considerable, and this ought to be properly considered and not done in a hurry like this in a way which cannot be untied when the Bill is through.

I thought that my hon. Friend had made a very helpful suggestion. The procedure under Clause 10 is familiar to all of us, especially to the hon. Member and myself, who are both members of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. This is the affirmative procedure under which, in the words of Clause 10(5):

"An Order in Council under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament:"

As I understand it, from what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was saying, and perhaps he will listen and correct me if I am wrong, I thought he was offering to circulate a draft of the draft to hon. Members who have shown themselves particularly interested in this matter. After that, the draft itself will, of course, be laid before Parliament and placed in the Library, and be available to all hon. Members, until in the fullness of time the affirmative Resolutions are introduced.

We have to act responsibly in a matter of this kind, and I am fully conscious of the fact that, as an unofficial Member, I am introducing a Bill which, after all, will be quite an important part of our general law. We have to be very responsible and relaxed in our approach to it and not do a thing like this just because we all feel that £6,000 is a bit low. I appeal to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members to accept the offer which the Minister has made that he will circulate an unofficial draft of the draft to us beforehand, so that we are able to consider it and let him have our views upon it before the formal draft is settled and laid before the House. We all know that once the formal draft is laid the Government Whips will be on, and while we can all have our say, we may or may not be very effectual in what we say.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

I therefore wonder if my hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment, having given us the opportunity of a most interesting debate on a subject in which we are all obviously very interested.

I rise only to raise a point on the aspect concerning us as Members of Parliament. I do not very much like undertakings being made, and I doubt whether it is necessary. I do not for a moment doubt the good intentions of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I do not ignore the fact that he is in a difficult position because of the short notice which he has had to consider this matter. I think he obviously has to have consultations before the Government can declare their position.

I do not like being faced with this difficulty of the circulation of an unofficial draft in advance of a draft for consideration, because this is taking the matter outwith the House of Commons. If we have an opportunity to keep it on the Floor of the House, I think we ought to do it. If we have no such opportunity, we should welcome such an invitation from the Parliamentary Secretary and say that we would certainly consider the matter, and thank him for affording the opportunity to consider the matter and try to affect his mind.

It is important when we are considering matters like this that we should consider ourselves primarily as Members of the House, bearing in mind that we do not like delegated legislation in so far as it can be avoided. Delegated legislation has the disadvantage that the House has no opportunity of making an Amendment. It is quite clear that what everyone here is concerned with is an Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Bill have indicated that although they are sympathetic with the Amendment at present before us, they would like to amend it. As Members of the House, we would like to have a say in any Amendment that should be made, but the issue really is whether we have an opportunity for safeguarding our position so that we can speak to that Amendment.

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said that I had indicated that I would like to make an Amendment. That is not so. What I have indicated, naturally putting the other side to what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary put, we should get into difficulties if we tried to amend it. I have said that I myself only heard about the Amendment yesterday, and so did the Minister, and it is very difficult indeed to give proper consideration to an Amendment of this character on such short notice.

The ideal system, of course, is for an Amendment like this to be put down in the Committee stage, when one has time for thought, consultation and eventual decision on the Floor of the House. We have not had that opportunity here, and we must do the best we can in the circumstances which have arisen. Since such delegated legislation is inevitable here, because this has to be done by Order in Council, the best way would be that we should try to avoid the inherent disadvantage of delegated legislation, which is that it cannot be amended, by the Parliamentary Secretary circulating a draft, which we can see and on which we can comment. I feel that that is the best way out of the difficulty.

This is the very point that we are discussing, and of course I agree with both points which the hon. Gentleman has made. Perhaps I expressed myself too dogmatically, but all I was wanting, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, is to have a further opportunity to consider it and, no doubt in the light of that consideration, to express myself further in this House.

The question is whether we are driven to rule out the possibility of further discussion in this House. I do not think we are. The best course for us to take would be to allow this Amendment to be accepted. The Government have expressed their view about it, but they have not had the opportunity to decide their minds about it. We know that if we take this course there will be further consideration in another place, when the Government will then have the opportunity of declaring their views. If their views, as I think we may assume, were accepted by another place, an Amendment could be accepted and we could have that Amendment from another place laid before us later and then have a further discussion in the light of the further consideration by the Government and hon. Members.

I should have thought that in a case of private Members' legislation we should take that course. If this were a Government Measure, the difficulty would be that the Government would be expressing a view by accepting such an Amendment, but this is not a Government Measure. It is a Private Member's Measure, and I am therefore making this express appeal to the hon. Gentleman that we should take this course, accepting the position that the Government were not committed and were merely expressing a view which was widely shared on the first consideration of this Amendment.

None of us would assume from that that the Government were in any way committed. If they felt themselves that is was unsatisfactory, and, having heard the discussion, it would very likely be the view of the Government that we should have an opportunity at a later stage to consider this matter again and probably be persuaded by the Government that such an Amendment should be made.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. There seems to me to be almost insuperable objection to accepting this Amendment. We all know it to be in the wrong form. [Interruption.] We do, because it covers the two items. I am sure it is not the practice of the House to accept Amendments which are known to be wrongly drafted, and to say "Never mind, we will have another debate about this in the House of Lords." 2.0 p.m.

If what my hon. Friend has suggested is not preferred—although I think that it offers the best solution now—the better course would be for the Amendment to be withdrawn and reintroduced in a better form in another place. This could be done. We should then have a further opportunity of dealing with the matter here, without the objection—which is a powerful one—of having accepted, at extremely short notice, a very important Amendment which we know cannot be added to the Bill, at any rate in its present form. I commend to the House the suggestion which my hon. Friend has made as probably being the better course, although we could not in any way object if the second course of withdrawing the Amendment now and introducing it in another place, with better drafting, were adopted.

The hon. Member said that there was an objection to the drafting of the Amendment. I am sure that he is wrong. The draftsmanship is quite in order. The quarrel of the Government is with regard to its substance—the question whether it should apply to freight as well as to passengers. It could be argued that it should apply to both, and if it should be so desired by Parliament the draftsmanship is perfect. It is not correct to say that in accepting the Amendment the House would be accepting something which was wrongly drafted. On the contrary, as far as I can see, it would be accepting something which we all want in part and which would be susceptible of change elsewhere in relation to the other part, relating to freight.

The paramount consideration here is the question how the House can best retain its fundamental rights of control over legislation. It seems to me that the best way of ensuring that objective would be for the House to accept the Amendment, the Government not being committed to it, and then for the Government to use their influence in another place to make any modifications they might desire after the necessary consultations. Then, when the Bill come back from another place, we would have an opportunity of reaching a decision on merits, when considering the Lords Amendments.

When Bills come back from another place on Fridays, Bills with Lords Amendments have precedence over all other Private Members' Bills. In that way the rights of the House of Commons will be ensured, and in that way alone. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will not withdraw the Amendment.

The Question is, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have, of course, had a long debate on the Amendment of which we have just disposed, but if there are hon. Members who wish to discuss the more general provisions of the Bill I certainly have no wish to curtail the proceedings, because this is an important Measure and one which makes substantial changes in the law.

The main effect of the Bill is to enact into law The Hague Protocol of 1955 to the Warsaw Convention which was embodied in the 1932 Carriage by Air Act, and the method by which the Bill proceeds is by repealing the 1932 Act and enacting the Warsaw Convention, as amended by The Hague Protocol, and

On a point of order. I said "No," Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

I will put the Question again.

We on this side wholeheartedly support the Bill, but I have two observations to make. First, we regret very much the limit set in Clause 10, in view of the fact that the value of money is now derisory and will obviously fall still further. Secondly, the Bill will now go to another place. I hope that the Minister will take note of the very narrow majority which the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) won in the Division which has just taken place and see to it that what I think is the Government's view as regards passengers is embodied in the Bill in another place.

