HC Deb 21 December 1961 vol 651 cc1565-85

12 noon.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter (Southall)

I am grateful for this opportunity to bring before the House the subject matter of my Motion of censure on the Attorney-General, which has been on the Order Paper since the beginning of the Session.

[That this House deeply deplores the failure of the Attorney-General to institute proceedings for breaches of the Air Navigation Order and Regulations following the Southall air disaster on the 2nd September, 1958, as a result of which 7 people lost their lives; draws attention to the fact that clear and documented evidence of overloading was submitted to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on 11th October, 1958, and the Director of Public Prosecutions on 30th October, 1958, and at the same time attention was drawn to two other serious breaches which required investigation; requests Her Majesty's Government to make available to the House the whole of the documents relative to this case either in the Department of Public Prosecutions or the Ministry of Aviation, then the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, including any correspondence that may have been written by Members of Parliament and replies thereto; and further regrets that the Attorney-General allowed inaccurate information to be given to the House on 14th July, 1959, which remained uncorrected until the Attorney-General's reply to a question from the honourable Member for Southall on 5th June. 1961.]

I appreciate that the demands on Parliamentary time have not yet permitted ibis Motion to be debated in the ordinary way, with the possibility of a vote at the end of it, and I can only express the hope that the matter will now be satisfactorily disposed of so that my Motion may be withdrawn.

First, having regard to the time that has elapsed, it would be desirable to establish the facts. A Viking aircraft, belonging to Independent Air Travel, Ltd., crashed at Southall with the loss of seven lives about 7.50 a.m. on Tuesday, 2nd September, 1958. The then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation agreed that an investigation should be made with a view to proceedings being taken against Independent Air Travel in advance of the public inquiry on the limited issue of whether the aircraft was improperly loaded.

Detective Superintendent G. M. Manifold reported on 11th October, 1958, that there was a prima facie case against Independent Air Travel, Ltd., in that the company On the 2nd day of September, 1958, at London Airport, in the County of Middlesex, were the operators of a British registered aircraft. G-AIJE, which was in default under the Air Navigation Order, 1954, in that it flew when the conditions on which the certificate of airworthiness was issued were not duly complied with, that is to say, it flew at a weight in excess of the maximum weight authorised in the said certificate of airworthiness, contrary to Articles 11 (1, b) and 67 of the Air Navigation Order, 1954. That report was very fully documented—I want that most clearly to be stated—and indicated that the aircraft was appreciably overloaded by 919 lb.

