HC Deb 19 November 1953 vol 520 cc1940-7

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth)

I wish to bring to the notice of the House a question that affects my constituency and, especially, villages just North of Mablethorpe. Near the village of Saltfleet there is a bombing target range which was established in the early 30's. The burden of all I wish to say on behalf of my constituents can be put into one sentence—please will the Air Ministry take the range away? We do not mind if they take it to Scotland, we do not mind if they take it to Wales, we do not mind where they lake it so long as they take it away. If they take it to some place where no one lives that would be a good thing.

While some of my criticisms will be levelled at work done around this target by the United States Air Force, I should not like to leave the impression that any of my constituents is at all anti-American. There is a great realisation among my constituents that this bombing practice must take place. They are also aware of the strength which the American Forces give to our defences. There is no feeling of antagonism to our own airmen who come and bomb this target. When the target was set up early in the 30's planes flew much slower and lower than they do today and the margin of error of a mile on either side was adequate. But now planes, flying up to 600 miles an hour and at a height of about 30,000 feet, make the margin of error too small. The bombing site is less than two miles from the centre of the village; it is much too close for people who live in the village. I wish to emphasise how grateful are the local parish councils to my hon. Friend for the courtesy he has shown them during the last nine months when they have written to him through their association and through me. Although they are grateful for what he has done, they say it is not enough. They will not be satisfied until my hon. Friend can say that the site will be closed altogether. Incidents of bombs dropping inside the village and doing damage to public property and to everything short of killing people started in the summer of 1952 It is only by great good fortune that there have been no fatal accidents so far My constituents ask—I think with great reason—" Must this continue until someone is killed before the authorities will do anything about it?"

Just after last August Bank Holiday a rather heavy smoke bomb was dropped on a public house called the "Prussian Queen." It went through the window of a lavatory. Had it dropped half an hour earlier someone would have been knocked out, or killed. Complaints have been made of a series of bombs which were dropped miles from the target. I think my hon. Friend will agree that more than a dozen have dropped wide of the target.

The first lot of complaints were lodged with the Ministry as far back as December, 1952. The first reply the parish council received was in March when the Ministry said that the United States Air Force were responsible for five of the incidents and two other incidents were being investigated. It is being said locally, I do not know with what truth, that some of the American planes come from as far afield as the South of France to bomb this target outside a tiny village in my constituency. If they can come so far to a small village in North Lincolnshire they could go so far as Scotland.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

My hon. Friend has mentioned Scotland twice. What complaint has he against Scotland?

Mr. Osborne

I have no complaint against Scotland, but I was thinking that there is a lot of space in Scotland where no one thinks it worthwhile to live and that that is where these bombs should be dropped. We do not care where the bombing range is stationed so long as it is taken from us. With bombers flying so high and at so great a speed we think it unreasonable to have a target so close to the centre of a village.