We all agree that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has rendered a notable service in introducing a Bill, which, normally, would have been a Government Bill, dealing with an important aspect of the law. As the House will have seen, and as the public will see, the most controversial aspect of it is Clause 10. We are happy that the international convention as amended should be adopted in this country and should apply to international carriage.

As I see it, the upshot of the debate which we have had is that the Government are impressed by the views which have been expressed about the desirability of there being a higher limit of liability for domestic air travel than exists under the Convention. I assume that one of the reasons why the Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was defeated was that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South and the Minister pointed out that when the Government come to make the Order in Council it will be open to them to fix the limit at whatever figure they desired. They will not be tied to the figure of £6,000. If they like, they can fix it at £12,000, or £15,000.

The Government, therefore, have complete freedom to do what they regard as reasonable and sensible. Many hon. Members who supported the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South in opposing the Amendment were mindful of the fact that when the Government came to make the Order in Council they would still have power to give effect to the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Tiverton and supported by this side of the House. I have no doubt that the Government will bear that in mind and I sure that those who are interested in the matter will look forward to seeing the draft of the Order in Council when it comes to be made.

The fact that we have had a Division on the matter does not obviate what I said earlier, that, when bringing in the draft Order, we shall have regard to the views expressed today. I say that without commitment to the merits, because we want an opportunity to consider them in more detail.

I add my congratulations to those offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for the skill with which he piloted this very useful and, in some ways, complicated Measure through the House. I am sure that the Bill has had an easy passage, except with regard to the point on Clause 10, because of the way in which my hon. Friend so clearly explained at every stage the object of the Bill. Unlike some members of our profession, he brought light where hitherto there was darkness.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I hope that hon. Members who are waiting to discuss the other Bills on the Order Paper will not take it amiss if I spend a little time explaining the Bill. The Second Reading was taken on the nod, and the proceedings in the Standing Committee lasted for about two and a half minutes. It cannot, therefore, be said that the House is spending an undue amount of time on the Bill if on the Third Reading some explanation is given of its purpose.

The purpose of the Bill is to enable a person who for any purpose is required by law to take an oath or make an affirmation, to be permitted—and this is the vital point—and if necessary required, to affirm if it would not be reasonably practicable for him to be sworn in the manner of his normal religion or the way in which he normally takes religious oaths. For some time judges in the courts and members of the legal profession generally have considered this to be necessary.

Section 2 of the Oaths Act, 1909, provides that an oath may be administered to and taken by Christians and Jews in the form and manner we all know. In the case of a Christian, he holds the New Testament and swears the oath. If he is a Jew, he holds the Old Testament and, with his hand uplifted, repeats the oath prescribed by law.

For the benefit of my Scottish hon. Friends, the Scottish form of oath, in which the person to whom the oath is administered swears with uplifted hand without holding a Testament, is preserved by Section 5 of the Oaths Act. 1888.

The position at the moment is that a person of one of the Continental or Asiatic religions may appear before a court where the holy book of his religion is not available. It may well be that he cannot, and the court cannot, find the holy book on which he could swear an oath. In that event, if he wishes, he may affirm. But there is nothing in the Act which prescribes that he shall affirm. It may be that a person might affirm and subsequently say that it was against his religious beliefs, or not binding on him; or he could refuse to affirm.

Recently, there was a case at Uxbridge Court, which is referred to in the February issue of the Solicitors' Journal, where a Sikh had to take the oath. The holy man took to the court a copy of the Granth, which is the holy book of the Sikh religion, and placed it on a cushion with two cows tails while the Sikh took the oath. But it might be awkward for a court to have to produce two cows' tails. It is the custom of the Chinese, when taking an oath, to break saucers, or extinguish candles. It might be easier for a court to produce candles and saucers, but cases arise when the holy book of a man's religion is not available and at present he cannot be compelled to affirm. This Bill would give the right to the court to have a person affirm if it felt that such action was necessary.

I have purposely refrained from going into detail on this matter, but I should like to thank Home Office officials and the Minister for the assistance which I have received over this Measure. I think that it will serve a useful purpose. It is welcomed generally by the legal profession and, I believe, by the Home Office.

Not previously having had cause to make a speech on the Bill, may I say that the Home Office welcomes the Measure, which will be of use, and congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) on producing it and for his lucid explanation of its purpose.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I do not propose to detain the House on the Third Reading of this Bill, which we had an opportunity to discuss during the Second Reading debate. It is interesting to note that a large number of people, including lawyers, do not understand that if a shopkeeper exhibits an article in a shop window and puts a price upon it there is no compulsion upon him to sell the article to a customer. That may sound strange to a layman, but it is an opinion which has been expressed to me by many people. They cannot understand why, if an article is exhibited in a shop window, it should not be possible for a customer to say, "I want that article and no other". It is not the law that such an article has to be sold, but from time to time when legislation is introduced that is overlooked.

This is what happened with reference to the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act which I introduced and which was supported by a number of hon. Members. On one occasion a policeman entered a shop where he saw a flick knife exposed for sale. There was a price on the knife. The policeman took out a summons against the person who had exhibited the instrument for committing an offence under this Act. The House may remember that the Act prohibits the sale of such articles. It was pleaded that the action of the shopkeeper did not constitute an offer for sale, and that was the view taken by the court. A higher court also held that it was not an offer for sale, and the majority of people in this country who believed that every contingency had been provided for under the terms of the Act were left wondering what on earth had happened.

It is interesting to note that in another place—I do not know whether it was due to the difficulty which arose over this Bill—when their Lordships were introducing a Bill relating to weights and measures, it was discovered that there was a similar flaw in that Measure. It had been overlooked that an offer for sale did not arise if there was an exposure for sale, and so about seven Amendments had to be made to that Bill to put the matter right. A month or so ago there was another case in the courts brought under the obscene publications legislation. Some filthy photographs had been exposed for sale, but when action was taken the shopkeeper pleaded that it was not an offer for sale, but only an exposure. The courts held that he was not guilty of an offence. The purpose of this Bill is to put the matter right. It is universally agreed that although such a situation may occur only once in perhaps a thousand cases, it is necessary to clear up this misunderstanding and close the loophole in the present law.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), pointed out another important matter, and I am obliged to him and to the Home Department for the assistance I have received in that connection. There arose another difficulty in consequence of the fact that these knives can be imported into Northern Ireland and from there they were finding their way into this country. A similar difficulty has been experienced in the United States. In New York State there is legislation similar to this Act. They have the difficulty that an Act which prevails in one State does not operate in another State. Consequently, similar instruments are imported surreptitiously into the State of New York. In Northern Ireland people are importing flick knives and getting them into this country by that procedure illegally. It is with the intention of removing that difficulty that I have inserted in this Bill a provision to prevent importation of these weapons to Northern Ireland.

Universally, this Measure has been accepted as important. It seems that from the various youth clubs this form of instrument has, with very few exceptions, disappeared. The Measure has had the effect of preventing the youth of the country using weapons of this description for the purpose of boasting that they are "great men" and so on. I think this is a very necessary provision which will be accepted, not only by the House, but by the country generally.

I beg to second the Motion.

This Bill is an illustration of the pitfalls which lie in the path of the legislator. Only two years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, Northwest (Sir B. Janner) was receiving congratulations from all parts of the House on having introduced and carried into law a Bill which we all thought would put an end to the menace of selling flick knives and other dangerous weapons. Within a short time he and all of us found to our disappointment that textually the Measure was inadequate to carry out its objects.