The report was important in so far as it went on also to draw attention to two things that were not the subject matter of the instruction to the officer in question. He said: The repair to the engine fault which developed at London Airport on 1st September, 1958, on G-AIJE was not effected or supervised by an engineer holding the necessary certificate, and it may well be that no entry appears in the maintenance log of the aircraft The second point, (b), was that The first officer, one Gerrit Hendrick Altena, may not be considered to possess the requisite qualifications to occupy the position of first Officer on aircraft G-AIJE. The then Minister of Transport, in a debate on 20th July, 1959, had this to say, and it is important because it figures largely in my case: … the company was inspected for an eighth time on 26th August—just before the accident"— that was, in 1958. This is very important. This inspection revealed prima facie evidence of infringement of flight-time regulations. Therefore, approval for the company to operate scheduled services was at once withdrawn, and the company was taken off the Department's Fair List of operators suitable for enjoying Government contracts. The accident intervened, but the evidence collected at that inspection was at once sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Investigation into these infringements was overtaken by the very much graver issues suggested by the preliminary investigation, as I have said, into the cause of the accident because, as is well known—and as has been mentioned in a newspaper today, quite improperly—there is no doubt that the initial inspection by the police and by other investigating officers showed at least a suspicion that this aircraft was seriously overloaded. It was on that basis, as I say, that I instructed the Ministry to do everything it possibly could, with my full knowledge and support, to concentrate its efforts on investigating these possibilities. This investigation was started as soon as possible and, to answer the hon. Member for Uxbridge, we asked the coroner—and I have no complaints to make about the coroner—to adjourn his inquest for a time in case a charge of manslaughter should be preferred. The fact that, in the end, a charge was not so brought is not, of course, a matter for me or the Ministry, as the Committee understands. The reason for the adjournment was so that the prosecuting authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions, could satisfy himself whether a major charge, such as manslaughter, might not be preferred. When it was found that there was not sufficient evidence, the coroner was asked to resume the inquest. That is not a matter which the Ministry could decide. It was the Ministry's duty"— and this is important— to provide every shred of evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That it did. I do not think that it is right for me to express a view whether the decision was right or wrong. All on which I have to satisfy the Committee is that the Ministry gave full evidence to the Director on which he could base his judgment. That, I think, I have shown very clearly was done. However, even after that there still remained the possible grave charge of overloading. This could not be taken up until the inquest had been concluded, because the coroner's verdict itself might have led to a charge of manslaughter. Therefore, the next step of the Ministry was to co-operate with the coroner to see that he got all the help that he needed to go ahead with his inquest. Mr. Justice Phillimore said that it took a considerable time to complete. I agree with that. That is not, of course, a matter for me. The story of events now goes on to the inquest which, as the Committee knows, in the end returned an open verdict, a matter not within the control of the Ministry or any Department of State, Coroners and coroners' courts are a law unto themselves. When the inquest finished counsel was again asked whether the evidence about overloading which emerged during the course of the inquest would justify the bringing of a charge. He advised that it would not. Thus the two major counts failed not through any inactivity of the Ministry, but because there was judged to be insufficient evidence to justify legal proceedings. That was certainly not a matter for me. Unfortunately, during all that time little work could be done on one or two minor infringements which stood over. I emphasise the words "one or two minor infringements". As the result of the very long time taken by the inquest—I am not blaming anyone for that, but it took a very long time, as Mr. Justice Phillimore said—there were only four weeks left at the end of that period when any action could be taken. It may be thought that even then we should have taken proceedings on a minor charge. I will explain to the Committee why we did not. Had we proceeded on a minor charge, and had the company put in a notice of appeal, the public inquiry could have been held up indefinitely. I take full responsibility for this decision. I considered at this stage that as we had failed in any major charge the public interest was best served by having the public inquiry as quickly as possible as the only means left to us to bring out the facts of the case. Indeed, I was pressed by both sides of the House to do it. I take the full responsibility for deciding at that stage that rather than proceed with a minor charge, which could have led to indefinite delay, we should proceed forthwith with this inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 693–5.] With regard to those major and minor charges, it is of interest to see what Mr. Justice Phillimore had to say, because he reported on 27th May, 1959, in answer to specific questions put to him by the then Attorney-General. Question 3 (b) was: Had the aircraft been maintained in accordance with approved maintenance schedules as regards the engine? The reply was: No. I doubt whether the maintenance carried out at Blackbushe in the course of the morning of 1st September, 1958, was properly carried out. I am satisfied that the work performed at London Airport was carried out in disregard of the terms of the approved maintenance schedules by men who were not qualified to perform it and who were not licensed to certify it. Let it be observed that this bears out very fully what had been said in a preliminary report from Detective Superintendent Manifold.

I refer also to Question 4: Was the aircraft properly loaded? to which the reply was: No. There was a clear and deliberate breach of Regulation 33 of the Air Navigation (General) Regulations, 1954. Question 5 was: Were the pilots properly licensed and experienced to carry out the flight? The reply to part (b) of that was: Altena was properly licensed, but was not properly experienced. His competence had not been established by the Company, who were accordingly in breach of Regulation 44 of the Air Navigation (General) Regulations. There were the three points which had been put and which must have been in the knowledge of the Attorney-General immediately after this crash.

On 14th July, 1959, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) asked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to instituting criminal proceedings against the former directors of Independent Air Travel Limited and the then Solicitor-General replied: None. The time for instituting proceedings for offences against the Air Navigation Order and Regulations expired on 2nd March, 1959. No evidence that would justify a prosecution for offences against the Orders or Regulations was submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend by that date; and no evidence that would justify a prosecution for any other offence has been submitted to him at any time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1959: Vol. 609, c. 181–2.] Those are important words.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on, in reply to a supplementary question, to what, I think, is the nub of the matter. He said: I am not saying—I hope the House would not think I was saying—that there was at any material time before my right hon. and learned Friend evidence of any lesser offence than manslaughter here committed. I concede that there are now disclosed by the investigation offences against the Regulations, but, as I have explained, there is a statutory period of limitation already past in respect of this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 182.] That is rather important.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

What was the date of that?

