HL Deb 10 June 1943 vol 127 cc1032-42

LORD WINSTER had the following question on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether a statement can now be made concerning the recent deaths at Downside School caused by the low flying of, a Fleet Air Arm machine with particular reference to what compensation will be paid in respect of the boys killed; what inquiry has been held, and whether representatives of the school have given evidence before it; and what steps are being taken to tighten the regulations concerning low flying.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am raising the point in my question relative to low flying as being one of public interest, but the other part of my question, which refers to the occurrence at Downside, has a certain personal interest for me to which, perhaps, I should refer. It happens to be the case that I have had the privilege of the acquaintance of the Father Abbot of Downside for some considerable time, and have been his guest at the school. So, quite naturally, he has discussed matters arising out of the recent tragedy there with me. The disaster took place on May 15, so I think one may quite fairly assume, or suppose, that by this time it is possible for a full statement to be made concerning it.

As regards the compensation question, I realize that this is a matter which pre- sents considerable difficulties. It is a matter which, I presume, is not settled by the Admiralty, but, probably, is settled by the Ministry of Pensions. If that is so, I should like to make it clear that, in my opinion, no criticism can possibly attach to the Admiralty regarding anything arising out of the matter of compensation. 5uch matters have to be dealt with under regulations passed by Parliament, but I feel that in some ways it is regrettable that a Government Department has no fund at its disposal, and at its discretion, for dealing with exceptional cases. I am sure that if the authorities of the Admiralty feel now, as the result of their experience of this and other cases, that hardships are involved which the regulations do not contemplate, they will press for something to be done which will enable them to behave magnanimously and generously in such exceptional cases. I should hope that if the possibility of ex gratia payments does not exist some provision will be made in that respect.

In this case, I sincerely trust that there is no truth in the rumour that the funeral expenses of these unhappy boys will fall either on the parents or on the school. It was a most lamentable occurrence which has shocked people deeply, and there are two things concerning it which I should like to say. I hope that the Government will take the whole matter into very earnest consideration, and will behave in as large-minded and magnanimous a manner as possible. Further I feel that, within reason, the matter should be settled as quickly as possible. The spectacle of delay and hesitation in these matters is not very edifying. A gift which comes quickly not only comes twice, but also, I feel, does a great deal to earn commendation which goes far to atone for the fault which was involved. I would further like to point out that many of the boys in this school may naturally be expected in the future to join the Armed Forces. Downside has a very good record in that respect. I do not think it will give these boys a very good impression if, after seeing their schoolmates killed and injured in a particularly inexcusable accident, caused by a Service machine, they learn that the State is compelled to behave in a niggardly fashion concerning the only amends it has in its power to make.

As regards the matter of an inquiry, an inquest has been held but that inquest, of course, was, of necessity, directed only to establishing the cause of death. It could not be directed to establishing the cause of the accident, and the facts leading up to this disaster have not yet been made known authoritatively to the public. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of the Government if it is proposed to hold any sort of inquiry, and if such inquiry will be public. I do not think that, in this case, the rather threadbare plea can be advanced that it would not be in the public interest to hold the inquiry in public because matters of interest to the enemy might be revealed. I should think that if it is possible to hold any form of public inquiry it will go far to reassure the public. I do not think that the public are frightened by hearing that something has gone wrong. What alarms them is the feeling, when they know that something has gone wrong, that the facts are being concealed from them. If I may make a remark concerning the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, I would recall that one of the most vivid impressions of my life was hearing him conduct a most remarkable cross-examination in the "Titanic" inquiry. People were not perturbed by the facts which they learnt during that inquiry; they were reassured by feeling that the matter had been probed and that steps would be taken, in future, to prevent a recurrence of such a disaster. An inquiry of this kind is not a hunt for a scapegoat, it is only an endeavour to find out what was wrong, and to make sure that necessary precautions will be taken in the future.

