LOW-FLYING AIRCRAFT

HC Deb 15 November 1973 vol 864 cc839-50

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones (Carmarthen)

I welcome this opportunity to raise what is a very pressing problem affecting my constituency and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes), and my hon. Friends the Members for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), Gower (Mr. Ifor Davies), Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies), Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) and many others throughout Wales. It is the problem of low-flying exercises by military aircraft, causing considerable disturbance, irritation and, in a farming community, frequent damage.

In my opinion, it is an increasing problem. From the latest figures, there seems to have been an escalation in the number of such exercises in Central and South-West Wales. The latest figures show that in September 1973 there were well over 600 individual flights. That gives a figure of about 7,500 low-flying military exercises over South-West Wales in a year. The figure for 1972 was about 5,000. I am sure that the Minister will make a point about this later.

Numerous cases have been presented to the Ministry. Complaints have been raised by local authorities, the two farmers' unions in my constituency, and various individuals. A case history is being accumulated.

The more that I look at the response to individual cases, the more convinced I become that the situation is totally unsatisfactory and that either the Ministry of Defence is ill-informed about the area where such flights occur or there is a flagrant flouting of the regulations.

Since I last raised the matter three years ago, the repeated claim of the Ministry has been that Carmarthen is suited for low-level exercises which are designed to make detection by radar-controlled defence systems as difficult as possible because it is an area of the United Kingdom where … population is least dense and most widely scattered. I was told that on 8th November 1971. I was told in a subsequent letter dated 9th February 1972: Urban centres are avoided and so also, as far as possible, are villages and even smaller communities. I intend to concentrate on that assertion, and I say first that it is totally untrue. As a letter dated 30th November 1971 states clearly, the Amman Valley and the Gwendraeth Valley are areas where low-flying exercises occur. No one knowing those areas could claim that they are sparsely populated. One can travel for 30 miles from Brynamman to Kidwelly and pass through village after village. These are village communities, over which these flights are not supposed to occur.

The letter of 9th February 1972 also refers to "urban centres". I was told in a recent letter that the town of Carmarthen is a prohibited area specifically excluded from low-flying exercises, and that since 1967 the South-West Wales General Hospital has also been excluded because of the disturbance caused by these exercises. Despite this, in September and October of this year the group secretary of the hospital had to write to the Ministry of Defence complaining bitterly about two flights which occurred in that period.

I can testify personally that flights take place in and around Carmarthen town. The Minister wrote to me on 5th November, and he said in his last paragraph: You mention that our aircraft fly directly over the area where you live. This, I believe, is Tanerdy, on the north-eastern outskirts of Carmarthen". He has the name of the place right, but Tanerdy is a district within Carmarthen itself. It is part of the town. In fact, it is between the town centre and the hospital, and in speaking of a district of Carmarthen and of the hospital one is speaking of places within a mile of one another. I hope that the Minister will look at that again.

There are prohibited areas and there are low-flying regulations. How are they enforced? How does the Ministry police the regulations? How does it know whether a pilot goes beyond what the regulations allow, and if he transgresses on to the prohibited areas what is the method of policing?

Having been the Member for Carmarthen for some time now, I know that transgressions take place, in spite of the regulations. I can testify personally from experience during the last four months—and other evidence has accumulated over the years—that the regulations are being flouted over Carmarthen town and the hospital.

I come now to the problem for farmers—an acute and growing problem. To many, it is a financial problem. From the two farmers' unions in my constituency I have had a lengthy list of complaints, with names and addresses and the dates when aircraft flew low over farms. The great bone of contention for the farming community is the great delay on the part of the Ministry of Defence in dealing with claims for compensation, and the lengths that farmers are expected to go to try to prove that aircraft actually flew low over their land on certain dates.

I have said that I am convinced that pilots flout the regulations. I can give chapter and verse for one particular case, but I shall not do so now. In a letter dated 24th August 1971 the Ministry expressed doubt about the existence of a flight at that time and date, and said: Meanwhile, attempts to identify the aircraft were unsuccessful, but on the evidence available the Claims Commission were prepared to accept that they belonged to the Crown. In the first part of that sentence, the Ministry says that the aircraft did not exist, but in the second part it is prepared to accept that they belonged to the Crown.

I could cite cases in which the facts have been difficult to prove, although the evidence would have been obvious if the Ministry were prepared to accept what was stated to it. In matters of this kind, there must be more flexibility. The Ministry must be more lenient, and in such circumstances be prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the farmer. At the moment, I have one case of a farmer who is putting in a claim for £2,000, and this after a claim was granted last year for a significant amount. The cost burden is tremendous.