The Act has not only had a valuable effect in itself, but it has also drawn attention to one of the curiosities of the English legal system. I had expected that if someone put an article in his shop with a price tag on it that was an offer to anyone to buy it at that price. It might be better if that were the law, but the opinion now is that if someone puts an article in a shop with a price tag on it he is not offering to sell it but merely inviting people to make an offer to buy it at that price.

Purely for that technical reason, my hon. Friend has been driven to introduce a Bill to amend his earlier Measure and to tighten it up. Whereas previously his Measure made it an offence to manufacture, sell, hire, or offer for sale or hire a flick knife, it was not an offence to put a flick knife in a window and expose it for sale to anyone who wanted to buy it. This Bill will cure that defect. It will go further, because it will catch the shopkeeper who does not put a flick knife in his window exposing it for sale but merely has it in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire without necessarily putting it on view.

I am sure this short Bill will commend itself to all sections of the House. We hope it will complete the object which my hon. Friend had in mind a couple of years ago in trying to put an end to the dangerous practice of young people acquiring and using flick knives and other dangerous weapons.

May I ackowledge the way in which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) met the suggestions I made to him and congratulate him on the progress he has made with this Bill?

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Perhaps I ought to explain the purpose of the Bill and say how it comes before the House. It arises from an anomaly created by the passing of the Highways Act, 1959. I was prompted by representations by my constituents that as a consequence of the 1959 Act persons on one side of the street who, under the 1875 Public Health Act, and the 1892 Act, had fully paid for the cost of the paving of their side of the street at an earlier date, were called upon to pay towards the making up of the other side of the street as well on a later occasion.

Although the sum of money was not considerable, they naturally felt that this was monstrously unjust. Those on the other side of the street who were thus obtaining a benefit also felt that by this anomaly this was unjust. If a street is fully made up with two footpaths it is obvious that the people living in that street have to pay for it to be made up. The fact that part of the work was done before 1st January, 1960, and the other part done after that date should not lead to a distinction in the obligation for the residents to share the costs on an equitable basis.

The purpose of the Bill is to put that matter right. In a sense it is only a provisional Bill, because, clearly, it will not apply to cases in which on 1st January, 1960, neither side of a street had a footpath. This is a small matter, but I am sure the provision would give great satisfaction to a large number of people in Sheffield where the practice has been to follow a rather obscure judgment of the courts in 1880 in the case of Wakefield sanitary authority v. Mander. As a result, the practice in Sheffield and certain other cities has been out of line with practice in other parts of the country. The purpose of the Bill is to enable their practice to conform and I am sure that the Sheffield local authority will be extremely pleased if, as I hope, the Bill receives its Third Reading today.

The Bill is backed by all hon. Members representing Sheffield, irrespective of party. Both the Sheffield Corporation and I appreciate the co-operation we have received from the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in deciding how best to rectify this small problem and in preparing the Bill.

I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for the explanation that he has just given us. I hold the view, and I have expressed it many times before, that it is wrong that any Private Member's Bill should go through without any form of explanation. I do not believe in the business of "on the nod," and for that reason I thank the hon. Gentleman for an explanation which has satisfied me as to the Bill's proposals.

I do not know the circumstances in his constituency, but I hope that the Bill will help overcome the difficulties in that area and, once again, I thank the hon. Member for the courteous way in which he has given a proper explanation to the House.

I do not propose to select any of the Amendments to Clause 1, because it is proposed to call a new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), and in that case on the debate on Clause 1 stand part I think it would be convenient to discuss the principle of the new Clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman. The Question I propose to put is that Clause 1 stand part.

With respect, Sir William, Clause 1 is considered by myself and many of my hon. Friends more adequately to meet our purpose than does the new Clause, which is restrictive in the sense that it deals only with airguns. We are concerned with guns, including airguns, but we thought the original intentions of the sponsors of this Bill were to deal with guns generally. It was because we considered that the Bill, as drafted, was not adequate to deal with guns generally that we tabled the Amendments to this Clause which, in our opinion, would have made Clause 1 more adequate. This, apparently, is not to be the case, and I would have thought that it was the right of hon. Members who object to the withdrawing of Amendments to have their objections sustained by you, Sir William.

I appreciate the hon. Member's point. The hon. Member will have an opportunity, in the discussion on Clause 1, to raise any objection he has to that Clause as it stands, and again when the new Clause is proposed he will have an opportunity of moving any Amendments to the new Clause. It is because the promoters themselves are moving to delete this Clause 1 that I propose to take merely the question of Clause 1 stand part.

If I may further point out, with respect, Sir William, that this Bill has been given a Second Reading and the principle of this Bill has been accepted by the House. Since the Bill has been accepted in principle, surely we should have ample opportunity of discussing every topic contained in it. It would seem that the principle has been abandoned and that there is only one type of gun being considered, namely, the airgun.

I also suggest, Sir William, that leave of the House should have been sought before such a considerable change was proposed. Although we may be able to discuss the question on this Clause, we shall not be able to table an Amendment to deal with the Bill as it was originally accepted by this House. Is not this situation quite wrong? We wish to deal with this matter in the way proposed by our Amendments to Clause 1, and if we are to be allowed only to propose Amendments to the new Clause it would seem that we are being diverted into discussing an altogether different issue. As I say, we wish to consider the whole question of guns, but if we are not to be allowed to deal with the matter in the way I have described we might as well not discuss the matter at all.

I put it to you, Sir William, that we should have the right to move our Amendments, especially since this is not the Report stage but the Committee stage of what is, of course, a Private Member's Bill which has been submitted to a Committee of the whole House. If the interests of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are to be safeguarded, we should be permitted not only to discuss the matter but to move and, if necessary, to vote on the Amendments that stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but the duty is imposed on the Chair of selecting Amendments, and I think that the course I am adopting is fair to the Committee and that I must abide by it. I shall put the Question of Clause 1 standing part, when full debate can take place on that Clause. Subsequently, an alternative to Clause 1 will be proposed and then opportunity will be given to put Amendments that are in order to that alternative Clause.

Sir William, this seems to raise an important point of procedure. Even hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who opposed the subsequent sections of the Bill were entirely in favour of Clause 1. My hon. Friends and I have tabled certain Amendments to Clause 1 in order to make modifications to that Clause. Since then, a most extraordinary thing has happened. The promoter of the Bill has put down an Amendment to leave out Clause 1—the only Clause which we wanted. I had some doubt on Second Reading whether there was some ulterior motive in tacking several objectionable Clauses on to Clause 1, and my suspicions are increased when I find that the promoter wishes to leave out Clause 1. It is true that a new Clause has been put down in a different form and that the promoter has put his name to it, but it will be a long time before we reach it and, for all I know, before we reach it the hon. Member may put down another Amendment, this time to leave out his new Clause.

3.0 p.m.

Whether he does or not, we are in a difficulty. I hope that the Amendment to leave out this most important Clause will be defeated, that the Clause will stand part of the Bill and that we shall be able to discuss the Amendments to it which we wish to make. If the new Clause is ever reached, which I doubt, it may be defeated and there may therefore be no opportunity of discussing the Amendments which we have put on the Notice Paper. Surely my hon. Friends are right and we should have an opportunity of discussing Amendments to Clause 1.

