HC Deb 02 May 1957 vol 569 cc423-5
Mr. W. Wells

I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, to leave out from "to" to "or" in line 34 and insert: dismissal from Her Majesty's service or any less punishment authorised by this Act ". In order to understand the purpose of the Amendment it is necessary first to glance at Clause 43, which specifies a certain scale of penalties including death, imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service, and so forth. Secondly, it is necessary to look at this group or, as some technically-minded gentlemen might say, this fasciculus of Clauses, which deal with various—to use a generic term—wrong forms of flying. Clause 20 deals with dangerous flying. Clause 21 deals with low flying and Clause 22 with annoyance by flying.

No question arises in relation to Clause 20. It is quite clear why the penalty for dangerous flying should be more serious than that for low flying or annoyance by flying but, in moving the Amendment, I am seeking the reason for making the penalty in Clause 21 more grave than the penalty in Clause 22.

The offence in Clause 21 is flying …at a height less than such height as may be provided by any regulations issued under the authority of the Admiralty, the Army Council or the Air Council, except—

  1. (a) while taking off or alighting;or
  2. (b) in such other circumstances as may be so provided…"
The penalty provided by the Clause is that a person guilty of low-flying within the meaning of the Clause shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or any less punishment authorised by this Act. Clause 22, however, provides that a person subject to this Act who, being the pilot of one of Her Majesty's aircraft, flies it so as to cause, or to be likely to cause, unnecessary annoyance to any person shall be liable to dismissal from Her Majesty's Service or any less punishment authorised by this Act. The object of the Amendment is to assimilate the punishment for low flying to the punishment for annoyance by flying. It seems to usprima faciethat they are both the same kind of offence. Low flying is a particular form of annoyance by flying, and unnecessary annoyance covers a variety of things other than low flying. We should have thought that the appropriate penalty should have been the same in each instance.

Mr. Soames

Low flying is a term of art. Annoyance by flying might be said to include low flying, but low flying stands on its own as being a particular danger not only to the pilot and his aircraft, but also to the general public.

I well remember, within a week or so of my becoming Under-Secretary of State for Air, that I had the unpleasant duty of going to a small Sussex village where I saw the result of low flying. A young, over-zealous pilot had been flying very low over that village in which his family lived. He was right off course and he flew too low over the village a couple of times, he did not pull out of one dive, and he did considerable damage. It was only by the grace of God that there was not more severe loss of life than there was.

I am not saying that in every case of low flying for which a man is reported he will get a sentence of two years' imprisonment, but we regard this as a serious offence and we should like to have it written into the Bill that anyone guilty of low flying could be given this considerable penalty, if need be, as a preventive more than a cure.

The next point is that the Air Force also provides a penalty of two years' imprisonment for low flying. In fact, it has a penalty of two years for annoyance by flying. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) raised this point in the Select Committee. He said that annoyance by flying was not so severe as that caused by low flying, so in Clause 22 we have departed from the Air Force Act and provided for a lesser penalty than does the Air Force for the equivalent offence. However, we feel it is essential to keep this penalty for low flying, because low flying can have such a serious effect upon the public.

Mr. Wells

In view of the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.