HC Deb 16 April 1959 vol 603 cc1271-82

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

10.7 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)

I am very grateful nor the opportunity of claiming redress by the traditional method of speaking on the Adjournment of the House for the grievance of my constituent, Captain Hankin, a former B.E.A. pilot. I ask the House to regard this matter as one of first-class importance not only because it involves the whole livelihood and reputation of a man, but also because it provides a striking example of the need for constant vigilance in the never-ending struggle for the protection of the individual against the arbitrary powers of the State.

No one suggests that a Minister or a civil servant would deliberately and intentionally oppress one of Her Majesty's subjects or deprive him of his rights, but the bureaucratic machine is an entirely inhuman and soulless thing and it is essential that it should be kept under control and constantly checked with the bit, if not by the Minister responsible then by the House.

The first matter that I complain of has to do with the methods which were adopted by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in connection with the recent publication of the Report of the Prestwick air crash inquiry, which severely censured Captain Hankin without, as I submit, giving him the rights which Parliament has said he should have in those circumstances, and which has so seriously and wrongfully damaged him.

I ask the House to note particularly the timetable. On 21st March of this year, which was a Saturday, Captain Hankin received from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation a copy of the chief inspector's report on the Prestwick air crash. together with a statement that it would be published on the following Wednesday, 25th March. That report severely censured him. He had not previously seen it or been permitted to challenge it in the way that he was entitled to do. Yet he was given only four days, including the weekend, in which to discover and take any measures he could to protect himself against the consequences of that publication.

Those consequences might well be ruinous to him. Apart from the effect of the publicity itself, the findings in that report could be, and in all probability would be, used for the purpose of justifying the cancellation of Captain Hankin's pilot's licence, with no possibility of an appeal.

That prompts my first demand this evening, that the Minister should explain, as The Times asked that he should do in a very critical leading article on 26th March, why this haste and why this timing? The crash took place almost exactly a year ago. What was a matter of four or five days? Was it simply thoughtlessness on the part of my right hon. Friend's officers, or was it designed to prevent Captain Hankin from making a nuisance of himself by insisting on his rights? The House is entitled to an answer to that question.

It was only by most fortunate series of circumstances that Captain Hankin's position was saved. Fortunately, he was at home when the letter arrived. He had four days, including the weekend, to do something and, fortunately, he realised, although we had never met, that his Member for Parliament was the person to go to at once, and within an hour or so of receiving the letter, fortunately, he put the papers in my hand.

When I read them I realised that speed was vital. We must catch up with the bureaucratic machine which was to publish this devastating statement about him on Wednesday morning. Providence was on his side, because I discovered that the Minister was to answer questions orally on the Wednesday, and, therefore, by acting at once it was possible to put down Questions, which appeared on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, to give him, at any rate, a chance to catch up, and those Question were dealt with on that day, as the House will know.

I also wrote the Minister a personal note appealing to him to delay the publication of the report pending dealing with my Question. After a year one might have thought two or three days would not matter, but it was too late for that. I do not blame my right hon. Friend personally for a moment, but the Whitehall machine was too efficient. Copies of the report had already been distributed to the Press and the release time had been fixed, but they had not been provided for Members of Parliament. Even on the Wednesday morning there were no copies of that report available in the Library or the Vote Office, until I insisted on the telephone to the Department that they should be produced. That, perhaps, will be explained.

It is with a full sense of responsibility that I say this, and I must challenge my right hon. Friend to deny it if he can. But for this fire brigade action which I was able to take, before the end of the Easter Recess and while the House was not sitting, Captain Hankin would have been deprived of his licence. The only thing that stopped it was the power of the House of Commons and public opinion when reports appeared in the Press of the Questions and Answers in the House on 25th March. I say to the Minister in all seriousness that I believe that the whole House and the general public will say that such behaviour by his Department will not be tolerated again.

Next, I come to the report itself. In paragraph 7, the report contains this statement: Compliance with regulations. In conducting this investigation the provisions of paragraph (5) of Regulation 7 of the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations, 1951… have been complied with. The Regulations say that the report must contain a statement showing to what extent the Regulations have been complied with. That does not appear in the report and it does not appear for the very good reason that as soon as one inquires to what extent they have been complied with, one sees the nakedness of the claim.