I wish to refer my hon. Friend to a reply he sent me on 5th May. I had written to him on 8th April, and he wrote: I am sorry I have been unable to let you have a reply before now, but investigation of the matter in all its aspects, including the possible use of other ranges, … That is the key to the problem, the possible use of other ranges. I am appealing for that and I remind my hon. Friend that he mentioned it in his letter to me on 5th May. The letter continued— is taking some time, particularly as aircraft of the U.S.A.F. are involved. My hon. Friend went on to say that two further incidents had occurred since I had written to him and in each case the U.S.A.F. were responsible. He added: and we are obliged to conclude that the steps they promised to take to prevent such mistakes have proved inadequate. My hon. Friend said that in the early part of May. As I shall try to show, there has been a series of incidents since then which prove that the steps the American forces took, in all good faith, have proved inadequate. It would seem that it is no fault of the American Forces but that the target is too close to the village. My hon. Friend went on to say in his letter to me: The whole question is to be taken up with the U.S.A.F. at a meeting to be held in the near future, and our concern about these incidents will be represented most strongly. Moreover, consideration is being given to allocating the U.S.A.F. a range further away from Saltfleet. I ask my hon. Friend if they have been allocated another range, shall we be bombed in this way by British planes? It is no more pleasant to have bombs dropped near the centre of the village from British planes than from United States planes. And in the same letter my hon. Friend said: Representations in strong terms were made to the U.S.A.F. following the earlier complaints from the Parish Council and we received suitable assurance that steps had been taken to obviate further incidents. That was at the beginning of May. During the summer and this autumn bombs have fallen in various villages, some a considerable distance from the target. I wrote again to my hon. Friend who replied on 30th June. I would remind him of what he said then. Alter inquiring into all these incidents and saying what the Ministery were trying to do, he wrote: We think that these moves —that is the arrangements he was making with the United States Air Force— if they are finally approved, together with the strongly worded instructions which have been issued by the United States Commanding General to his commander about irregular practice bomb releases"— what exactly does he mean by "irregular practice bomb releases"? If that is the cause of our trouble, then they are not being very fortunate in regulating the releasing of the bombs— and the action to be taken to avoid their repetition, should largely remove the fears quite naturally felt by your constituents in Saltfleet. That is fair, and if he could have done for us what we asked for and what was promised, I should not be making this protest. But during August there were further incidents, and in October there were four or five more. Early this month there have been two, and one more last week. So that all the assurances we have had so far have proved worthless. Consequently, the local authority wrote to me again on 20th August and said this: Whilst the parish meeting appreciates what you have done in the matter, it feels that the action proposed by the Air Ministry (as stated in Mr. Ward's letter of 30th June, 1953), is quite inadequate"— and with that I must agree— and respectfully asks you to make further representations. Even if the target had been 700 yards further away, the majority of the bombs dropped in this area would still have been dangerous. … Then we come to the other series of incidents of which my hon. Friend has had notice. On 13th October, my constituents, who were getting really angry and worked up about this, wrote me a letter, after a further bomb had dropped at South Somercotes on 5th October. The council does, however, feel that a recent incident shows that stricter measures to avoid such happenings are still required. On Monday, 5th October, a bomb was dropped near houses about one hundred yards from the centre of the village of South Somercotes, causing a fire in a farmyard. The parish council hopes that you will not cease from pressing the case with the Air Ministry until these incidents stop. I feel that these incidents will not stop while the target area is left so near to the village. I think it unreasonable to either our airmen or the American airmen to be so accurate when bombing from such a great height and moving at such speeds, when the target area is within two miles of the centre of the village. Can I have an assurance from the Ministry that something will be done to stop this trouble?

On 27th October we had a further incident and the council wrote to me again. A further bombing incident has occurred today. A building in the centre of Saltfleet received a direct hit. That is not a mile or two miles away, but right in the centre of the village. On every occasion such as this your constituents say that, 'the next one will hit some person and then, may be, "they" will do something about it.' I could not do anything at that time because I was in America, but on my return early this month I had a phone call from my constituents to say that there had been another incident in the area. On 11th November, the clerk of the council wrote this strongly worded and, I think, fully justified letter, saying that the council had passed this resolution: That, in view of the recently proved ineffectiveness of the technical improvements stated to have been made, this meeting asks for the complete removal of the bombing targets from the beaches between Mablethorpe and North Somercotes. That is what I am asking my hon. Friend to do. To emphasise the need for this, the very day after that letter was written to me they had another fairly large bomb dropped in South Cockington some miles away, next to Red Leas Farm, which is the place where I usually stay when I go to that area.

Sir W. Darling

They must have known.

Mr. Osborne

This is being done by my friends and not by my enemies. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is causing a great deal of concern. This bomb was dropped on 12th November at South Cockington immediately after this last protest. It would seem that whenever the local authorities make a protest the grounds for it are emphasised by the Air Force dropping some more bombs to show how needful it is to protest. The letter states further: I was instructed to inform you of this resolution and to ask you to do everything possible to persuade the Air Ministry to remove the targets. I am to add that also present at the meeting were representatives from the parish councils of South Somercotes. Saltfleetby and Theddlethorpe … and a representative from Mablethorpe. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), in whose constituency is Mablethorpe, has indicated that he will support me.

