AERIAL NAVIGATION BILL. (Hansard, 29 May 1911)

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)
I hope that the House will allow this Bill to pass its Second Reading. The House knows that the position of public business is such that we cannot hope to pass a general Bill dealing with aerial navigation this Session. [An HON. MEMBER "Why not?"] I said the House knows the reason, and I shall not attempt to answer the monosyllabic interruption of the hon. Member. The Coronation is approaching, when great crowds will be in the streets, and there are other celebrations on which crowds will certainly be assembled before any general legislation dealing with aerial navigation can be passed; and they ought not to be subjected to the risks caused by aeroplanes manœuvring at a low level calculated to give rise to panic and disaster. We have already had a reminder of the serious nature of accidents that may occur when anything goes wrong either with the skill of the aeronaut or with the stability of his machinery. This Bill is not put forward as a solution of the difficulty attending the legislative control of this new form of locomotion. It is only put forward to prevent disastrous things happening in the period before this matter can be studied with attention and in detail in the House of Commons.
Let me say that the Government would greatly regret to do anything in any way to hamper the development of this vast industry, which we believe is fraught with immense consequences—I will not say whether good or bad—but immense consequences to the strength and fortunes of the people of these islands, quite apart from its general effect on civilisation. We must have some regulation in the meanwhile that will enable us to prevent disasters recurring and undue risks being run by the public. I am quite prepared to admit that this Bill cannot pass unless it is generally agreed to. Therefore I shall endeavour as far as possible to meet the views of those who entertain apprehensions as to its effects. I am quite willing, it not being an agreed Bill, to take a little less than I should if the Government had been able to make a demand on the full time of the House for the purposes of discussion. I shall be quite prepared to leave out the 838 first clause altogether and to fall back on our right in common law in respect of that. In regard to the second clause I shall be quite prepared to leave out the words "or allows an aerial craft to be navigated." That is to say, the Bill would only attach the penalty to the person who actually navigated the air craft, and not try to throw indirect responsibility upon a person who had no control over it. I shall be prepared to introduce words in Committee which will make it clear that if the air craft goes over a prohibited area, and had drifted there through breakdown of machinery or stress of weather, that should be a valid defence under the Act. I propose also in Clause 3, after the words "on indictment" to insert the words "or summarily" to enable the case to be disposed of by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, instead of being sent for trial. Then I propose to leave out the last three lines of Clause 3 which provide for the alternative procedure. That alteration does not really affect the effect of the Clause in any way. Aeronauts are a small and adventurous class, and I think we all owe a great deal to these men, who risk their lives and give a fine exhibition of human power. I am informed that they regard the period of two years' imprisonment and the fine of £500 as an indication that the Government and the House of Commons want to strike at this new invention, but, on the contrary, that is not our intention. We want to set it free from the consequences of the action of a few individuals.
I propose to reduce the penalty from two years to six months and the fine from £500 to £200. I may add that in most cases the penalty is for the aeronaut who recklessly or negligently navigates his craft. I do not think the reduction of the sentences will affect the purpose which we have in view. I also agree that if a person charged under this Act is dissatisfied with the decision of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction he shall have a right to have the case sent to a jury, and to go to trial in the ordinary way. This is entirely incidental and emergency legislation, and I have not had the opportunity of putting the Amendments on the Paper, and to-morrow we must take the Committee stage if we are to have these powers before the Coronation. I will see, however, that the necessary Amendments are forwarded to-morrow morning, and they will be in the Vote Office later in the afternoon. That being so, I hope the House will agree that this is a measure which will not prejudice the future of 839 aerial navigation or in any way deals with it hardly. It is an interim measure brought in to prevent crowds of the public being subjected to unnecessary danger in the future, and, of course, it must be followed within the next two Sessions of Parliament by a fuller and more complete attempt to solve the new problem which has come so suddenly, but yet, I think, so auspiciously upon the world. I should be very glad indeed if the House would give a Second Reading to the Bill, as we should have a good deal of responsibility if we allowed matters to proceed without any legislation which would enable the Government to regulate this matter during the period which lies immediately before us.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion, in view of the reasonable attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up, and the efforts which he is making to meet the wishes and representations of those who are especially interested in this great movement. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that speaking on behalf of the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee, which comprises Members of all sides of the House, we have put forward our representations to him in a reasonable spirit, and I should like to express our obligations to him for the way in which he has received them. At the same time the Committee, and, as far as I can make out, aerial authorities outside, are of opinion that this Bill really is unnecessary in the sense of being required in a hurry to deal with a great emergency. We do not consider that there is really any great danger to the crowds which will assemble at the Coronation, and I do not believe for a moment that there ever was any intention on the part of any aviator in this country to fly his machine over the crowds in London during the Coronation period. I have talked to a good many, and on all hands have met with a repudiation of the idea which I think only originated in the Press. I quite agree that there is a certain danger to be guarded against not so much from aeroplanes falling upon crowds, but from the possibility of panic through the idea or even the cry of aeroplanes or other aerial machines passing over the heads of a great crowd. One great danger always is to get a big crowd in motion, and to that extent, I think the right hon. Gentleman's precautions are justified; but when he spoke of the Paris disaster as providing a lesson which shows the 840 need for this legislation, what is really needed for that purpose, if you are to deal with that kind of danger, is a Bill to restrain eminent persons from straying on the course at flying demonstration, a difficulty which I am sure must have been apparent to many Members who attended the demonstration at Hendon the other day, and but for that straying on the course there is no doubt that the distinguished French statesman who was a victim of the accident would have been in no danger at all. The aviator was entirely exonerated by the jury from any blame whatever. I do not think that this particular danger is one with which this Bill will really deal, but I recognise that there is a certain public sentiment in favour of taking some action with regard to the Coronation, and I recognise that the Government does not wish to do anything which would set back this great invention.
Of course the principal object which the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee has is to prevent any action which will have the really deplorable effect of placing us even more behind other nations than we are at present in this great new development. I welcome the modifications which the right hon. Gentleman has made in the Bill, because as drafted it would have been a most serious set-back to the development of this science. I do not believe any aviator would care to take the risks of flying across the country under the conditions imposed in Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman is going to withdraw that Clause, and the chief objection to the Bill is thus removed. I am glad he spoke a word of commendation of the service which is being rendered to the country by these gentlemen, who are risking their lives and giving their brains and their energies to develop a science or art which, however much it may be in an embryonic stage at present, is full of incalculable possibilities for the future, and, whether we like it or not, has to be taken up seriously by the Government, if only with a view to national defence. It will be a disaster really to take any step which would seriously discourage a movement which is already backward in this country. We welcome the reasonable attitude which the Government has taken up, and we recognise that this must be an agreed Bill, and if the Amendments foreshadowed are incorporated in the Bill no one in the House who has any knowledge of aviation or is interested in the question will raise any serious objection to it.
841 It is obviously only a temporary measure intended to deal with a temporary emergency, and, speaking on behalf of the Parliamentary Committee, I have to say that we will accept it in that spirit as a temporary measure. We are obliged, so far as we are concerned, to do everything we can to help the right hon. Gentleman in passing the Bill through under the exceptional procedure which will be necessary in June.