Mr. Pargiter

It was 14th July, 1959.

We come a little more up to date. On Sunday, 30th April this year my attention was drawn to a report in the Sunday Express to the effect that a Mr. Frederick Beezley, a former legal assistant in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time of the official inquiry into the Southall air disaster, had resigned his post to join Captain Kozubski, at Falcon Airways Limited. The report went on to say that Captain Kozubski was chairman of Independent Air Travel, the firm that owned the Viking aircraft Juliet Echo which crashed at Southall in September, 1958. According to this report, Mr. Beezley then said: I first met Captain Kozubski about three years ago. It is a purely personal matter why I joined him. Let me make it perfectly clear that any discussions I have had with Captain Kozubski were merely as a friend whose opinions he might have sought from time to time. Mr. Beezley said that these were opinions based on his legal training.

Of course, one cannot question friendships. They run in various ways. There are friendships between Members on the two sides of the House. But it is an extraordinary position that a man known to be a persistent breaker of the law should have a friend in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

On 4th May, 1961, I wrote to the Minister of Aviation as follows, and I think it is important that I should repeat here what I said: Amongst your records somewhere you will, of course, have the history of the Southall air disaster in September, 1958. You will probably note from these records that Captain Kozubski does not appear in too good a light. A great deal of money, including public money, was lost as a result of his activities and it is interesting to find in the first instance that he is now responsible for the running of another private airline, and even more interesting to find someone from the Director of Public Prosecutions office, previously concerned in aircraft matters, joining the board of this company. It is particularly interesting because your records will probably show that I was very much concerned at the delay either in your Department or in the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions in taking action against this company for its infringements of the law until the prosecution would, in fact, have been out of time. An attempt was made to gloss this over, but, certainly, no satisfactory answer was given. It may, of course, be only a coincidence that this company got away with things, they should not be allowed to get away with and that Mr. Beezley has now joined the board of another company under the direction of the same man and for that reason, at this stage, I do not propose to put down a Question. I had a reply on 12th May from the Minister in which he thanked me for my letter of 4th May and said: I regard this as an important matter and I am going into it in some detail. Perhaps you would give me a little time to do this. I will then get in touch with you". On 5th June, 1961, I put a Question to the Attorney-General. I want to make it perfectly clear that I had to put it in this form because of the Table's requirements, which were that it should be in a specific form. Personally, I should have preferred to have put it a little less specifically. I asked the Attorney-General whether he was aware that Mr. Frederick Beezley, who, whilst an officer of his Department, was concerned in the investigation of the alleged infringements of the air safety regulations by Independent Air Travel Limited, and was responsible for a deliberate delay in the investigations in order to make it impossible to take legal action against the company, is now a director of Falcon Airways Limited of which the managing director is the same man who was managing director of Independent Airway Travel Limited at the time of the inquiry; and if he will now refer the activities of Mr. Beezley in this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to the institution of proceedings against him. The Attorney-General replied: No. The hon. Member has made a very serious allegation against Mr. Beezley, but he has produced no evidence to support it and I am satisfied that it is in fact completely without foundation. Mr. Beezley has never been an officer of my Department; at the material time he was on the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but he was not concerned at any stage with the investigation of the alleged infringements of the air safety regulations by Independent Air Travel Limited and he was not responsible in any way for the manner in which those investigations were carried out. There was in fact no delay in carrying out the investigations, which, as was made clear during the debate in this House on 20th July, 1959, were completed in time to permit the institution of criminal proceedings if that course had been thought desirable in the public interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1961; Vol. 641, c. 62.] I put another Question the same day to the Minister of Aviation asking him whether he was aware that delays in investigations prevented legal proceedings from being taken in the case of the Southall air disaster; and if he will ensure that no similar delays occur in the investigations now being carried out by his Department into the alleged infringement of air safety regulations by Falcon Airways. The reply was: No. The investigations by my Department following the Southall air disaster did not prevent decisions being taken whether or not to institute legal proceedings. These decisions were taken on the facts disclosed and proceedings would have been instituted if it had been thought necessary or desirable in the public interest. The investigations were conducted with all proper speed and determination on this as on other occasions, and will be so conducted on any future occasions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th June, 1961; Vol. 641, c. 49.] I have a letter from the right hon. Gentleman in which he stated that he had not replied to my previous letter because he thought that it was wise to wait for the Questions. I need not now go into that.