A minister of religion in my constituency was able to give the number of an offending aircraft—WJ 641—and the Ministry accepted that that flight took place. But it is amazing that a man can actually pick out the number of an aircraft and know that the flight took place.

The Ministry argues that people in rural areas get accustomed to it all. No one gets accustomed to the speed. In 10 minutes, these aircraft cross four counties—eight miles in a minute, and 200 feet above ground level. No one can get accustomed to the suddenness of it.

I want to mention the bombing range in Pembrey, which is involved with Kidwelly, a part of my constituency. The town is supposed to be a prohibited area for such flights, but I can vouch that flights take place over it at 2,000 feet. There is a constant bombardment of flights over the town when the weather is fine, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Is the burden on Wales fair? Eighteen per cent. of military flying exercises take place over Wales and forty-five per cent. of the Welsh complaints concerning such flights are from South-West Wales. Therefore, the burden for South-West Wales is completely disproportionate. Does the Minister agree that the rate of flights over South-West Wales seems to be increasing? My information is, that the number has risen from about 5,000 in 1972 to 7,000 a year now. Will he give a categorical assurance that Carmarthen and the West Wales Hospital will, in practice and not just in theory, in a particular regulation, be prohibited areas from now on?

On the question of compensation, will the hon. Gentleman give greater benefit of the doubt and more flexibility when dealing with farmers?

With regard to the Gwendraeth Valley, has there been an actual decrease in 1973 as a result of Brawdy being retained? In November 1971, I was promised that there would be a decrease by 1973 as a result of the concentration on Brawdy. Has that happened? Finally, will the Minister consider a meeting of his officials or himself with farmers and local authorities from Dyfed to discuss this whole vexed matter?

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan)

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) on his success in the ballot, which has given him an opportunity that has eluded many of us who are Members for Mid-Wales and South-West Wales. I completely endorse what he has said about his constituency, which applies to many other constituencies of Mid-Wales and South Wales, including mine.

The interference with amenity suffered by the people of the area is great. The Minister may be able to show by statistics for flights over the whole of Britain that the concentration in a fairly limited area in that part of Wales is considerable, exceeding that in any other part of the United Kingdom. The grave interference with amenity has now reached intolerable proportions.

There is also a substantial element of injustice. Different figures have been given at different times by different Ministers. The figure given to my hon. Friend for flights over Wales is 18 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. The figure I received was 10 per cent. It matters not. Wales has 4.9 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom, and one thing is quite clear, that the percentage of flights over Wales is well in excess of that 4.9 per cent. Unless it is reduced to that level, there will be no justice for the people of Wales in that regard.

Thirdly, there is a substantial element of peril. The Minister told me in reply to a parliamentary Question a few days ago that in the past 10 years in low-level flights by fixed-wing aircraft there have been no fewer than 23 crashes. Low-flying aircraft still fly over populated areas. The day will come, as sure as fate, when one of them will come down on a populated area. There will be a swath of death and destruction. Everybody will be sorry after the event. The time to act is now.

In view of the real peril and the substantial interference with amenity, we ask that a Royal Commission should be established to ascertain the facts, to show the element of peril that exists, and the inequitable way in which Wales is treated in this connection. We believe that once those facts were published they would speak loudly in condemnation of the present position.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Ifor Davies (Gower)

I intervene briefly in the debate, and I am obliged to the Minister for giving me a moment to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) on the case that he has presented and I emphasise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) has done, that other areas adjacent to the Carmarthenshire coast suffer the same problem. In his Department the Minister will find a large file of correspondence from me dealing with complaints from districts in my constituency, but tonight I have time to touch on only two of these districts.

The first place is the Gower Peninsula. Low-flying aircraft over the Llangennith and Rhossili areas have been the cause of complaints for a long time. The indication is that the aircraft come from Pembrey, which has been referred to. Not only do they affect cattle; they are a frightening experience for all the inhabitants and holidaymakers on the beaches in the summer months.

Not long ago I submitted to the Department full details of low-flying aircraft over the village of Alltwen, near Pontardawe, in the Swansea Valley. These areas are quite heavily populated. Great care has been taken by the villagers to monitor both the time of the flights and their location but the explanation received from the Ministry was most unsatisfactory. I therefore join my hon. Friends in urging the Minister to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan has pressed for a Royal Commission. We are all pressing the Minister for the subject to be given the serious attention it deserves.

