§ 18. Mr. Stracheyasked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware that a pilot employed by Tradair Ltd. was offered the alternative of demotion or resignation as a consequence of his cancellation of a flight from Pisa to Perpignan at 16.30 hours on 6th October, 1961, and of two other incidents in which the operator considered that he should have flown at a time when the pilot thought for safety reasons that he should not; whether he is satisfied that his safety regulations are adequate to ensure that a pilot should not be penalised for caution; and what action he proposes to take for the safety of the travelling public.
§ Mr. ThorneycroftI understand that a writ in an action for libel has been issued in this case and, in the circumstances, the House may feel that it should be regarded as sub judice. In- 912 vestigations have, however, shown nothing requiring action on safety grounds. My Director of Aviation Safety has adequate powers in connection with the operator's certificate if action were necessary.
§ Mr. PagetOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is one of the most extraordinary statements that we have ever heard; that when Parliament entrusts both regulations and investigations as to safety to a Minister of the Crown the safety of the flying public can be suspended by the issue of a writ in a libel action. I have never heard of such a proposition.
§ Mr. SpeakerMy view about it is this. I have only read in the newspapers that a writ has been issued against the writer of the letter to the right hon. Gentleman for damages for defamation. I heard what the Minister said, and my view is that in those circumstances it would be right that the House should not expect any answer to this Question, down to the end of the matters relating to the pilot, that is, down to a colon or a semi-colon. I think that the Minister gave some answer with regard to the rest of the Question, but that is my view as to the extent covered by the sub judice rule.
§ Mr. HaleFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a civil action a writ for libel may be issued and no further step taken for many months. Even though it be prosecuted with vigour, the action may not be heard for twelve months and the House has no knowledge of issues being raised which may be substantially different from the question which affects the House. My right hon. Friend is seeking to ask a Question which involves the safety of transport by charter plane, and the whole question—which is obviously one of deep concern to the House at the moment—of whether charter planes are subject to regulations as to the transport of passengers which makes pilots have to take unnecessary risks. If we cannot quote an example, if everyone referring to the point is regarded as raising a point which is sub judice because of a civil action, the House will be deprived of the whole of its control over the matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerI can assure the hon. Member that I have considered all the factors which he has just mentioned before giving my Ruling. But I have no authority from the House to dispense with the application of our rule. I have considered what I have said, and I abide by it.
§ Mr. PagetFurther to that point of order. Are not there two different questions arising here? One is the grievance which Tradair Ltd. may have with Wing Commander James. That is sub judice. But there is the authority and duty of the Minister to hold inquiries with regard to safety. Those inquiries which are the concern of the general public are a matter between the Minister and Tradair Ltd. and the Minister and the House. That, in my submission, is an entirely different matter, and we certainly should be in a position to press or to require the Minister to carry out an inquiry into safety regardless of any writ which may be issued in a quarrel between Tradair Ltd. and my right hon. Friend's correspondent.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has appreciated what I said. I think that the issue of a writ in this case, and I say so, makes it inadvisable for the House to discuss matters relating to this pilot which clearly arise in the case in the ordinary way. I did not say anything about the rest of the Question regarding safety and matters of that kind.
§ Mr. McAddenFurther to that point of order. It is within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that this matter was the subject of a debate a week ago and on that occasion certain damaging statements were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) which are now the subject of legal questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. Presumably this matter, as you rightly ruled, is sub judice. On the other question, the question of safety operations, for which the Minister has an undoubted responsibility through his Director of Aircraft Safety, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that a straightforward answer was given in another place and has been repeated here.
§ Mr. SpeakerThere was no resemblance to a point of order in the latter 914 part of the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to the first part, it was a mis-statement of my Ruling.
§ Mr. StracheyAddressing myself to the latter part of my Question to the Minister. Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that safety regulations have worked effectively for the protection of the travelling public? In the circumstances which arose on 6th October, in which one unfortunate pilot and 34 lives—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Whether he agrees with it or not, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to follow my Ruling, which is that we ought not to discuss those incidents.
§ Mr. StracheyWith respect, Mr. Speaker, surely you are not suggesting that we cannot discuss any incidents of the safety of the public flying in chartered aircraft because one charter company has brought a libel action, or is about to do so, against one individual? Surely, though you may have said that it would be inadvisable, it is not improper or impossible for the House to raise these matters which we think prima facie and absolutely indispensable to the safety to the travelling public? May I not ask the Minister, therefore, whether he is satisfied that these regulations in reference to these two incidents, in which one flight was cancelled and one was not cancelled to Perpignan on 6th October last, do not amount to a prima facie case for an inquiry, which is what we are pressing for—a public inquiry into this incident?
§ Mr. SpeakerI imagine that inevitably in this action, if it be tried, among the issues which would have to be tried out are what was the nature of that incident and what, if any, connection did it have with whatever happened to the pilot, and so on and so forth. I cannot see how our rule regarding sub judice can be applied in such a way as to avoid that consequence. That is my difficulty.
§ Mr. PagetAll I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this. Is not it in the interests both of Tradair Ltd. and of British aviation as a whole that the incident which has undoubtedly shaken public confidence to the extent that this one has should be investigated publicly 915 as to its safety aspect, and has not the right hon. Gentleman authority to order that investigation?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftI am concerned not so much with Tradair Ltd. or even with civil aviation. I am concerned with the interests of the public. I have said, therefore, in answer to the latter part of the Question that investigations have satisfied me that there is no action which I am required to take on safety grounds.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsOn a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is not the sub judice aspect of this case a most unusual one, in the sense that it would probably not have arisen had not my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) raised the issue in the House last week? One can quite appreciate that, if independent legal proceedings are going on outside the House, we ought not to discuss such a matter in a prejudicial way, but in this case it would seem that a discussion in the House has lead to the institution of legal proceedings, because of the reading of a letter protected by privilege here but not outside. Is it not undesirable that the House should be prevented from following up something which has been raised in the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt may be undesirable or desirable; I do not know. What brings the rule into operation is the issue of the writ in respect of the letter. I cannot get out of that.