It was as a result of those Questions that I was able to obtain the earlier evidence in connection with the air crash, which I have now produced, and I also have good reason to believe from what I learned further about this time that the officer at that time—and I can say this very deliberately—in charge of the investigations into the alleged offences by Independent Air Travel Ltd. other than the overloading of the aircraft was in contact during these investigations with Mr. Frederick Beezley, and, also, that he was dissatisfied with the assistance which he received.

In subsequent correspondence, the Attorney-General indicated that he personally was responsible for the decision not to prosecute the company for the overloading offences. This decision was taken on 3rd February, 1959. It is rather a long time from October to the 3rd February, but, nevertheless, still ample time in which to take proceedings. The letter of 2nd August, 1961, went on to state: For reasons which the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation gave in the House during the debate on the 20th July, 1959, the evidence relating to the other two offences mentioned in the report was not considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by Treasury Counsel or by me. The decision not to pursue those two matters was taken by the Minister within the statutory time limit. Let us recall what those two offences were—an engine had been improperly repaired and an officer was not properly qualified. Detective Superintendent Manifold had reported on these offences as being very serious breaches of the Air Navigation Regulations, and as being undoubtedly contributory causes of this disaster. Any one of these three items might of itself not have been significant. The aircraft might have got away on one engine if it had not been overloaded. The engine might not have failed if it had been properly repaired. The aircraft might not have been so badly off course if the officer concerned had been properly qualified: It is the accumulation of events on which I want to concentrate.

Despite all this, I gather that they were not the subject of an inquiry from the Attorney-General as to what investigations had taken place with regard to them, either in the Director of Public Prosecution's Office or the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. He had before him a document which indicated not only a report which was absolutely cast-iron on the question of overloading—which, when weighed with other pieces of evidence, required a prosecution—but at the same time, there was a report on these two other serious offences. Yet apparently these were not considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions at all, nor by the Attorney-General.

I have just quoted a statement by the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation that he regarded these breaches as minor offences. If they were minor offences, what are major offences? I have referred to the breaches—the repairs to the engine and the question of the first officer. It can be said of any offence that if one breaks it down into its constituent parts, each piece may be so small that it is a minor offence. But it is when one has a continuation of events, and ties them together, that one realises the seriousness of the situation. Yet we have had a statement that one item only was considered, that of overloading.

All these offences were not considered together. Does the Attorney-General seriously say that, if he had considered these items together within the statutory time limit, a prosecution on all counts would have failed? That has never been said. The only report we have had is by an eminent judge, who said that there was evidence, on all these points, of guilt on the part of this company.

I would like to know, although I do not suppose that I will get an answer, what correspondence passed and what discussions took place between some hon. Members and the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation at that time, and whether this had any bearing on the decision of the Minister not to forward such evidence in his possession to the Director of Public Prosecutions at the same time as the Director was considering the question of overloading. I would like to know, specifically, whether the Attorney-General denies that he knew what the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation was doing. Does he deny, also, that he knew that the officer investigating these other offences was in contact with Mr. Beezley in the Director of Public Prosecution's Office?

Only a very full inquiry, with all those concerned being released—and this is the nub of the matter—from the Official Secrets Act, can satisfactorily establish the truth, because what I have reason to believe to be true cannot be established unless people are in a position to speak freely. The House might wish to know why I am not prepared to let sleeping dogs lie. I believe that a very grave responsibility rests on both the Attorney-General and the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation for permitting this state of affairs to go on. I am further concerned—and this is equally important—that, although both Ministers did not feel inclined to prosecute, the evidence of the causes of the accident was sufficiently powerful for the insurance companies to repudiate their liabilities and rest on making ex gratia payments to the unfortunate victims.

Whatever I may or may not have done in the presentation of this case, I hope that it will at least have made the House realise that there is an urgent need for aircraft companies to be obliged to take out third party insurance cover in the same way as motorists. At present, although they must be able to show to the Minister, in order to get permission to run services, that they have adequate qualifications in the form of insurance cover, if we take this case as a precedent, the insurance companies may repudiate their liabilities if any of the Air Navigation Regulations are infringed. It is really time that the same sort of cover which applies to motor cars applied also to aircraft companies so that the unfortunate victims may not be deprived of their proper compensation.