The hon. Member is correct in saying that it is an unusual state of affairs when a Promoter seeks to delete a Clause from his own Bill. But that is the position. Furthermore, the Minister has added his name to the Amendment to leave out Clause 1. On a basis of probability, therefore, the Clause will not stand part of the Bill. The Committee will have a full opportunity to debate whether it should stand part of the Bill, and in the event of the promoter's Amendment being defeated, and the Government being defeated in their wishes, and in the event of the Clause being approved and standing part of the Bill, an opportunity will arise on Report to move Amendments to it. I thought that on the basis of probability I was right not to select the Amendments but to proceed to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

I understand, Sir William, that you do not intend to select Amendments to this Clause because there is an alternative Clause 1 on the Order Paper. But that alternative may never become Clause 1. It might be defeated. Even if the Amendment to delete Clause 1 is carried, there is no guarantee that the new Clause 1 will be incorporated in the Bill, and we may be left with no Clause 1. I submit that it was clear from Second Reading proceedings that Clause I was the only Clause which received the general support of the House.

You were good enough to indicate, Sir William, that if the Amendment to delete Clause 1 is defeated, and if the Clause remains part of the Bill, hon. Members will have an opportunity on Report of moving Amendments to it. Normally Mr. Speaker is in the Chair on Report, and he selects Amendments. It is entirely within his discretion whether Amendments are selected and he need not, and does not, give any reason for selecting them. What guarantee is there that on Report he will select the Amendments which some of my hon. Friends think are important? What guarantee is there that those Amendments will be discussed on Report? Can you give an assurance on behalf of Mr. Speaker that if such a situation arises we shall be able to debate on Report many of the Amendments which some hon. Members think are important?

No. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. The occupant of this Chair can give no assurance binding on Mr. Speaker when he is occupying the Chair of the House. But it is common experience that Amendments are often selected on Report, and I think it not impossible that that might be the case on this occasion if we reach that state of affairs—a state of affairs which seems to me manifestly unlikely to arise in view of the action taken by the promoter in seeking to withdraw the Clause and the action taken by the Government in supporting his attempt to withdraw it.

We are mainly concerned with Clause 1. You have agreed, Sir William, that it is an exceedingly unusual practice for a Committee of the House to be presented with such a position which means that we have no opportunity to discuss, with a view to Amendment, the matter which we are most concerned to discuss. A wrecking Amendment is one which seeks to destroy a principle which has already been accepted. Such an Amendment is not normally carried. We are not concerned with wrecking Amendments. If there is any wrecking Amendment, it comes from the sponsor of the Bill. I submit to you. Sir William, that the Amendment to leave out Clause 1, which is a Clause with which we are all agreed, is a wrecking Amendment. I am at a loss to understand why this position has been adopted and not the position which conforms with the practices of the House of Commons.

I had hoped that the interests of both sides of the Committee would be met by the course I was taking, because full opportunity will be given to the hon. Member to discuss the present Clause on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". If the Motion of the promoter that it should not stand part fails and it does stand part, an opportunity will certainly arise to table Amendments on Report. Though I can in no way bind anyone on whether they will be selected, I believe it to be fair that I should allow it to proceed in that way.

Sir William, you have said that you thought that this way of dealing with the subject would be acceptable to all Members of the Committee. You said that you thought that this would be the fairest way. It must be evident that all hon. Members do not think that this is the fairest way. If the Clause as I and my hon. Friends propose to amendment it were carried, the Bill would be a better proposition. If we can deal only with the new Clause, a quite different position has been raised which compels us to argue on quite different grounds.

I therefore appeal to you, Sir William. You said that you approached this in the belief that what you were proposing was the fairest way to deal with it. The evidence is that it is not considered to be the fairest way. I do not suggest that you thought that it would have this effect, but it stifles hon. Members who feel that they have a legitimate point of view to put forward and, if necessary, to vote on.

Further to that point of order. It may help if I give a little explanation following these points of order. I am sure that hon. Members understand the difficulties which a private Member has in drafting a Bill without having a Government Department behind him. The removal of Clause 1 was not meant as any discourtesy to the Committee, but merely to arrive at something practicable. It is for this reason that we have suggested that Clause 1 be withdrawn. I very much hope that we shall be able to get on to the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", to that we can give a more detailed explanation of our intentions.

Further to that point of order, Sir William. If we follow your suggestion and debate the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" and the Motion is carried and the Clause remains in the Bill, we shall not get an opportunity to table Amendments to the Clause until Report stage. That will deprive hon. Members of the advantages they enjoy when they table Amendments in Committee. In Committee they have a greater freedom to discuss Amendments than they have on Report, when they are limited to one contribution. If they make their contribution before the Minister has spoken, they have no opportunity of answering any point made by the Minister or the promoter of the Bill. Hon. Members are being denied the fullest opportunity of discussing the important points which the Clause raises in the manner in which they should be discussed. In other words, their freedom to discuss it is being curtailed by this procedure.

I appreciate what the hon. Member says, but I took the view, and it was carefully considered, that it would be less fair to the Committee to allow so much time to be spent discussing all these Amendments, when, at the end of the discussion, the probability was that, in view of the fact that the promoter was opposed to the Clause, the Clause would fall and much of the Committee's time would have been spent to no purpose at all. Having taken that view, I invite the Committee to accept it from me and allow me to proceed in the way that I have decided.

Further to that point of order, Sir William. This puts me in a difficult position. If the new Clause were very much the same, or it sought to do almost the same in a more efficient way, or in a way likely to be more effective or easier to carry out, it would have been all right. But the new Clause does something very different. It leaves the shotgun almost without control but puts prohibitive control on airguns. It may be that this will be the best way of dealing with airguns, I do not know. The Amendments were put down only this week—I think on Tuesday or Wednesday—and there has been no opportunity of going thoroughly into this question or of considering whether or not the best way to deal with airguns, for example, is to prohibit them, but at the same time the same Clause, in a Measure which chiefly prohibits the use of airguns, more or less for youngsters under 17 years of age, leaves the question of shotguns comparatively untouched.

I am not an expert on this subject. But I am putting it to you. Sir William, that this is a genuine problem. If we agree to the proposals put forward and Clause 1 is taken out, which is likely to happen if this becomes a Government Measure, as would seem to be the case because the Government have taken over this point and are presenting the new Clause, I shall be placed when we come to deal with the new Clause in a very invidious position. If, for example, I do not think that this Measure for dealing with airguns is adequate, or that it goes too far, I am put in the position of having to oppose the Measure when I want to see control over weapons.

I may be presented with a version of the Bill from the Government in which they are prepared to eliminate airguns but are not prepared to do anything about shotguns for some years to come. If I oppose this, I am put in the position of the person who is not prepared to control airguns. It is very unfair that I should be put in that position. Taking the Bill as put, it is clear that the original intention was that we should deal adequately with airguns as well as shotguns. If you adopt the procedure now proposed, Sir William, I am put in the impossible position, taking the stand I do, of not being able to consider all these matters equitably.

I ask you, Sir William, to say whether it is the case or not that I shall be put in the position of being presented with a kind of fait accompli. We have either to accept the new Clause more or less as it is or, if we oppose it, we are opposing a Measure to control airguns. I am not prepared to say at this stage, without this question having been considered and the people concerned having been consulted, and without myself having had an opportunity to look at some of the evidence behind it, that there is any fairness at all in my being put in this position. I appeal to you, Sir William, that if we are to deal with this in a way which does not put hon. Members in an invidious position, you should deal with the Bill as it is here, Clause by Clause.

I am most anxious that hon. Members should have every opportunity to do what they think right. It seems to me that there is, in the first place, such opportunity on the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, if that is taken first. Secondly, if Clause 1 does not stand part, there will be opportunity on the new Clause 1 which the promoter proposes to move. Thirdly—I say this particularly to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson)—an hon. Member taking his view of the matter will have an opportunity, if he so desires, to put down another new Clause of his own. Fourthly, there are the opportunities on Report, about which I cannot, of course, say anything binding at this stage.

