§ 46 and 47. Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) on what date he revised procedures for the testing of pilots to implement the recommendation regarding the six-months' check embodied in the report of the court investigation of the accident to Viking G-AJBO on 1st May, 1957;
(2) what steps have been taken to avoid the duplication of proceedings, the delay, and other disadvantages in the investigation of aircraft accidents due to the inadequate communications made by his Department to the coroners charged with the responsibility of inquiring into deaths caused by such accidents.
§ 52. Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why he submitted no evidence against the former directors of Independent Air Travel Limited, in respect of the Southall crash, in view of the fact that sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution was available between the conclusion of the inquest on 29th January and the expiry 1257 of the time for instituting proceedings for offences against the Air Navigation Order and Regulations on 2nd March, particulars of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Govan.
§ Mr. WatkinsonWith permission I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. 47 and 52 together.
I would refer hon. Members to the very full statement I gave in the House during the debate on Monday last, 20th July.
§ Mr. BeswickOn a point of Order. Is there any precedent for this procedure, Mr. Speaker? Here are two Questions of mine, dealing with entirely different matters. While it is true that the Minister made reference to the subject of my Question No. 46 during the debate on Monday, he gave completely inadequate and evasive replies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Should not we be entitled to have these Questions answered separately?
Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Gentleman thinks the Minister's Answer does not cover both his Questions, the is entitled to ask supplementary questions.
§ Mr. BeswickMay I therefore ask the Minister, on Question No. 46, whether it is not true that the right hon. Gentleman evaded the point in the debate on Monday—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—certainly.
Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make statements. He may ask his supplementary question.
§ Mr. BeswickI was not making irrelevant statements, Mr. Speaker, but putting a supplementary question following upon the reply given to my Question No. 46. This matter was mentioned in that debate and the Minister said that the regulations were a matter for the operating companies. What I want to ask the Minister now, if he will answer the question, is this: is not the fact that this was left entirely to the operating companies precisely what Mr. Justice Phillimore was complaining about in the original Report on the accident of 1st May, 1957? As there have been two further accidents since 1st May, 1957, is it not time that the Minister himself took more responsibility for enforcing those regulations?
§ Mr. WatkinsonI am always available to try to give the House the facts. It was within my recollection, and I think that of the hon. Gentleman, that both I and the Parliamentary Secretary dealt at very great length with this matter as recently as Monday night. The answer to the hon. Gentleman, as shortly as I can give it now, is that the six-monthly check for pilots is not a statutory requirement. That is well known and has existed for quite a long time, as my hon. Friend made plain in the debate. What Mr. Justice Phillimore said in his earlier Report was that we should make better arrangements to see that these checks are carried out, and that we did, as I explained in the debate on Monday.
§ Mr. BeswickMay I remind the Minister of what Mr. Justice Phillimore also said, which is that it was "too optimistic"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
§ Mr. BeswickIs the Minister aware that Mr. Justice Phillimore said that it was "too optimistic" to leave these matters to the operating companies themselves? Further, as to my second Question, No. 47, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that he told the House on Monday night that the inquest had been adjourned and that any subsequent adjournment was a matter for the coroner, but that the coroner in fact said on 28th January—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the coroner said on 28th January:
When I opened the inquest on 5th September I adjourned it at the request of the M.T.C.A. until after the proposed public inquiry.How are we to reconcile those two statements? To which are we to turn, the coroner or the Minister, for the facts in this case?
§ Mr. WatkinsonI have very great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I agreed with him on Monday that half a day—which incidentally was asked for by his side of the House and not by mine—was inadequate to debate the large number of issues that arose. I do not think it is right to try to reopen the whole debate at Question Time.
§ Mr. RankinIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday he did not 1259 specifically refute the statement by Dr. Gorsky? Surely, the coroner spoke with some authority when he said that there was the time and the evidence to take further action if the Minister so desired—evidence which I have forwarded to the Minister? Does the Minister regard that as an irresponsible statement?
§ Mr. WatkinsonI answered that quite clearly, in my somewhat lengthy remarks on Monday. What I said was that there were some outstanding minor charges and I very clearly gave the reason why we did not bring them. If we had brought them the company could, by a technical, legal device, have delayed the hearing of a public inquiry almost indefinitely. I thought I had made that very clear.