There are one or two other matters to which I should like to refer. I, myself, advised the Father Abbot of Downside to seek an interview with the First Lord of the Admiralty prior to the inquest. These were two men both of whom had certain common interests in the inquest, and I felt that it would be a good thing for them to meet and discuss these points of interest. And may I say that the Father Abbot carried away with him from that interview a very lively appreciation of the personal concern and personal distress about this matter displayed by the First Lord? I am sure that the whole Fleet Air Arm deeply regrets in its corporate capacity that it was a Fleet Air Arm machine which caused this terrible accident. In some directions, however, there has been a most strange insensitiveness. I am informed that none of the parents of the boys killed or injured has received any letter expressing regret from any naval authority, and in fact no naval authority has called at the hospital where these injured boys are or has made any inquiries. A still more remarkable thing seems to have happened. I understand that an inquiry of some nature has been held at the station from which this machine came, and that the authorities at this Fleet Air Arm station telephoned to a junior master at Downside, who happened to be personally known to some of them, requesting his presence and that of two boys from the school at this inquiry, and that this was done without any reference whatever being made to the Father Abbot of Downside or to the headmaster of the school. If that is the case—I find difficulty in believing it, but I have received a strong assurance on the point—it seems to me an act of the most incredible discourtesy, which not unnaturally exacerbated feelings already moved and strained by this affair.

The last point that I want to mention is a point of public interest—namely, this question of low flying. One can only ask the question, how much longer is this criminal thing to go on, and can no stop be put to it? In the present instance, the Father Abbot of Downside had done everything that he possibly could by official means to put an end to this practice. It was an evil of long standing at Downside. The Father Abbot has called twice at the Air Ministry; he has written two official letters; he has telephoned to the authorities; he has given the official numbers of the aircraft which were at fault. Even that has not stopped it, and, even since this tragedy at Downside, this low flying has occurred again at the school. Before the tragedy this was a regular nuisance at Downside; it was a persistent practice, which was affecting the nerves of the boys. Despairing of these official communications, which had no result, the Father Abbot wrote to The Times. The publicity immediately had its effect, and the Fifth Sea Lord at once instructed the authorities to get in touch with the Father Abbot; but until that publicity had been given to the matter by him in the Press it was ignored.

Since the Father Abbot wrote his letter about low flying, two further letters have appeared in The Times from Sir George Rendel and Sir Charles Grant. Sir George says that the evil has persisted to his knowledge for two years, and that he has heard complaints from all sides of rooftop flying over schools and over a densely-populated area. He even speaks of another instance of low flying over another cricket match on the day on which this tragedy took place at Downside. Sir Charles Grant endorses what Sir George Rendel says, and points out that those who live near aerodromes know that aircraft persistently fly too low.

How is this thing to be stopped? Are we to be told that the commanding officers at these air stations are unable to enforce discipline and to get their orders obeyed? The regulations are there; we know that they exist, and that they are well framed. If obeyed, these regulations would prevent such accidents occurring. How is it that the commanding officers at these stations are unable to put a stop to this criminal and caddish behaviour? The Navy must have altered very much indeed if the commanding officer at a Fleet Air Arm station cannot get his orders obeyed. In all seriousness I make the suggestion that in future the commanding officer of a station should be court-martialled, as well as the pilot, if he is unable to enforce discipline among his officers and see that the Admiralty's regulations are obeyed. My impression is that after that has once been done this evil practice of low flying will stop very quickly indeed. When commanding officers know that their own careers are at stake as well as those of their pilots, they will find some means of getting their orders enforced.

I hope that I have not spoken too strongly on this matter, but I know that cricket field at Downside. One cannot imagine a more typically English scene than those boys playing cricket on that Saturday afternoon, and to think of that cricket field being suddenly turned into shambles by this inexcusable action is something which I confess has filled me with very deep feelings of pain and indignation. I hope that the noble Lord who replies will be able to tell us something that will indicate that the authorities know how to stop this practice, and that they intend to do it.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD BRUNTISFIELD)

My Lords, I should like to say at the outset, speaking on behalf of the Admiralty, that I entirely share the noble Lord's extreme distress at the terrible calamity which took place at this school as the result of this flying accident, and to say that I entirely agree that the effect of seeing this dreadful calamity take place before their eyes on boys of a tender age must indeed have been horrible. With regard to the general question of low flying, I do not want to go into this particular accident in detail, for the simple reason that further proceedings are pending. There is a court martial involved, and obviously it would be highly improper for me to say anything which may in any way affect the trial of the officer concerned. In general, however, I should like to say that, in common with the Air Ministry, the Admiralty views all forms of dangerous and low flying as in the worst possible taste and as the height of bad manners. The strictest regulations exist, which are frequently brought to the notice of flying officers, to prevent the occurrence of this exceedingly deplorable practice.