It seems to me that there is adequate opportunity afforded to hon. Members to put their points of view, and I invite the Committee to allow me to proceed as I have decided and discuss the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

I agree that it is probably an unusual course for the promoter of a Bill to try in Committee to remove Clause I. I endeavoured to explain that this is due, very largely, to the advice which I and my hon. Friends have had and taken, some of it coming from the other side of the Committee, after the Bill was published and given a Second Reading. I tried to make clear on Second Reading that my supporters and I would pay attention to such representations as were made during the debate and that it might be necessary to alter slightly the form of the Bill, in consultation with the Home Office, but that the general objectives would be maintained.

I know that both the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), who are so concerned about the Bill, have only one object, that is to say, that the monstrous number of casualties caused by airguns and the smaller number by other guns should be abated. I know that they are in full support of any action taken to stop the wounding of people with various weapons. Since the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) referred to the matter on Second Reading, I think it might be worth while giving again the number of cases reported to the police in England and Wales of personal injury as a result of airguns fired by persons under 17 years of age: in 1956, 501. In 1957, 648. In 1958, 719. In 1959, 738. I know that it is the desire of those two hon. Members to help us to reduce the number of these unnecessary casualties.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Islington, East suggested that this was a hybrid Bill. He even accused me—I found it hard to understand—of being very naive when I said that it was a Bill to protect human beings, birds and animals. He suggested that Clause 2 and those following were irrelevant to the object of the Bill. My hon. Friends and I are always prepared to bow to good advice and we would give an undertaking that, were we to get the new Clause I, we should be prepared to accept the hon. Member's Amendments to remove the other Clauses from the Bill.

This new Clause has been drafted with the help of the Government, which, as I said earlier, makes the task easier for a private Member in view of the difficulty which one has in finding the right terminology so that the Measure is capable of enforcement by the police and in the courts. We have decided that the original Clause 1 is not practical for achieving what we want from the Bill.

Recently there have been discussions concerning the control of shotguns, the damage and danger resulting from their use and the harm caused to animals. I understand that the investigations into the wounding and damage caused by these weapons and the ensuing recommendations will take some time to complete. For that reason, I feel that where a case is made out—and I think the figures that were mentioned make out a case—for controlling the use of airguns, we should take a small though important step at the moment—I admit it is only a small step but it is better than no step—if we are to reduce the number of 700 or 800 casualties, mostly to young people, in the course of a year. If we are prepared to do that, I think we can achieve it by introducing a new Clause 1 in place of the present one and limiting the effect of the Bill primarily to airguns.

As I have said, I am prepared to give an undertaking to accept the Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Islington, East on the other Clauses if we are able to delete the present Clause and substitute the new one referring to airguns. My reason for seeking to remove Clause 1 is that there would be some difficulty in enforcing it, and it was thought that the provisions relating to the carrying of weapons in certain places—which are referred to in the new Clause—would be a better way of enabling the police to enforce the restrictions that we require.

I think it would probably be out of order to refer to the new clause in too much detail at this stage. I ask hon. Members, however, to compare Clause 1 with the proposed new Clause, which is infinitely stricter in trying to make sure that we do not have so many casualties each year. Having achieved that, and having obtained information later about other weapons, we should be able to consider action relating to them.

Earlier today we debated the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959 (Amendment) Bill. That is a useful step, and we are trying to achieve the same object, in another direction, by this Bill, following advice given to both sides of the House. We want this Bill on the Statute Book, but in order to make it effective I ask hon. Members to oppose the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

I agree that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) has met difficulties in drafting this Bill, but they arose because he does not seem to have known what he wanted to do. Clause 1 was aimed at obtaining greater security for the public, but then the Bill went on to include a miscellaneous collection of Clauses, some of which were most highly controversial. That this was so was made evident during the Second Reading debate.

Having found that he had made a mistake, the hon. Member then decided to restrict his Bill virtually to one Clause—not the Clause he started off with but a new Clause. The Title of the Bill, in view of the various amendments being made to it, should be not

"Game Licences and Gun Licences (Miscellaneous Provisions), etc. Bill"

but "Airgun Control Bill". The way in which the passage of the Bill has been conducted is highly regrettable. We are now faced with considering something that was not in the hon. Member's mind when he introduced the Bill.

This was very much in my mind, and in the minds of my hon. Friends. It was made clear during the Second Reading that one of the things we wished to control was the indiscriminate use of airguns. The hon. Member will find that I quoted the number of casualties from airguns in my speech on that occasion.

I agree that the hon. Member devoted part of his speech to that subject, but only part of Clause 1 was devoted to it. Now, however, that part of the Clause has become the main part of the Bill—at least, that is the intention of the hon. Member. The proceedings concerned with the Bill seem to me to be highly undesirable. We should know where we stand. The result has been, as I pointed out to you, Sir William, that hon. Members have been denied some of their rights of discussion. Perhaps the hon. Member for Maldon did not understand that, but it is nevertheless deplorable.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) will not take it amiss if I remind the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that, during the Second Reading debate, several Members opposite said that they were in favour of Clause 1 but against the rest of the Bill, and that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) made a plea to us to drop all of the Bill except Clause 1. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon is proposing to do.

I intended to deal with that later. I am aware of what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary said about this and what other hon. Members said on Second Reading, when they supported the Clause. All the arguments and the pleas that something should be done along the lines of Clause 1 were made in respect of shotguns as well as of airguns. I do not want to weary the House by reading long extracts from the Second Reading debate, but the hon. and learned Member will find constant references not only to accidents by airguns but also to accidents by shotguns.

The hon. Member for Maldon drew attention to this aspect when he said:

"With shotguns included, the number of persons injured and killed in the period ending December, 1958, was 610 and in the period ending February, 1934, 439. There again, there has been a very considerable rise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 856.]

The Under-Secretary has just referred to the offer of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to support a one-Clause Bill. I refer him to column 910 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading, when my right hon. Friend associated himself with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who spoke about shotguns and the terrible accidents that they have caused. It is perfectly clear that my right hon. Friend had in mind a Bill dealing with shotguns as well as with airguns.

My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has forestalled what I intended to say. My right hon. Friend said:

"I regard the matters raised by Clause I as being of very serious concern and I would go all the way with the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) in the views which he has pressed on the hon. and learned Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 910.]

The views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman contain a long recital of accidents with shotguns, deplorable accidents, and his criticism of the fact that a child of three can get a gun licence. He denounced the ease with which a gun licence can be obtained and he quoted the instance of the child of three getting such a licence. He quoted several accidents all concerned with shotguns.

I hope that, in fairness to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will say that it is significant that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not put his name to the Amendment to omit Clause 1 and that there is no reason to suppose other than that he would have wished Clause 1 to stand in its present form.

I have noted that and the fact that the right hon. and learned Member has not put his name to the new Clause. I do not know what his reasons are. They may be good reasons. What I was saying was that throughout his speech he referred to accidents arising with shotguns.

While the numbers may be smaller than in the case of accidents with air-guns, of course, we have to remember that they are, in the main, much more serious accidents, and that a great number of them result in loss of life. This is the great tragedy of this business, and it is being deliberately omitted by the Government. What we are complaining about is not that the Government want to deal with accidents from airguns, but that they should have limited this Clause simply and solely to this purpose, when everybody in the House had expressed general support for a Clause which would have had a much wider and more beneficial effect. The original Clause was so worded as to provide that a person under the age of 15 shall not use or carry a gun, and I had an Amendment down which I thought might have made it even wider, but that is by the way.

Why has the Clause been reduced to this very small area? I listened to the hon. Gentleman when he moved that this Clause should not stand part of the Bill. What were his reasons? I did not get his exact words, but he made two points. He said that discussions are going on about shotguns. He did not tell us why these discussions should be prevented from covering what was intended in Clause 1. What is the character of the discussions, and with what are they concerned?