Let us consider what has been done. How far had Captain Hankin been allowed an opportunity of making a statement, examining witnesses, cross-examining witnesses, and taking the other steps necessary to vindicate himself? He was permitted, when he had a broken back and was in hospital two days after the crash, to make a statement. Many months later, in November and December, he had several interviews with the chief inspector, one lasting two and a half hours. That was all. He did not get the opportunity, for which he asked, of examining and cross-examining witnesses. Still less was he allowed to put forward and have considered his grounds for a public inquiry, which he thought ought to take place in the public interest.

It is rather dreadful to find that he wrote no fewer than four letters requesting that he should be allowed to exercise his rights under Regulation 7 (5). Only one of those letters was even acknowledged. None was answered. I have those letters with me, although I do not have time to read them because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. It is rather tragic that a man who is in danger of losing his whole livelihood as a pilot should appeal for his rights under a Statute and not even have his letters answered by the Minister. How does my right hon. Friend propose to explain that?

I have the letters with me. One is dated 4th November, 1958; there is no answer to that. The next is dated 23rd November, 1958; the next 6th December; and the next was written in January. In the letter of 6th December he actually set out a number of detailed points with which he wanted to deal and about which he wished to examine witnesses and so forth. He said: The controller had conflicting altitudes reported to him.…controller aware that an altitude reporting error had been made…? If so, why did he not check with the pilot…? Another subject was the question of the altimeter, with which I do not have time to deal but which has become notorious. The letter concludes: … I would like to ask you to authorise a public inquiry… as it seems possible that all the relevant facts… cannot be obtained in any other way. There was no answer. In his letter of 9th January, he said: A reply to my letter.. would be appreciated… A reply by the Minister to the debate tonight would be appreciated.

Eventually, one acknowledgement appeared. It was not a statement that he was to get his rights, or anything of that kind. It was this: The representations made by you, both in writing and by telephone, have been carefully considered and it is now my duty to forward my report on the accident to the Minister. I can supply one reason why those letters were not answered. The main burden of Captain Hankins' complaint and request was that he could exercise his rights properly only if it were done by a public inquiry, and that the public interest could only be served in that way.

He was not told, and I did not know until last Monday, that it had been decided months before that there would be no public inquiry. His letters were, in effect, meaningless. Would it not have been fairer and straighter to have written back and said, " I am sorry, you have ' had it '? We had already decided not to have a public inquiry before we consulted you at all." That would have been an honest thing to say, but it would not have looked very good.

I have no more time to say more now, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who can speak on behalf of the Pilots' Association and its view of this mater, desires to say a few words before the Minister replies.

What does my right hon. Friend propose to do about this matter? I put it in this way, that, first, we are entitled to a frank admission that Captain Hankin has not had his rights as provided for by the Statute. Secondly, we are entitled to know what the Minister proposes to do to give Captain Hankin redress far the absence of those rights. Thirdly, we are entitled to know what the Minister intends to do to ensure that no such case can recur in future. We demand answers to those three questions. We must have them this evening, or obtain them in some other way.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Frank Beswick (Uxbridge)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has made a formidable case and I know that the House would like to hear the Minister's answer. Many people will be grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and not only those who are immediately interested.

It is essential that a man whose career is prejudiced has a fair hearing. The procedure that was followed in this case did not give this pilot a fair hearing. We want to know, either that the Regulations were not followed, in which case there should be some explanation, or we should have a definite assurance that the Regulations will be amended in future. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us one way or the other.

10.24 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson)

I will satisfy the hon. Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) right away by saying that the Regulations were fully and completely satisfied, as I said when the Question was raised in the House. I will now explain why and how.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley)

Silly Regulations.

Mr. Watkinson

I do not blame my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) for pressing the case for one of his constituents. The House would be a very poor place if we did not do that, but whether he has done it in the best way is for him to judge and not me. My duty is to be responsible for over 4 million passengers whose safety is in the charge of my Ministry. I want to make it plain to this House that I entirely support the action of my Chief Inspector of Accidents. His duty to find out the cause of an accident was fully carried out in this case, and I will do nothing that will in the slightest detract from the necessity for him and his other inspectors dealing with these matters in a way which preserves general safety even if it sometimes causes complaint by individuals.