12.27 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)

As time is short and I want to say a great deal, I had better reply now. The hon. Gentleman notified me by letter, dated last Tuesday, that he was raising today the question of the Southall air crash which took place on 2nd September, 1958, more than three years ago. He gave me no indication of the points he proposed to raise, but has taken the opportunity today to make a number of allegations of a serious character—allegations that he has made before and which have been answered more than once.

The preliminary investigation of the Inspector of Accidents indicated that serious overloading might have been an effective cause of the accident. The then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation consequently instructed the Civil Aviation Constabulary to investigate. A report of the investigation was sent to the Chief Constable on 11th October, 1958, about six weeks after the accident. The papers were submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions on 30th October, 1958, and on 20th November following they were sent by him to senior Treasury counsel for his opinion on whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the institution of criminal proceedings for overloading.

The hon. Member has thought fit to table a Motion of censure on me for failing to institute criminal proceedings. I am fortunate in that I can reply to his attacks, but, as I shall show, he has grossly slandered someone who cannot reply, and I shall refer to that later. In his Motion, the hon. Member alleges that clear and documented evidence was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and today he asserts that there was a cast-iron case on the question of overloading.

I can assure the House that all the material that was sent to the Director was put before senior Treasury counsel for his opinion. At that time the inquest had started. The courts have laid it down that where there is a possibility of a jury returning a verdict of manslaughter, and the possibility of the jury doing that in this case could not be ignored, prosecuting authorities should not institute charges of lesser offences before the inquest is concluded. The inquest ended on 29th January, and on 3rd February Treasury counsel, having considered all the material put before him and what emerged at the inquest, advised against a prosecution. He reached the conclusion that, far from there being "clear and documented evidence of overloading", there were a number of uncertainties in the evidence which cast considerable doubt on the reliability of the evidence as a whole.

Having regard to these uncertainties and to the fact that even an excess weight of 710 lb. would have been only 2 per cent. in excess of the regulated weight and could not have contributed to the aircraft crashing, he did not advise a prosecution. That was his opinion, independently arrived at. On the same day, the papers were submitted to me. The Director of Public Prosecutions agreed with the opinion expressed by senior Treasury counsel. I considered the matter independently and I approved the Director's decision. I am dealing first with the question of overloading, which, of course, was much the most serious matter. I will deal with the other charges—

Mr. Pargiter

Will the Attorney-General explain—

The Attorney-General

I will not give way. I will cover the whole field. I did not interrupt the hon. Member. I will cover the whole matter. I am glad to have this opportunity of doing so.

As I said, I approved the decision of the Director of Prosecutions not to prosecute for overloading, and that was the only question which was submitted to me for my consideration at that time. I think that I should tell the House, as shortly as I can, what were the uncertainties which led to Treasury counsel forming that opinion and my confirming it, and the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the document which the hon. Member has shows, the whole case for the charge of overloading depended upon the amount of petrol on board this aircraft when it left London Airport. There was evidence that 444 gallons were put on board at London Airport and two witnesses, speaking from memory—and I emphasise that—said that there were 230 gallons on board when it left Blackbushe for London Airport. There was no written record of that.

From that total there had to be deducted the amount used for taxi-ing and power checks at Blackbushe and London Airport, and in engine testing after repairs had been carried out at London Airport. These amounts of petrol consumption had to be estimated on what was assumed to have taken place. But the evidence of what was on board at Blackbushe did not fit in with the evidence of the man who put on the petrol at London Airport. He said that the rear tanks of the plane were empty at London Airport, in which case what was left over of the petrol on board at Blackbushe must have been in the front tanks.

The expert estimated that 85 gallons would be used in flying to London Airport. If that was so, the rear tanks being empty, 145 gallons at least would be in the front tanks. Those tanks hold 360 gallons and, therefore, on that basis there would be room to put only 215 gallons into the front tanks, but the man who loaded at London Airport said that he put in 264 gallons. If he did that, and there is no reason to doubt his evidence, either there must have been at least 49 gallons fewer on board on leaving Blackbushe, or 49 gallons more were used before the aircraft got to London Airport, in which case there was a large error in the expert's estimate. That expert has, in fact, given four different estimates of the amount of the overloading. The hon. Member gave one figure in his speech—919 lb. The expert's view at the inquest was that it was 710 lb., the weight of 100 gallons of petrol.