I think that if the hon. Gentleman had had the time, and if his Parliamentary duties had not prevented him, if he had gone upstairs to a meeting sponsored by several of his hon. Friends, he would have found that the University Federation for Animal Welfare, the Wild Fowlers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland, the Council for Nature, and the Nature Conservancy had put forward several prospective pilot schemes for encouraging people to shoot, and several constructive schemes for better information and better education in schools.

The general feeling of people who are really interested in this matter is that these various schemes should have an opportunity of coming to fruition, and that there should also be an opportunity for further study of the recommendations of the Scott-Henderson Committee on Shooting and on the proper loads to be used for various guns and targets.

Time should be given for all that work to be considered, so that legislation can be passed on the basis of this experience and the experiments now in progress. In two or three years' time, the information would be available, so that hon. Members could give it consideration along with everything else. We should deal with airguns now, and in three years' time, when we have got all this information, deal with shotguns.

I am sorry I was not at the meeting which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I understand that it was concerned with teaching people the proper use of shotguns. That may be highly desirable, and I am not suggesting that it is not, but it does not mean that it would necessarily obviate the high rate of accidents. I cannot help thinking that the reason why we are showing this general leniency in not being prepared to deal with shotguns is quite a different one altogether. We are dealing with a different category of people, and that is what suggests the difference to me. That is rather deplorable, because I should like to have seen something done about both.

We are told, in respect of shotgun accidents, which are much more serious, that we must wait for three or four years, but why? Must people go on being killed so that we can gain a little experience about a scheme for training and giving experience in shotguns? In other words, we are to continue the killing of people from accidents by shotguns because we are trying to teach people to use them correctly, but, when we come to the case of airguns and a much larger number of people, because these are different weapons and different accidents, and frequently of a quite different nature to those in which shotguns are involved—and I agree—we say that something ought to be done about it.

Everyone knows that something ought to be done about it, because of the increasing number of accidents, but what I cannot understand is why, after having drafted a Clause to cover both, we should now suddenly decide not to proceed with it as far as it affects shotguns, but to proceed with it in connection with airguns. That is a deplorable decision.

I would have liked to see the hon. Member sticking to his original intention in Clause 1, namely, to try to prevent accidents both in regard to airguns and shotguns. The present course does not seem to be very useful, especially in view of the opinions expressed in the Second Reading debate. It is bound to raise a number of suspicions in the minds of certain people.

I still believe that if we could keep the Clause as it is, and accept the hon. Member's offer to drop the remaining Clauses, it would be much better than deleting the present Clause 1 and putting in its place the one that is suggested. The original one would deal with a much greater evil, and would have much better results. The hon. Member has not told us why the existing Clause should not apply to shotguns. Are there administrative or drafting reasons? Is there any reason, apart from the fact that we are trying to train people to use shotguns properly?

The hon. Member may have noticed that the proposed new Clause contains a reference to the use of shotguns, although it does not go as far as the original Clause, for various reasons, Which have been referred to.

I agree that there is a reference to shotguns, but it is a different reference from that relating to airguns. The two are treated quite differently.

That is true—because the weapons are different. A shotgun is more difficult to conceal; it has a much louder report, and it is not universally available in towns.

I appreciate that, and we can discuss it when we deal with the new Clause. Nevertheless, what I have been saying is true. No good reasons have been advanced why the dangers of using shotguns should not be dealt with at the same time as we are dealing with the problem of airguns. We have not been told why the existing Clause will not deal satisfactorily with the position. In what respect is the present Clause deficient? We have been told that the shotgun is a different kind of weapon, and that training schemes are proceeding. I do not argue about that, but I want to know in what respect the present Clause fails to tackle the problem of the increasing number of accidents with shotguns, which is just as important as the question of accidents from airguns.

For these reasons I find it very difficult to accept the Amendment.

As I understand, we are discussing why the original Clause 1 should or should not be left out of the Bill and that we should consider the new Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), the promoter of the Bill, has made a very important concession to all the requests made to him by hon. Members opposite. He has said that he is prepared to reduce this rather ambitious Measure—and, I dare say, too ambitious for a Private Member's Bill—to a straight control of airguns Bill. My hon. Friend has only done that because of the tremendous pressure brought to bear on him on this point.

It is quite obvious, looking at the Notice Paper and at the speeches made on Second Reading, that a more comprehensive Measure, much as it is needed in view of the various anomalies in the game law and of the many things that worry people in the countryside today, would not be acceptable to the House. It would be a great tragedy if, having got as far as this, we were not able to proceed with the consideration of the new Clause.

I cannot go the whole way with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon on his new Clause. I know that it has been designed by the Government to meet a very large number of the points in the original Clause 1 of the Bill. I cannot help feeling that perhaps this Clause is reflecting too unfairly on the manufacturers of airguns. I do not think that sufficient credit has been given to them for the very responsible attitude which they adopted towards the Bill in the first instance and to the co-operation which we received from them in drafting the original Bill.

I think it was unfortunate that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State should have been forced to describe airguns as nothing more than dangerous toys. I would point out that they provide the cheapest and very first weapons of many people in the country with which to learn to shoot. The important thing in this matter is that there should be a measure of parental supervision and responsibility. I should not be entirely happy to make it illegal for anyone under the age of 14 to possess an airgun. Let us have the necessary control and responsibility and the education facilities for the use of airguns without going the whole hog and saying, "No airguns at all".

Subject to this and the chance which we shall surely have of amending the new Clause, I appeal to hon. Members opposite to allow my hon. Friend to drop the original Clause 1 and to give us the chance to consider and amend the new Clause which my hon. Friend and the Government have put down.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has been very forthright, and I appreciate the attitude which he adopts. I, too, have been favourably impressed by the approach of airgun manufacturers to the matter. They approached me and I gave them advice, though they are not in my constituency but in a place in Lanarkshire. I told them that I could not be associated with any effort not to control airguns. I asked them what reasonable controls they proposed. I was very concerned that there should be no question of simply taking no steps for control at all. The manufacturers, I thought, proposed reasonable control. I was a bit shocked when I heard the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) propose almost a complete eradication of the airgun.

That is not so.

May I describe my own reactions and why I feel so strongly about the matter? Under the Bill, if passed, I should be prohibited from giving an airgun to my son if he were under 14 years of age. I would be prohibited from giving my son an air- gun even if I stood over him and watched him when he used it. If I were to present him with such a gun, it would constitute a serious offence punishable by imprisonment, and the same would apply if the gun came into his possession by any other means. On the other hand, if I were to give my son a 410 shotgun, a much more deadly weapon—

And more expensive.

—and more expensive, I would not be committing an offence. We are entitled to more information than we have so far been given for the proposed change.

If I were a reasonably wealthy member of the landed gentry, and wanted my son to take up blood sports—but let me make it clear that I am not a member of the landed gentry and do not think as they do—I would want him to be taught to use a gun at an early age. I would probably see to it that he received a 410 shotgun, a gun which is suitable for youngsters and ladies, and I would be permitted to do that. In fact, if the Bill became an Act, the Prince of Wales would be denied the possession of an air-gun, but he would be entitled to possess a shotgun.

I suggest to the hon. Member for Maldon that the explanation for the proposed change is that it would never do to prohibit the youngster who is destined to enjoy blood sports from possessing a shotgun at an early age. The 410 shotgun is the most suitable weapon for him, and its possession would be legal.

The hon. Member for Maldon referred to the increase in the number of accidents caused by airguns. I deplore this increase, but when the hon. Gentleman compares the number of accidents caused by airguns with the number of accidents caused by shotguns, he ought to make it clear that there are many more airguns in use than shotguns. I do not know the figure, but there must be about a million airguns in use in this country. The figure I was given was that in 1959 more than 150,000 airguns, air rifles and air pistols were sold on the home market, and that, in addition, about 12,000 were brought into the country.

