§ 31. Mr. Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to what extent the proceedings of the public inquiry about the fall into the sea, and the death of the pilot and two passengers, of a Proctor aircraft belonging to Guernsey Air Charter, Ltd., and operated by Atlas Aviation, Ltd., revealed breaches of the regulations by either or both companies; and whether criminal proceedings will be taken.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren)The report on this accident, published on 30th January, revealed breaches of the regulations. But the pilot was dead, and the Minister was advised that there was no one else against whom proceedings could be successfully instituted.
§ Mr. KeelingIs it not a fact that Atlas Aviation Limited carried out none of the maintenance or inspection required by the regulations, and can the Minister say why they are not going to be prosecuted? As regards the other company, is it a fact that a chartered aircraft flying from the Channel Islands is not subject to the ordinary regulations, and, on that account, cannot be prosecuted?
§ Mr. LindgrenSo far as the first part of the supplementary question is concerned, it is a matter of, the ownership of the aircraft, and, in this case, Atlas Aviation Limited were not the owners. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, both A.R.S. regulations and the Air Navigation Act are not applicable in the State of Guernsey.
§ Mr. KeelingHow is it that the report says that Atlas Aviation Limited were believed to be the owners?
§ Mr. LindgrenThe report says they were believed to be the owners, but, in actual fact, the owner was found to be a Mr. Dawson.
§ Mr. Joynson-HicksDoes not the Minister's reply indicate that the regulations need tightening up very much, because it seems perfectly evident that anybody can obviate the necessity of complying with the regulations.
§ Mr. LindgrenLegal advice is being taken. The regulation gives a defence when action is taken without fault or privity, and that is the outlet in this case.
§ 32. Mr. Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why eight weeks elapsed after the disaster to a Proctor aircraft in the Channel on 16th April before an inquiry was held; what was the interval between the Minister's receipt of the report of the inquiry and its publication; and what was the cause of the delay in each case.
§ Mr. LindgrenThe preliminary investigation began on the day after the accident. Following the public hearing of the inquiry, the Chief Inspector of Accidents submitted his report on 28th July, 1947, but publication was deferred pending a decision as to whether criminal proceedings should be taken. The report was published on 30th January, 1948.
§ Mr. KeelingIf these inquiries are to have a salutary effect on others, is it not desirable that the report should be published less than nine months after the inquiry?
§ Mr. LindgrenYes, Sir, but it is also required that, if criminal proceedings are contemplated, the report should not be published, because that would prejudice those proceedings if taken.
§ Mr. Walter FletcherIs eight or nine months' delay active consideration?
§ Mr. LindgrenNo, Sir. It was, in fact, six months; and, in so far as the three months, from the end of October to the end of January, are concerned, I must apologise to the House and take responsibility for Departmental laxity there.
§ Mr. OsborneWhy should not proceedings be taken against Mr. Dawson?
§ Mr. LindgrenBecause the action taken was without his fault or privity.