HC Deb 23 November 1949 vol 470 cc340-5
Mr. Lennox-Boyd

(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on the Report by Mr. T. P. McDonald, K.C., on the Prestwick air disaster last October and the Minister of Civil Aviation's observations on this Report and the subsequent comments of the President of the Court.

Mr. Lindgren

Yes, Sir. I am grateful to the hon. Member for providing this opportunity. I have no general comment to make on the Report by Mr. T. P. McDonald, K.C., beyond the statement already published by my noble Friend, but he is particularly concerned with Mr. McDonald's charge in the published correspondence that my noble Friend seeks to attach the blame for the disaster to the dead pilot. My noble Friend pointed out, in a telegram which Mr. McDonald received before publishing the correspondence, that he could in no way accept this allegation, and my noble Friend wishes to express his regret that this telegram was not included in the published correspondence. My noble Friend is well aware that the circumstances of the accident render it impossible to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the cause, and that such matters as turbulence and engine trouble, referred to in paragraphs 153 and 154 of the Report, cannot be ruled out. My noble Friend is satisfied, from a full consideration of the evidence, that no member of the staff of the Air Traffic Control or Meteorological Services bears any responsibility for the accident. He is anxious that none of them should go through life with such a shadow resting upon them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the point of having an impartial judicial inquiry at all if, simultaneously with the publication of the Report, Ministers issue their own comments based, at best, on facts not before the court, and, at worst, on no facts at all?

Mr. Lindgren

This is not a court of law but a court of inquiry. After a court of inquiry has submitted its report to the Minister, surely the Minister is permitted to dissociate himself, in the protection of his staff, from one of the findings of the report?

Mr. Eden

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any information was available to the Minister which was not available to the court of inquiry which he himself set up, and if there was such information, can he tell us what it was?

Mr. Lindgren

No, Sir. It was on the evidence which was before the inquiry—it is a matter of opinion on that evidence.

Mr. Eden

Are we to understand that the Minister sets up a court of inquiry, before which evidence is made available, that it makes its report and the Minister, on the same evidence, takes a contrary view? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Then, why have the farce of an inquiry at all?

Mr. Lindgren

I should have thought that it is common procedure for an inquiry to be held and for the Minister setting up such an inquiry to accept or reject the findings.

Mr. Rankin

In the course of his comments on the Report, the Minister of Civil Aviation made the remark that he was publishing the statement, to which my hon. Friend has made reference, "in order to protect the civil servants concerned." Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the desire to protect civil servants does not take precedence over ensuring the safety of those who travel in aircraft?

Mr. Lindgren

Yes, Sir—absolutely. All the findings of this inquiry, and any other inquiry, are given due weight and consideration and implemented according to whether they are appropriate or not.

Mr. Wyatt

On a point of Order. Can. you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of Members in general in putting Private Notice Questions, say what was the definition of urgency which governed the acceptance of this Question?

Mr. Speaker

Certainly not. The hon. Member must not challenge my decision. As a matter or fact, I considered that there was a considerable amount of urgency, and that is why I allowed the Question.

Mr. Wyatt

I am very sorry if I seemed to be challenging your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I was merely asking the question for information.

Mr. Speaker

Reasons why I do or do not accept Questions are not in Order.

Mr. Emrys Roberts

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House why the Minister of Civil Aviation, when he dissented from the Report, said he did not propose to give his reasons? Is it not very undesirable that the Minister should dissent without giving specific reasons?

Mr. Lindgren

No, Sir. He has given his decisions after considering the facts—he says so.

Mr. Eden

There have, I think, been circumstances in which Ministers have disagreed with the reports of committees they have set up, but have there been any cases where, a report having been submitted, the Minister has not come down to the House, having studied the report, and given his reasons and explanations? [HON.MEMBERS: "Answer."] May I ask the Prime Minister if he can recall any such precedent, because I can recall none?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is my hon. Friend aware that the last thing people in Prestwick want is that this should be made a party matter? Is he aware that this accident took place in October, that five months passed before the commission reported, and that another five months passed before the Report was laid before the House? Will he do something to accelerate the reports of these commissions? Will he also assure us that every step is now being taken at Prestwick to carry out the recommendations and ensure that Prestwick is made safer?

Mr. Lindgren

Yes, Sir. All the recommendations of the Report, and others arising subsequent to the inquiry, have been fully investigated and are being implemented where appropriate. On the legal side of the inquiry, surely there would have been interference by the Minister if, in fact, he had interfered with its progress. He appointed the inquiry, and the lawyer took a very long time to consider the Report. The inquiry was held in February, and it was not until July that the gentleman in charge of the inquiry presented his Report. There had to be discussions with the Dutch Government, which took a certain amount of time due to the questions of translation and so on which arose. Everything possible was done with the utmost speed after receipt of the Report by the Minister.

Sir T. Moore

How can the Government expect distinguished and erudite civilians to preside over such inquiries in the future, if the Minister responsible immediately disregards the findings?

Mr. Lindgren

May I make it clear that there is no disregarding of the findings? All that has happened is that because civil servants are concerned—it is not the usual custom for them to defend themselves—the responsible Minister has stated that in his opinion no blame attaches to them.

Mr. Gallacher

Is it not the case that civil servants had a right to defend themselves at the inquiry? Are we to take it, in view of the fact that we have already discussed another important inquiry, that it is the intention or desire of the Minister who appoints these inquiries that they should report according to his views and desires, or is the inquiry to be completely independent of the Minister, or the Governor, as the case may be?

Mr. Lindgren

I think I have made it perfectly clear that the inquiry was independent. There was no interference in any shape or form. All that has happened is that, when the President of the Court presented his Report to the Minister, the Minister, in considering the Report, dissented from the implications of one of the findings.

Mr. Marlowe

As the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Minister and the tribunal relied on the same evidence, can he state the grounds on which the Minister, who did not hear the witnesses, considered himself in a better position to weigh up the evidence than the tribunal, which did hear the evidence.

Mr. Lindgren

Surely the Minister is entitled to an opinion.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas

Would my hon. Friend agree that if any precedent as to repudiation of, or disagreement with, the findings of any committee or commission were necessary, such a precedent could be found in the repeated refusals of successive Coalition and Conservative Governments to act on the findings of committees and commissions of inquiry into the nationalisation of the mining industry?

Air-Commodore Harvey

Is it not desirable that all inquiries into civil air accidents should be completely divorced from the Ministry of Civil Aviation, bearing in mind that the Ministry's own staff might well be involved and implicated, thus laying the Minister open to serious difficulties with a foreign Power, which might make a claim when he has dissented from the opinion of an inquiry?

Mr. Lindgren

That is what has happened in this case. The court of inquiry which was set up by the Minister was entirely outside the Ministry. On the findings the Minister has made some observations.

Mr. Swingler

Will not my hon. Friend satisfy the House by undertaking to make another statement, setting out the reasons why the Minister dissents from the findings of the court of inquiry?

Mr. Lindgren

I am prepared to put that point to my noble Friend; no doubt he will take it fully into consideration.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft

Is not a matter of considerable urgency involved here? The Report of the impartial inquiry discloses a state of considerable inefficiency, which the Minister denies exists. In those circumstances, surely it is essential, in the interests of public safety, that the Parliamentary Secretary should come to the House again and disclose in full detail—not by question and answer—in a Debate the grounds for that decision and the action which it is proposed to take.

Mr. Lindgren

I regret that such an irresponsible observation should have been made by the hon. Member, who has not even read the report. If he will do so he will see that no such allegations of inefficiency are made against anybody.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

In view of the grave nature of this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.