Therefore, when reference is made to the accident rate, we must consider it in relation to the total number of guns in use. The hon. Gentleman gave us only the gross figure of the increase in accidents without mentioning the increase in the number of guns since before the war. It is also wrong to compare the accident rate before the war with the accident rate today because the methods of assessing and recording accidents are more accurate now than they used to be.

I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough that we ought to spend some time looking at this problem to enable us to devise the best means of controlling the number of accidents. The hon. Member for Maldon says that air-guns must be prohibited, and that the position with regard to the possession of shotguns must be considered every three or four years. It may be that what we are doing is inadequate, and, if so, I am prepared to consider this matter further to see how we can improve what the hon. Member for Maldon originally proposed. I say that no youngster under the age of 15 should be allowed to carry or use an airgun or, in fact, any gun, except when he is in company, and presumably under the supervision, of an adult; we say of 20 years of age. The sponsors of the Bill wish to introduce control at the age of 21 and I should be prepared to accept the age of 21 rather than 20. This is evidence of our concern to see that there is suitable and adequate control. I am not a "gun man" and I should not want my child to learn to fire a gun. I should be reluctant to have him shoot even a starling, because I should feel that it would be brutalising the child. But if we want to control guns, let us be fair. If we wish to eradicate the airgun, let us prohibit the making of it. Do not let us have discriminatory control, against one kind of gun and in favour of another. That is unworthy of this House.

There is another point. I understand that it costs 40s. for 100 cartridges for a 410 shotgun, but costs only 9d. or 1s. for 100 slugs for an airgun. Hon. Members will note the difference. The son of a well-to-do man would use a 410 shotgun and the son of a poor man would use an airgun. Here is a form of discrimination which I consider regrettable. We thought that Clause 1 of the Bill did not go far enough. I have been reading of cases where "trigger-happy" boys have gone about the countryside ready to shoot at the first thing they saw. The makers of airguns consider that a suitable control would be to make it illegal for any youngster under 17 years of age to have such a gun in a public place in an uncovered condition.

We have been trying to write that into the Bill; that no gun should be carried in a suitably defined public place, except when securely covered by means of a cover which would not permit the gun to be operated unless it was taken out of the cover. I consider that a reasonable control and we should have been happy had hon. Gentlemen opposite accepted it. That, however, is not the position. The position is that we are legislating for a restricted form of control. It will be imposed on the airgun and, though the shotgun will not be let off completely, it will get off very lightly.

I do not wish to spend a lot of time quoting long passages from the OFFICIAL REPORT, but it is important we should bear in mind that illustrations of the kind of accidents which occur were given only in relation to the shotgun. During the Second Reading debate the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) quoted four examples. He prefaced them by saying that for over two years he had collected cuttings from newspapers of accounts of accidents caused by guns. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:

"One of the reports says that a boy came in for his tea and left his 12-bore gun on the baby's pram."

The right hon. and learned Gentleman quotes the boy as saying:

"I picked up my gun. I had my back to him and someone mentioned my name. I turned round, the gun went off and it went straight at him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 902.]

The second illustration relates to a girl aged two, who died on the way to hospital—

I am grateful for the opportunity to inform my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport of the grave anxiety which has been, and still is, in the minds of many of my constituents about the dangerous situation which will arise when the new motorway is completed and before the proposed by-pass at Rubery is in use.

I must explain that Rubery is an extremely busy area, consisting of a long road with all types of buildings on either side, shops, schools, and so on. What my constituents are worried about is traffic coming off the new motorway. I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that that traffic will be travelling very much faster than it would normally be travelling. It is generally accepted—and this has been my experience—that when motoring on these excellent new roads, one does not appreciate the speed at which one is travelling.

The primary desire of my constituents was that the subway which, in any case, was to have been built in connection with this new road scheme, should be built in advance of the by-pass itself, so that at least one safe crossing would be provided for pedestrians across this new busy road. I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend that he was able to accede to this request and I know that my constituents will join with me in thanking him for taking that decision.

However, there is still disquiet in the minds of many of my constituents, who feel that something more should be done to solve the speed problem on the main road before the by-pass comes into use. While the subway is of great value, it does not completely solve the problem. A temporary set of pedestrian-operated traffic lights installed midway between the Plough Hotel and the Birmingham City boundary, near St. Chad's School, would provide another safe crossing point. The provision of these lights would not be a difficult matter, since, on temporary roads, this form of temporary traffic lighting is often adopted. I hope my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to this matter.

The fears of many of my constituents are not unfounded. The headmaster of a school in the area has reported that six children have been involved in accidents on this road, and it is felt that the traffic problem is so great that strong preventive action is essential to stop further loss of life, otherwise children and old people are most likely to suffer.

The anxiety in the minds of my constituents is not only in connection with a proposed new motorway, but with the existing road. I know the district well and I realise the great danger that exists along this road, particularly when cars are overtaking. When a vehicle, on the nearside, stops to allow a pedestrian to cross, a fast-moving car on the offside will frequently overtake, and, of course, the prospect of what will happen when the new motorway is opened is even more alarming.

Can my right hon. Friend do something to slow down the traffic on this road and thus make the job of the local police easier? My constituents desire some physical method of slowing down traffic, as some motorists seem to take little notice of the 30 m.p.h. limit and signs exhorting them to drive carefully.

I remember that in France before the war—and the French are essentially practical people—they had a simple method of slowing down traffic by what were known as caniveaux—a depression in the road, with a sign about 200 metres before it, giving warning of its presence. It was highly effective. A vehicle going over the obstacle at more than 25 m.p.h. needed new springs. I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend should employ that measure, but perhaps he could place rubber bollards down the centre of the road that is worrying my constituents. That would prevent the highly dangerous process of overtaking.

In addition, large police notices might be of assistance, although I realise that that is not my right hon. Friend's job. In Oxfordshire, they have quite an effective method of using large signs proclaiming, "Plain clothes police patrolling". This has the psychological effect of making motorists more careful. I urge my right hon. Friend to do all he can to stop speeding and overtaking on this highly dangerous stretch of road. I have asked him if he would consider installing temporary pedestrian-operated traffic lights. Surely it is not asking too much to give that a trial. I wish to repeat how very grateful we are that the subway is to be proceeded with at the same time as the motorway. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that it will be completed by the time the motorway is in use?

In conclusion, can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that in connection with all these new developments, both for the motorway and for the by-pass, my constituents who own or have interest in the land about to be acquired will be given really fair and adequate compensation for the loss of the amenities which they will necessarily have to suffer?

I will answer, first, what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) said in the last few sentences. As Minister, I can give only the compensation for which the House has provided by legislation. Subject to that proviso, I assure my hon. Friend that the proper compensation will be paid to his constituents.

My hon. Friend has brought forward some of the difficulties which his constituents will have when a new by-pass is constructed at Rubery and he has rightly emphasised the pedestrians' difficulties at Rubery. When the by-pass is completed he will find that the needs of the pedestrians have been most carefully considered in the plans. There will be two pedestrian subways and two over-passes with footways. It will be neither necessary nor possible for pedestrians to negotiate the trunk road itself. We have segregated the pedestrians from the motor cars. I have always been of the opinion that three-quarters of a ton of steel moving at 30 m.p.h. and eight, nine, ten or eleven stones of flesh moving at 3 m.p.h. will not mix successfully. When the by-pass is completed, my hon. Friend and his constituents will be well satisfied with the arrangements.