Mr. Hirst

That is not the point.

Mr. Watkinson

As to the case of Captain Hankin, there are a good many other sides to this case and I will give as many of them as time permits. First, my right hon. and learned Friend said, or implied, that the first statement was taken from him under difficult conditions. That was not the case at all. A representative of his union —B.A.L.P.A. —was present when the statement was taken and a doctor's clearance was obtained for the statement to be made. This statement was given to me in the inspector's report and it had been digested by me when I decided whether there should be a public inquiry. The statement clearly sets out that the pilot, Captain Hankin, realised as soon as he got out of the aircraft that he had made an error.

My right hon. and learned Friend would have been fairer if he had quoted the letter written by Captain Hankin on 4th November. because it throws a different light on the matter. On that date Captain Hankin wrote to my Ministry, and it is only fair for me to say this was after two and a half hours during which Captain Hankin had every opportunity to ask any questions he wanted to ask—ch he at no time asked—examine witnesses, then or at any time. Although he had the full range of these rights explained to him, and set out in a letter sent to him, in his letter he wrote: Whilst not disputing that some degree of responsibility for the accident to G-AORC may be attributed to me those are very significant words— I find myself unable to relinquish the right to challenge the evidence contained in the Report, should such a step appear necessary, because I have not been permitted to see the Repot. That is common form. No man in these cases is permitted to see the report.

The case that I want to make, and which it would have been fairer of my right hon. and learned Friend to have disclosed, is that Captain Hankin—doing so he was acting honestly and honourably—ays disclosed that he accepted a certain measure of responsibility. That is one of the reasons why I decided not to have a public inquiry. That is one of the criteria of which I have to take account when considering whether or not a public inquiry is necessary.

There is a lot to be said in this case for justice to be done to my Ministry. A lot of wild allegations have been made by my right hon. and learned Friend. For example, he said that my Ministry has behaved in an inhuman fashion. That is not so. Let us take another side of the case. On 20th October, when it became clear that Captain Hankin might be held blameworthy, a letter was sent to him by the chief inspector, fully setting out his rights. The letter said: Where it appears to the Inspector that any degree of responsibility for the accident may he attributed to any person, and if it appears to the Inspector to he practicable so to do, that person or, if he be deceased, his legal personal representatives, shall be given notice that blame may be attributed to him and be permitted to make a statement or give evidence and to produce witnesses and to examine any witnesses from whose evidence it appears that he may be blameworthy. 1 therefore have the duty to inform you that some degree of responsibility for the accident may be attributed to you in the circumstances outlined in the accompanying certificate. If you wish to attend this Office in order to exercise your rights under this Regulation an appointment can be made for you on request during the week beginning October 20th. That was the date of the letter. Captain Hankin fully exercised his rights. I have been most carefully into the matter and I find that at no time did he ask to call any witnesses or further to exercise his rights, which had been clearly pointed out to him under the Regulations.

We now come to the question of Captain Hankin's reiterated view—quite natural view— felt that if a public inquiry had been held he might have derived some advantage there from. The Regulations give the Minister discretion in this matter. The Minister is rightly held by this House to take as his criteria the interests of the pilot as well as the ascertainment of the cause of the accident. As, in this case, the pilot had accepted at least a measure of responsibility, and as the cause of the accident was clear, and no passenger lives were lost— the aircraft was not on a passenger flight-4 felt that the public interest would not be served in this case by the full range of a public inquiry. That does not mean that I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's view that this man has not had his fair and just rights.

I now turn to the question of Captain Hankin's future, because my right hon. and learned Friend is quite right to say that his interest is to try to see that his future is protected as far as possible. That thought was always in my mind, and I would certainly tell my right hon. and learned Friend that in view of the circumstances, which I have considered very carefully, I do not think that there is cause either to withdraw or cancel Captain Hankin's airline pilot's licence. I hope that will be some satisfaction to my right hon. and learned Friend. If he thought we were going to do that, I think he was rather misjudging us.

Certainly, we should not have done it without further consultation with Captain Hankin. Anyway, he may like to know that, having considered these matters carefully, my personal view is that I am not obliged to take action to suspend or to withdraw Captain Hankin's licence. That perhaps will get that matter out of the way.