The noble Lord wonders how it is that commanding officers are apparently unable to prevent this practice occurring as often as it does. As I have said, the strictest regulations exist, and they are enforced, whenever an offence is committed. But I am afraid that so long as young pilots are hot-blooded—as I am glad to say that our pilots are—there is no human method which can be devised which will prevent this exceedingly bad practice occurring from time to time. I do not see what more the Admiralty can do than enforce its regulations, and I can assure the noble Lord that this is done on every possible occasion.

There are two aspects to the question which the noble Lord raised, one dealing with the possibilities of compensation in this case and the other with matters which directly affect the Navy. If I may, I will deal with the latter aspect first. The noble Lord said that there has been a lack of courtesy in the method of dealing with this unfortunate and terrible accident. He made the statement that the parents of the boys who were killed or injured had had no letter from any naval authority, expressing either regret or sympathy. The facts are that the First Lord himself has personally expressed to the Father Abbot his own personal sympathy. Furthermore, a signal was made from the Admiralty on May 17 to the Father Abbot in these terms: The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have learned with deep regret that an accident which befell an aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm at Stratton-on-the-Fosse on Saturday, the 15th May, resulted in the death of nine and in injury to twelve boys of Downside School. Their Lordships desire to convey to yourself and, by your courtesy, through you to the Community of St. Gregory's, to Downside School, and to the next-of-kin of the victims of this tragic occurrence, an expression of their profound sympathy. Apart from this, both the Captain of the Fleet Air Arm station concerned and the Commander attended the funeral of the boys. The Captain of the station has called at the school personally three time since the accident, and on each occasion has inquired about the progress of the injured. In these circumstances, I do not understand the suggestion of lack of courtesy. Such a suggestion certainly cannot be sustained against my right honourable friend or the Admiralty, and in view of what I have said and will have to say in a moment or two, I see no justification for alleging that the naval authorities in the neighbourhood have done anything or omitted to do anything which would merit the reflection upon their manners and courtesy which the noble Lord has made.

As regards the method of securing witnesses, which was another point in this connexion to which the noble Lord referred, I would like to tell your Lordships that, as I understand the facts, they are these. The Commander from the local Fleet Air Arm station went over to the School on the 16th May—that is, the day after the accident—to arrange to obtain the necessary evidence which the board of inquiry, ordered to be held on the 20th May, would require. He was referred to a Father Butler at the school and as a result of his contact with him he invited one of the masters, who was known to have witnessed the accident, to attend the inquiry, and this the master did. Subsequently, during the course of the hearing of evidence at the inquiry the President of the Board decided that he wanted to hear further evidence. As a result the school was telephoned and a request was made for the presence of two boys who were known to have wit- nessed the tragedy. The Father Abbot has himself acknowledged that the Headmaster was engaged at the time when he received the message, but he decided to send the boys over. There was no offhand treatment of this matter, so far as I can see, by the naval authorities on the spot, and certainly no lack of consideration was intended on their part.