My hon. Friend rightly asks what will happen in the interim. He made a number of suggestions. The first was that pedestrian-operated light signals should be installed at the Plough Inn and opposite St. Chad's School—a very odd mixture of an inn and a school. He said that this would be a temporary measure. If I thought that that would do the trick, I would put them there, but I do not think that it will do the trick.

Light signals are not the panacea which they are often thought to be. The need for them arises where difficulties are experienced because of the intersection of two substantial streams of traffic. All the experience which we have had at our Ministry over the whole of the United Kingdom shows that they operate successfully and command a high standard of obedience only at those junctions where there is both a heavy flow of main road traffic and an appreciable amount of side-road traffic. If we introduce what we call a "Cross Now" phase in the light system for pedestrians, it causes considerable delay to vehicular traffic, and it is a successful safety measure only when there is so much traffic that pedestrians have to wait for the "Cross Now" signal and also when the number of pedestrians is sufficient to ensure a fairly continual stream of people crossing the road during this phase.

I appreciate that, but there is a very high volume of traffic on this road. I know the road well. I fully appreciate the point which my right hon. Friend has made, but I hope that he realises that there is a heavy stream of traffic, particularly in the rush hour, when the Austin Works are closing.

I realise that, but with a subway already constructed during this period it would be folly to try to impose upon motor vehicles travelling along that road some restriction which the motorists themselves were unable to identify with safety. If the lights turn red against the traffic and there are no pedestrians crossing or no cars travelling across the lights, it tends to bring the law into disrepute, because it means that we have imposed an obligation upon the motorist to stop for some reason which passes his comprehension. That is one of the main difficulties about putting lights where they are not justified to the ordinary common sense of the motorists.

If there is a flow of pedestrians at a crossing—for instance, at Trafalgar Square—which is sufficient to ensure a fairly continual stream of people across the road during the pedestrian phase, motorists stop and are willing to stop. If there is only a small stream of people and not a great flow of traffic, pedestrians press the button and before the signal says "Cross Now" they shoot across the road because there are no motor cars. When motorists come, they get impatient and everybody disregards the signs.

The proliferation of signs is of no use unless accepted by motorists and pedestrians. Therefore, it is very dangerous indeed if drivers are halted unnecessarily at a crossing, because if they are required to wait while no pedestrians cross their path they become impatient and move off in anticipation of the green signal. That is extremely dangerous to any pedestrians who arrive when it says "Cross Now" and it is their turn to cross. If there are few pedestrians, the signal is nearly always green and there is a great danger that drivers who regularly use the road—most of the traffic using this road uses it regularly—will become accustomed to seeing it like this. They tend either to be less prepared for a change in the signals or to form the habit of accelerating to pass the signals quickly in case they should change. Therefore, in these circumstances the signals can be a great danger to pedestrians

One thing has happened recently. We have had a meeting in Rubery since my hon. Friend put the Adjournment debate down, but he could not know of the outcome of the meeting. We agreed to the construction of a pedestrian subway which will segregate pedestrians from the flow of traffic during the interim period. That is a great advance. It should make the people of Rubery feel absolutely safe. I believe it is the duty of a Ministry to go to a town where restrictions are being imposed and, if necessary, have public meetings and try to satisfy the audience as to the plans we have in mind. The great thing in a democracy is to try to get as many people as possible to agree to plans. Our Divisional Road Engineer spoke to a public meeting on 17th April of this year, which is not long ago. I understand he satisfied his audience as to the Ministry's plans. There were 250–300 people present. I think that we have done our best.

My hon. Friend suggested two other measures which we might introduce during the interim period. I understand that he is satisfied that for the permanent solution we have been reasonable and have provided the people of Rubery with the proper effective crossings which will safeguard them from the onrush of traffic.

Indeed

We are now only concerned with the interim period before all the underpasses and bridges are built. My hon. Friend suggested traffic lights, which I cannot accept. I am bound to say that I accept the necessity of building the underpass, which can be used during the temporary period so that the people of Rubery can avoid the traffic.

He suggested two other measures. The first was that there should be no overtaking through the village and that "no overtaking" signs should be erected. These signs can be erected only to give effect to Orders made under Section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. Less than a dozen Orders have been made for the country as a whole, because it is our policy to limit this restriction to sites where over short stretches the road is so narrow or visibility is so restricted as to make it essential that under no circumstances should overtaking be attempted. We feel that it would be wrong to use this restriction at other places, because this would expose drivers at all times to the risk of penalty for overtaking when it would often be perfectly safe for them to overtake. In this case it would be very difficult to enforce a no-waiting order, because the road runs through the shopping area where vehicles frequently stand to load or unload goods.

It has also been suggested—I think that it was suggested at this public meeting—that we should have a large illuminated sign at the entrance to the village. At first view, this might possibly serve a useful purpose, but the drivers who habitually use this road would very soon be accustomed to seeing it and the eye-catching effect of the sign would soon be lost. For this reason such a sign would be of little practical help and serve no useful purpose in this case.

I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend who has pursued with great assiduity his efforts to make sure that his constituents are not subjected to excessive motor car traffic and motor car accidents. In view of the political sagacity of the division, I am not surprised that he is looking after his constituents most carefully. He has been continually in correspondence with my Ministry in pressing his view, and I can assure him that I and my Ministry have taken great notice of what he said. It is due to his persistence and judgment that to a large extent this passage underneath the road is being constructed in the interim period, and I think that he will find, as I am sure his constituents will find, that it will be effective from the point of view of saving lives. Pedestrians will now be kept segregated from the motor traffic, which I am quite sure is better than imposing on the motor traffic rules and regulations which common sense will tell them they ought not to obey.

I should like to say that when the by-pass is built it will be far safer for pedestrians in Rubery than it is now. The trunk road traffic will be on the new dual carriageway, physically separated from the village, and it will be very much better than having it in the main shopping street as at present. Pedestrians will cross by two pedestrian subways and the footpath on two over-bridges.

I realise that public anxiety is mainly about the next year or two during the interim period between the completion of the M.5 and the completion of the Rubery by-pass. The M.5 motorway will be open to traffic at least a year before the by-pass is built and the inhabitants of Rubery feel that conditions for pedestrians will become even more difficult. I think that these fears are exaggerated, first because we are building the pedestrian subway in advance of the rest of the by-pass scheme. This is crucial. This is the subway near Gannon Row which should be in operation before the M.5 is open to traffic. It provides a safe way for pedestrians to cross from the residential area to the main shopping street.

My Ministry is to issue instructions to the divisional road engineer to consult the chief constable of Worcestershire about more effective enforcement of the speed limit in Rubery. This, I think, will go some distance towards alleviating my hon. Friend's anxiety.

We had our meeting, with 250 to 300 people there. The public asked a great number of questions, and I hope that it was right when my divisional road engineer reported to me that the meeting was quite satisfied about the steps which he announced would be taken to meet the fears of the pedestrians of Rubery.

I hope that, with that explanation, my hon. Friend will agree that we have gone as far as we reasonably could to ensure the safety of pedestrians in Rubery when the scheme is completed, and we have certainly gone some way to meet practically all their fears for the safety of pedestrians during the interim, before the final scheme is completed. We shall provide a crossing which will segregate pedestrians, and that is, I think, a vital factor. I hope that the accident rate in Rubery will be lower when that crossing is constructed than it is now. If, during the course of the work, my hon. Friend has any cause for anxiety, he will not hesitate, I hope, to get hold of me so that we may see what remedial measures can be taken. Knowing how tenacious he is, I have no doubt that he will get in touch with me if anything goes wrong. I do not myself think that it will, and I believe that the final arrangements we have made will be satisfactory to both my hon. Friend and his constituents. I hope that he will rest content with the explanation I have given.