If the witness who put on the petrol at London Airport was right, it follows that that estimate would have to be cut by nearly 50 per cent. to the weight of 50 gallons, and the case for overloading by 50 gallons would depend entirely on the accuracy of the recollection of the witnesses at Blackbushe. In these circumstances I felt no doubt, and still feel no doubt, that a charge of overloading could not be proved in a court of law with that certainty that the law of this country demands in relation to criminal proceedings.

I would point out that when I reached that decision there was still a month to go before the time expired for instituting a prosecution for overloading. It is really nonsense to suggest, as the hon. Member has suggested, that the investigation was so long delayed as to make prosecution for this offence impossible.

The next stage in this ancient story was the publication of the Report of the public inquiry. That expressed the view that offences had been committed against the Air Navigation Order and Regulations and that the aircraft was overloaded when it took off. It also expressed the view, and I remind the hon. Member of this because it is quite contrary to the view he expressed in his speech, that any overloading that there might have been made no contribution of any kind to the accident.

Mr. Pargiter

It is still an offence.

The Attorney-General

That was what the Report of the public inquiry stated and, despite that statement of which he was fully aware, the hon. Member has the temerity to say in the House that the aeroplane might have avoided the crash and got away if it had not been overloaded. That is flying in the face of the Report of the public inquiry.

Mr. Pargiter

It was an offence.

The Attorney-General

Overloading is an offence but, of course, any offence has to be proved. One cannot go along and say that overloading is an offence and ask for a conviction. One must have the evidence. I have told the hon. Member now, and I hope that at last he will be able to appreciate it, that this matter was seriously considered at an early stage by the Director of Public Prosecutions, by senior Treasury counsel and myself independently and we came to the conclusion that a prosecution would not succeed.

What I am saying to the hon. Member and what I ask him to face is that he really had no right to say, in the course of his speech, that this aeroplane might have got away if it had not been overloaded, in the face of the finding of the public inquiry that any overloading that there may have been made no contribution of any kind to the accident. This is surely an indication of the hon. Member's total irresponsibility.

Mr. Pargiter

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not try to bully me. He should give his explanation. I do not take any bullying.

The Attorney-General

The House will appreciate that it is one thing to arrive at a conclusion after investigation and another to establish a criminal charge on admissible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and I remain of the opinion that I, together with the senior Treasury counsel and the Director of Public Prosecutions, formed as to that.

The next thing that happened was that on 14th July, 1959, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who I am glad to see here, put down a Question which was answered by the then Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General said, in reply: The time for instituting proceedings for offences against the Air Navigation Order and Regulations expired on 2nd March, 1959. No evidence that would justify a prosecution for offences against the Order or Regulations was submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend by that date; and no evidence that would justify a prosecution for any other offence has been submitted to him at any time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1959, Vol. 609, c. 182.] That was a perfectly true and accurate statement. He answered a supplementary question, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and I know, and have known for some time, that the hon. Gentleman has sought to base some of his allegations on a misinterpretation of that supplementary answer. I will deal with that later.

A few days later, on 20th July, 1959, the whole matter was debated in Supply. My right hon. Friend the then Minister of Transport gave a very full and complete account of what had happened. He made it clear that all the evidence with regard to overloading had been submitted to the Director and that he, the Minister, had decided not to prosecute on a minor charge for that would have delayed the holding of a public inquiry, and the hon. Gentleman read the passage from my right hon. Friend's speech where he had referred to one or two minor infringements.

Mr. Pargiter

What were the minor offences?

The Attorney-General

The two to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his opening speech, about repairs, and Mr. Altena, and I will come to those.

From July, 1959, I can move to 31st May of this year. On that day the Daily Mail published, with banner headlines, a story of a Question tabled, it said, by the hon. Gentleman to me for Written Answer, and that story was published after the hon. Gentleman, as he said, had written to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation about this matter on 12th May and before receiving any reply. In fact, on that day no Question by the hon. Gentleman appeared on the Order Paper. A little later one did, somewhat different from that published in the Daily Mail, and I should like to remind the House of the content of that Question.