The main point I want to make is this. These investigations are a very difficult job for the Chief Inspector. To call the Chief Inspector and the staff—cidentally, are quite independent, not part of my Ministry but appointed by the Minister and responsible only to him" inhuman bureaucrats" is, in my view, overstating the case. They have a single-minded duty to get at the truth. With all my experience at the Ministry, with an average of 50 or 60 accidents a year to investigate, I have never found them fail in their duty. So I hope the House will accept that on the issue, which is our main responsibility, of finding the cause of the accident, which was clearly established, no blame and no imputation should be laid on my inspectorate.

We come to the second issue, the issue as to whether this man—leave aside the legal niceties, although I want to make it quite plain that the action taken was entirely within the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations— rights. I am quite sure that, all through, Captain Hankin was properly warned. He was properly told what he rights were. His case was sympathetically examined with him. He was told clearly what his position was. He was told clearly what his rights were. I do not deny for a moment and I do not differ from my right hon. and learned Friend in saying that he might have misunderstood exactly what his position at any time was. I think he certainly misunderstood that he could no longer demand a public inquiry at the late stage at which he was writing letters asking that a public inquiry should be held.

Mr. Hirst

He did not know.

Mr. Watkinson

He did know because it was clearly explained to him, as I have pointed out, by two letters and in a two and-a-half hours interview and in subsequent telephone conversations.

Mr. Beswick

At what date?

Mr. Watkinson

He was told initially in the first letter I read to the House, dated 20th October.

Mr. Beswick

The decision was made in May, 1958.

Mr. Watkinson

I have said the decision was made on the basis of the initial statement taken from Captain Hankin, with his union present, on 9th May, so there is no conflict in the dates.

I want to finish what I was going to say. Is it possible that by staying within the letter of the law there may be some risk that some injustice may be done to a pilot? All I say and I hope the House will trust me in saying it, is that if I thought that were so I should see that it was righted. My right hon. and learned Friend has put forward a case in which it might be said that a man misunderstood the position. Ever since the Winter Hill crash, two years ago, we have been looking into the question of pilots who survive and may be held blameworthy. We have been considering the whole position of these men to see if we can clarify it and make more clear to them what their rights are and to see that they obtain them.

That is important and shortly I shall be bringing before the House the clarification of these Regulations. I shall take careful note of what my right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Uxbridge have said, 'because it is my wish to see that justice appears to be done as well as seeing that the Regulations are kept. I certainly give an undertaking to the House that 1 will most carefully examine this whole matter again in the sense that we must see whether there is anything that we can do to ensure that a man does not misunderstand his position.

I do not disagree with my hon. and learned Friend putting his case high. I sincerely believe that this man had a fair deal but I equally accept from him that he may have misunderstood his position. I therefore think it my duty to see whether we can clarify the position in order to see that it does not happen again. I will do that, and I shall be bringing our proposals before the House in due course. As I said, we have been working on them for about two years. It is a very difficult matter but I hope that we shall be able to make some improvement.

To sum up, Captain Hankin will not have his licence withdrawn. He is still flying. I may say that he lost his job with B.E.A. not as a result of anything my Ministry did, but as a result of a disciplinary inquiry in B.E.A. long before the report of my inspector was published. That is not in issue in this case. What is in issue is whether we can do any more to make it plain to a man in his position exactly what his rights are and how he should exercise them. That I have undertaken to examine, and I hope that the examination will be beneficial in the future. It is certainly my wish to see that men in this difficult position, when perhaps they have suffered the loss of their comrades in aircrew, should have justice done to them.

My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the question of altimeters. It is only fair to say that the altimeter in this aircraft was of a modified type which already had an important modification on the middle pointer, which is the pointer most likely to be misread. A circle had been placed on the pointer.

I will gladly show any hon. Members who wish to see it a photograph of the instrument. I do not think it can be said, therefore, that he had not the most modern and best type of altimeter. We are, of course, taking further steps to improve the presentation, as I think is right, but it is right for me to say that he had the benefit of a most modern instrument, which had a modified pointer, which considerably reduces the risk of misreading. On all those technical grounds I believe that he had the best assistance which could be given to him.

As to whether there is any more that we can do to help him, in the last few days I have been through his case with a fine tooth-comb—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.