Then the noble Lord went on to suggest that it was not until the Father Abbot's letter appeared in The Times that the Fifth Sea Lord instructed the authorities at the station to get in touch with the Father Abbot. It is to be observed that the Father Abbot's letter to The Times dated the 3rd June appeared in The Times on the 5th June. It is true that on reading it the Fifth Sea Lord at once rang up the Captain of the station, not to instruct the authorities, as the noble Lord suggests, to get into touch with the Father Abbot—indeed, that had already been done—but to find out what justification there was for the Father Abbot's complaint that low flying was still going on over the school, which obviously was a matter of great concern to the Sea Lord responsible for naval flying. As a result of this inquiry he learnt from the Captain that no Fleet Air Arm aircraft had flown anywhere near the school since the accident and that on the 4th June, that is, the day before the Father Abbot's letter appeared in The Times, the Captain of the Station, on his own initiative, had ordered a naval officer to go to the school, to remain there, and to observe and report any cases of low or dangerous flying which came to his notice. This officer learnt from the Father Abbot that the aircraft to which he had referred in his letter to The Times was an aircraft of bomber type; therefore it is abundantly, clear that it cannot have been an aircraft which came from the Fleet Air Arm station in question. Since then, I am informed, no case of infringement of flying regulations has been reported by the officer posted at the school. So I hope the noble Lord will absolve the Service of which he himself was once a member of any lack of consideration and of any failure to take proper steps to deal with the consequences of this most unfortunate occurrence.

Now I will turn to the point which the noble Lord raised about the question of compensation. I think I can best deal with it by stating as briefly as possible what the law is in this matter. The noble Lord himself acknowledged that the responsibility for compensation in these cases is not one which falls upon the Admiralty, but he did go on to say that he wished he could be assured that the Government had some funds out of which some ex gratia payment by way of compensation could be made in cases of this kind. The question of compensation in cases of war injuries to civilians is governed by the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939. Section 8 of that Act includes under the heading of "war injury" any physical injury caused by the impact of any aircraft belonging to His Majesty. Thus, for the purposes of this case, those injured have to be considered as suffering from a war injury. The Act lays on the Ministry of Pensions the responsibility for drawing up a scheme for the provision of compensation in these cases. The scales of payment under the scheme, which deals with the rates of compensation in detail, including the payment of funeral expenses, have been laid before Parliament and accepted. Section 3 of the Act specifically bars any Common Law claim which might have been made on the ground that the injury sustained was attributable to negligence on anyone's part, including, of course, any servant of the Crown. The noble Lord suggests that the Admiralty should make ex gratia payments to the relatives of those injured in this deplorable accident—

LORD WINSTER

The Government, not specifically the Admiralty.

LORD BRUNTISFIELD

—on the ground that the scheme drawn up under the Act by the Ministry of Pensions is inadequate. That is tantamount to asking the Government to do something which is expressly barred by the Act itself, and contrary to the provisions of the scheme drawn up by the Ministry of Pensions under the Act. It is not for me to criticize an Act of Parliament, for which Parliament, including of course your Lordships' House, must take responsibility; nor perhaps would it be proper for me to pronounce upon a matter for which Departments other than that which I represent are by law made responsible. In these circumstances your Lordships will understand that I cannot do more to-day than say that I have listened with great care to the opinions expressed by the noble Lord and will make it my business to represent them to the proper quarter.

Finally, I should like to repeat that this terrible tragedy is one that has caused my right honourable friend and myself and all those in the Fleet Air Arm and the Navy generally great and distressing pain. I should like once again to say how deeply all concerned with the Navy feel for the relatives of those who lost their lives or were injured as the result of this accident. I cannot go into details as to the cause of the accident, because there is a Court Martial pending, but I can assure the noble Lord that we shall continue to treat with the utmost severity any infringements of our flying regulations, and that we earnestly hope that never again will a calamity of this kind occur.

LORD WINSTER

My Lords, after the full and courteous reply of the noble Lord I shall not say any more about the regulations in regard to compensation. There may be a happier outcome of this matter than at present seems possible. But perhaps I may be allowed one minute in which to refer to the question of courtesy. I must take responsibility for what I said. I do; but I was so surprised myself by what I was told that I did two things. I sent a note of the information to my in- formant, asking him once again to verify it, and he assured me it was correct. I also sent a note of the matter to the First Lord. The noble Lord will agree that, at any rate, I did my best to check the information, and I did make it known to the First Lord before introducing it into my speech. Had I known that I was mistaken, I certainly would not have made those remarks.

LORD BRUNTISFIELD

Perhaps I might explain that it was only possible to complete my inquiries a few hours before this question was raised.