It was to ask me whether I was aware that Mr. Frederick Beezley, who, whilst an officer of my Department was concerned in the investigation of the alleged infringements of the air safety regulations by Independent Air Travel Limited, and was responsible for a deliberate delay in the investigations in order to make it impossible to take legal action against the company, is now a director of Falcon Airways Limited of which the managing director is the same man who was managing director of Independent Air Travel Limited at the time of the inquiry; and if he will now refer the activities of Mr. Beezley in this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to the institution of proceedings against him. I should like to remind the House of my reply. My Answer was: No. The hon. Member has made a very serious allegation against Mr. Beezley, but he has produced no evidence to support it and I am satisfied that it is in fact completely without foundation. Mr. Beezley has never been an officer of my Department; at the material time he was on the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but he was not concerned at any stage with the investigation of the alleged infringements of the air safety regulations by Independent Air Travel Limited and he was not responsible in any way for the manner in which those investigations were carried out. There was, in fact, no delay in carrying out the investigations, which, as was made clear during the debate in this House on 20th July, 1959, were completed in time to permit the institution of criminal proceedings if that course had been thought desirable in the public interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1961, Vol. 641, c. 62.] These allegations in respect of the conduct of a civil servant were of the gravest character. They were made under cover of Parliamentary privilege. Mr. Beezley, therefore, could not clear his character by action in the courts.

The hon. Gentleman was away from this country when the Question was answered. On his return, he did not, as one would expect any Member to do, take the earliest opportunity of withdrawing his wholly unfounded allegation. Instead, he made the following statement: Arising from my Question of 5th June in regard to Mr. Frederick Beezley, and the Written Answer to it by the Attorney-General, and the subsequent allegations made in the House on 7th June that I had made false and unjustifiable accusations against Mr. Beezley, who, at the material time, was employed in the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, I wish to say that on the evidence available to me I am satisfied that I had good reason to put down this Question and I did so in complete good faith. I am prepared to submit to the Attorney-General further material available to me. I did not receive this "further material" until I had written and asked for it. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman in these terms: As you have not seen fit to withdraw any of the allegations contained in your Parliamentary Question of 5th June, I assume that you will now send me the evidence upon which they were based. Five days later the hon. Gentleman sent me a photostat copy of the confidential police report of 11th October, to which he referred, and which had been considered by Treasury counsel before he reached his decision to advise no prosecution for overloading. That was one document. The second item was an extract from the direction given to the inquest jury by the coroner, in which the coroner expressed the view that breaches of the regulations had occurred. The third item which the hon. Gentleman sent me was a copy of the Answers given by the then Solicitor-General to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Govan on 14th July, 1959, and his answer to a supplementary question.

There was nothing to suggest that Mr. Beezley was an officer of my Department, nothing to suggest that he was in any way concerned in the investigation of the Southall air crash, and nothing to suggest that he was responsible for any delay in those investigations. I have three times pointed this out to the hon. Gentleman in correspondence, and I informed the House of this in Answer to a Question tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), and still the hon. Gentleman has not withdrawn his allegations against Mr. Beezley. He has not even had the decency to apologise to Mr. Beezley for the grievous injury that he has inflicted on him. Indeed, today he sought to put forward another allegation which, again, he has not produced any evidence to support.

Mr. Pargiter

The same one.

The Attorney-General

Not the same one, as I shall show.

It is owing to the hon. Gentleman's use—perhaps one should say abuse—of Parliamentary privilege that Mr. Beezley has no redress. We in this House enjoy great privileges, and it is, I suggest, a serious matter, and one with which this House might well concern itself, for a Member to make grave allegations against someone outside the House without a shred of evidence to support them, and to persist in them even when he is told that they are wholly unfounded.

I do not know how the hon. Gentleman came into possession of the confidential police report which he sent me and from which he quoted today. It is a curious feature of this business that the Daily Mail reported that he tabled a Question to me attacking Mr. Beezley before any such Question appeared on the Order Paper, and that the Daily Mail, on 20th July, 1959, published an article quoting parts of this confidential police report on the morning of the debate in Committee of Supply. Perhaps it lies in the hon. Gentleman's power to explain how this happened.