§ Mr. PETO
I only rise because, in my view, the objection which I wish to take to the Bill is one entirely different from that stated by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee). I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that here you have legislation for the first time in regard to a special and novel purpose. You have legislation which, according to the speech of the Home Secretary, is necessitated in view of the fact that there are likely to be abnormal crowds assembled on the occasion of the King's Coronation a few weeks hence. One would have thought, in view of the Government's methods of legislation in this House, that the obvious thing would have been to propose as an interim measure—a perfectly simple Bill of practically one clause prohibiting aerial navigation in the whole of the metropolitan area of London during a certain definite period. That would have got over the difficulty, while the Government and others responsible for the safety of the public were considering what steps should be taken to regulate this perfectly new method of navigation.
I desire to call the attention of the House to what is to be included in this Bill as amended. There is practically one operative clause which provides that a Secretary of State—the Home Secretary at the present time—can make any rules and regulations he chooses to prescribe in respect of the areas he chooses, and also that he shall be the sole judge of what is dangerous or likely to be dangerous. I think that is an extraordinary commentary on the contention of this House that the modern tendency of legislation is to place power in the hands of the Government, to make debate in this House practically unnecessary, and to render the attendance here of a large proportion of Members little more than a farce. This Bill might have carried out its purpose as efficiently if the House had been left to judge, after proper discussion on the First and Second Readings and in the Committee stage, whether, under these exceptional circumstances, it is necessary to give the 842 Secretary of State power to do more than prescribe rules for the whole area of the Metropolis for a certain period.

§ Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER
As this is only a temporary measure, I would ask the Home Secretary to take this point into consideration, namely, that he will have to legislate much more for this science of aerial navigation. I would suggest that when he does that he should take into consideration the repeal of this Act and the embodiment of all the legislation on the subject in one Act.