I would remind my hon. Friend that this part of the world suffered very severely during the floods. People go there for their holidays, and the advent of holiday-makers is of great importance to the residents. If in addition to the calamity of the floods they are to face the uncertainty of what the Air Force may do to them, it is not helpful to people who have to make their living in that locality.

At Saltfleet there are miles of very beautiful sands, but the local people can scarcely ever use them because there is always a red flag flying to warn them that the Air Force are proposing to do some bombing practice. Please can this target be taken away?

I had a letter from still another constituent which was written on Sunday last by a lady who lives at Donna Nook and who read in a newspaper that I was proposing to raise this matter. She writes: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it isn't only Saltfleet that is being troubled by R.A.F. bombing practice. All day, every day, there are planes screaming over our houses. There are machine gun targets on the beach quite near; and we have to listen to the appalling noise of machine gunning as well as the noise of bombing near Saltfleet. I hope my hon. Friend does not think I am creating a lot of song and dance about nothing. I assure him that my constituents think they have stood it long enough, and I think they have very good cause for complaint. I ask, will he please remove this target site altogether to somewhere else where nobody lives?

5.20 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor (West Lothian)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the case which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has put before the House. I know the district of which he has spoken and I consider that he put his argument with moderation, except for the suggestion at the beginning that he and his constituents did not mind where the practice bombing took place so long as it was not in their district. He suggested that it might be removed to Scotland or Wales. Although he is not in the position of being able to say, "It is a matter of complete indifference to me how you are faring, Jack, so long as our amenities are satisfactory," he implied that he would like to be.

From the evidence the hon. Member has given it is clear that most of the bombing is being done by the American Air Force. In our little crowded island there is nowhere appropriate now for a bombing range in the modern conditions of swift flying aircraft at great height. We could not guarantee that any bombing range would be without danger of damage to property or persons. Certainly there is no part of Scotland of which that could be said.

It occurs to me that one good solution would be to make representations to the American Air Force that they should do their training in Nevada, Montana or somewhere else in the United States. They should complete their training there and leave this tightly packed little island free from these unpleasant visitations, however necessary they may be considered to be.

There would still remain the problem of our own Air Force. It might be useful to suggest, for a change, that we give so many facilities to the American visiting forces that they might give us some in exchange and allow us to use their wide open spaces for bombing practice. The hon. Gentleman made a good point when he said that this area, with its beautiful sands, which I knew as a young man, is not one which is suitable for this practice. It is an area which suffered a great deal from the unpleasant visitations of nature in the early part of this year. It relies a great deal upon the tourist industry. The hon. Gentleman's case was sound and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to meet the plea which he has so moderately put before the House.

5.23 p.m.

Commander J. W. Maitland (Horncastle)

These incidents took place almost at the junction between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). It is just on that part of the coast that we had the most serious flooding of the whole disaster last year. Although I admit that in my constituency it does not seem to rain iron, as it does in my hon. Friend's, we have had six incidents. We have had one incident at Spilsby, one in the main street of Skegness, three in Mablethorpe and one at Wainfleet.

This is a serious matter. I think that I would be considered to be the last person to try to prevent proper training. It is obviously esential that if we are to train people we should train them properly. At the same time it is intolerable that this sort of thing should be allowed to continue. We should make no mistake about that.

It is the political elements in the Forces—the Secretaries of State and the Under-Secretaries of State—who are really the best protectors of the people in this matter. I know only too well, having been an officer and having seen service myself, that the tendency is always to put the good of the Service before everything else. In this country, generally speaking, we put at the head of our Services civilians who are responsible to Parliament. The reason is that we wish our rights preserved in dealing with the Armed Forces.

I suggest to the Government that we should not run the risk of any further incidents. There is no excuse whatever. They must be stopped, and they must be stopped at once. We often pay danger money to pilots or the people who do dangerous work, but we cannot pay danger money to civilians.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)

My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has raised a matter—

Forward to