The hon. Gentleman has sought to infer from an answer given by the then Solicitor-General to a supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Govan that evidence relating to the alleged offences was never submitted for consideration before the time for starting prosecutions had expired. He has been repeatedly told that this was not so, as the facts that I have stated show, and now he seeks to censure me for allowing inaccurate information to be given to the House by the Solicitor-General on 14th July, 1959. In fact, I was not in the country at the time. In fact, the answer was not inaccurate. As I told him in my letter dated 26th July: The evidence relating to one alleged offence"— that was the overloading— was submitted to me and the evidence relating to the other offences to the Minister of Transport, in each case within the statutory time limit. The Minister made the position perfectly clear in his speech—to which the hon. Member referred—in the debate on 20th July.

Let me now turn to the terms of the hon. Member's Motion. First, he invites the House to deplore my failure to institute criminal proceedings. I have dealt with that. Then he asserts, as he did in his speech, that clear and documented evidence of overloading was submitted in 1958. I have dealt with that. He then asserts that, at the same time, attention was drawn to two other serious breaches which required investigation. As I have told the House, the Minister—for the reasons he gave in 1959—decided not to pursue these allegations. I hope that the hon. Member appreciates that the Minister's decision not to pursue those other matters was made because they were of a minor character and because of the delay that would ensue in the holding of a public inquiry for which the hon. Member and others were pressing.

In fact, those charges were of an extremely trivial nature. The evidence of one was unsatisfactory, and neither was likely to lead to more than a nominal penalty if a conviction had been obtained. There was no ground for supposing that the repairs—even if they had been carried out by an engineer not holding the necessary certificate—were improperly done. There was no ground for supposing that any action on the part of Mr. Altena—who, unfortunately, met his death in the accident—in any way contributed to that accident.

If those charges, which were of a minor character, certainly compared with the overloading charge, had been pursued by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation—and I emphasise that these charges were for him to consider; they never came to me, and they did not fall within my province, whereas the question of overloading and manslaughter in different categories did—they would have delayed the holding of a public inquiry, as my right hon. Friend explained so long ago as 20th July, 1959. I agree with him in thinking that a prosecution for these minor offences would not have served any useful purpose.

The hon. Member's Motion then requests the Government to make available to the House all the documents relating to the case, including correspondence between Members of Parliament and the Ministers concerned. If the hon. Member wishes to publish his correspondence with me I have not the least objection, provided that he publishes my replies. The only other rele- vant documents, apart from those published before the public inquiry, are the papers submitted to the Treasury counsel and the opinion he gave on them, and it is not the practice to disclose facts relating to criminal investigations where no proceedings are instituted—for reasons which I hope are obvious. These documents are confidential, and I do not propose to follow the hon. Member's example in giving publicity to confidential documents. He will scarcely expect me to show them to him in confidence.

Finally, the hon. Member's Motion regrets that I allowed inaccurate information to be given to the House on 14th July, 1959, which remained uncorrected until the Answer I gave him on 5th June this year. In fact, the Answer that I gave on 5th June corrected nothing except the unfounded allegations made by the hon. Member against Mr. Beezley.

Mr. Pargiter

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to read that Answer?

The Attorney-General

I read it in the course of my speech, and I invite the hon. Member to read it again.

Mr. Pargiter

I did read it.

The Attorney-General

I invite the hon. Member to read it until he understands it. It is a perfectly clear Answer. He has also had this point dealt with by correspondence, and I will not take up the time of the House by reading it again.

My right hon. Friend's speech on 20th July, 1959, removed any misconception that could possibly have arisen out of the replies given to the House by the Solicitor-General on 14th July, 1959. The hon. Member has charged me with making a wrong decision and with misleading the House. I have not misled the House, and I am confident that my decision was right.

I have now answered the charges that the hon. Member has thought fit to prefer against me. There is no more foundation for them than there was for his charges against Mr. Beezley. I do not believe that there is anything I can say which will convince the hon. Member of the error of his ways. As he has not withdrawn his charges against Mr. Beezley—wholly unfounded as they were—it is perhaps expecting too much to expect him now to withdraw his Motion of censure against me. I hope, however, that this debate will serve one useful purpose, in ensuring that no further credence will be given to charges made by the hon. Member under the shelter of Parliamentary privilege.