HC Deb 10 July 1946 vol 425 cc371-3
9. Sir John Mellor

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the crash of a naval aircraft at Castle Hills Farm, Bickenhill, Warwickshire, on 3rd January was reported; when he was informed of the damage done by the R.A.F. in removing the pieces; and when the tenant was informed that his claim should be sent to his Department instead of the Air Ministry.

Mr. Dugdale

This crash was reported to the Admiralty on 3rd January as a casualty, but as already indicated in the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 19th May, owing to the failure of the parent naval air station to take all the action prescribed for reporting accidents, it was not simultaneously reported as a claim. Notice of the claim in respect of damage caused by the crash and by the salvage operations which were carried out by the local naval authorities was not received until early in May, when the papers were forwarded to the Admiralty by the Air Ministry. I understand the tenant's agent was simultaneously informed that his claim had been so forwarded. Owing to the lapse of time and subsequent dispersal of officers and men, considerable difficulty was experienced in confirming the facts, but a meeting on the site was held on 28th June, as a result of which the claim was settled to the tenant's full satisfaction.

Sir J. Mellor

As damage was admittedly done, will the Minister explain why no communication was made to him by the Admiralty during the four months following the crash?

Mr. Dugdale

I have already explained, and have admitted in full, why the information was not in fact sent to the Admiralty. I have admitted that a mistake was made. Even in the Royal Navy, mistakes do sometimes occur.

Sir J. Mellor

Is not this evidence of not only a mistake but a breakdown in the whole system?

Mr. Dugdale

No, Sir, I could not possibly admit that.

17. Sir J. Mellor

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why his director of lands and requisitioning wrote on 7th May to the representative of the tenant of Castle Hills Farm, Bickenhill, Warwickshire, that difficulty had been experienced in establishing the identity of an aircraft which crashed on the farm on 3rd January; and when his Department ascertained this identity.

The Under-Secretary of State for (Mr. de Freitas)

I am afraid there was a misunderstanding when this claim was put to the Air Ministry. The tenant's agent told us that the Royal Air Force had caused the damage. In March, however, our local Works officer found nut that the crashed aircraft had belonged to a naval air station in Scotland; also that the Navy, not the R.A.F., had been responsible for the damage done in taking it away. After these facts had been established, the case was not well handled, and unfortunately none of the information was passed on to the agent or to the Admiralty until early in May. I regret this delay in correcting the original impression that the R.A.F. had any responsibility in the case.

Sir J. Mellor

While I welcome the Under-Secretary's apology, may I ask him to explain why it took four months for the Royal Air Force to discover that a crashed aircraft did not belong to them?

Mr. de Freitas

That is a very difficult point. Unfortunately, as in so many matters, the assumption by everyone concerned, especially the tenant and his agent, was that because it was an aircraft it was one of ours, and we went off entirely on the wrong track. It took some time to discover that, and it was after that that we really slipped up.

Lieut.-Colonel Thorp

Are not aero-plane casualties reported?

Mr. de Freitas

I think my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty disclosed that there was a difficulty here in that a proper claim was not put in by the parent naval station in this case.