11. 57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Anthony Kershaw)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) on his success in gaining time for tonight's debate and in getting through it with a very nasty voice, which I imagine he got at Cardiff Arms Park on Saturday. I welcome, too, the interventions by the hon. Members for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) and Gower (Mr. Ifor Davies).

I greatly regret the inconvenience which is sometimes caused by low-flying aircraft. I know that it can be an alarming experience to witness a high-performance jet aircraft flying very low. But I should like to explain why there is such a pressing need for low-flying training.

The Services fly at low level not because it is fun—pilots will tell you that it is a most testing experience—but because it is an essential part of the tactical armoury of a modern air force. Members will be aware, in the first place, that NATO has moved in recent years to a strategy of flexible response which places greater emphasis on the rôle and use of conventional forces.

In air defence, in particular, recent years have seen the development of very sophisticated radar systems and equipment, particularly missiles. There has been a vivid illustration of this development in recent weeks. To counter these developments, air forces have increasingly concentrated on tactics to exploit the weakest area of the defence system—its ability to detect and track aircraft flying very low. Hon. Members with technical knowledge will know that at very low angles of sight, ground features and problems of electronic interference make it difficult for radars to pick up low, fast-flying aircraft in time to allow guns or missiles to engage successfully. Given the limited ranges available to ground radars against low-level targets, there is really very little time for the defence to detect, track and engage a target before it passes out of range. Moreover, the lower the aircraft flies the less time the defence has.

As I have said, the development of low-flying techniques is common to most major air forces—not merely the Royal Air Force—and applies not only in the NATO context. I do not want, tonight, to go into the lessons of the recent Arab-Israeli war—indeed, it may be some months before we are able to isolate the true lessons—but at this moment we have no reason to believe that low-level tactics are in any way outmoded. Indeed, the contrary is the case.

Terrain following and navigation at very low level are extremely difficult techniques to master. Even the most experienced pilot needs to practice them constantly in order to maintain his skills at the high level of professional efficiency required by the Royal Air Force's allotted rôle in national defence. Given, then, that a very great deal of low-flying training must take place, the problem is "where?"

The progressive loss of facilities overseas has inevitably restricted the opportunities open to the Services for low-level training outside Europe. Those RAF units stationed in Germany conduct most of their low-flying training in that country, but it is not to be imagined that any significant additional facilities in Europe could be obtained from our NATO allies without our extending to them an offer of reciprocal facilities in the United Kingdom; they, after all, have environmental interests of their own. In short, the great majority of our low-level flights must, under present conditions, take place within the British Isles.

Ideally we should, of course, like to confine this form of training to uninhabited areas. Unfortunately, this is simply not possible. There is none of sufficient size for the purpose. With aircraft travelling at the speeds which modern tactics require, a flight has to extend over a considerable distance if it is to last long enough for it to have the right training value. However, we do the best we can by limiting such activity to rural areas where the density of population is lowest and keeping it well away from the more intensively settled residential and industrial localities.

I do not disguise from the House, however, that there is a considerable problem in finding suitable airspace for this kind of training. Room has to be found for about 150,000 low-level sorties every year—that is, about 500 every working day—and in a tightly packed country like Britain this is no easy matter. As I have said, we avoid the more densely populated regions and we have to avoid a wide variety of locations on grounds of flight safety. The areas around civil and military airfields, atomic energy installations and Army firing ranges all fall into this category.

The result is that the choice of location for low flying is severely restricted, and all suitable areas, amounting to a little less than a half of the land area of Britain, must be employed. This means that there is no scope for giving any of these districts a rest by drawing additional areas into temporary use. The only way in which a close season for low flying could be introduced in the areas concerned would be by making a corresponding increase in the intensity of activity at other times of the year. This I would not consider desirable, either on environmental or safety grounds.

I regret that I must tell the hon. Member for Carmarthen that among the areas of Britain which are suitable for low flying on both safety and population grounds is Carmarthenshire. Let me illustrate this point with some figures. The average population density of Britain according to the 1971 census was 94 persons per 100 acres. The average for Wales was only 53 and for Carmarthenshire 28. In fact, the Carmarthen-shire figure was only one-fifth of the English average. Fewer people are affected by low flying in the county of Carmarthen, therefore, than would be the case in most other areas.

It has been argued occasionally that this should be seen as a case for reducing low flying over these parts of Wales, but that argument is to the effect that the amount of low flying should be directly proportional to population, and I cannot take that view. This training is essential, and as we wish to inconvenience as few people as possible we must use less densely populated areas, for otherwise we would be flying over Cardiff, perhaps, or central London or other densely populated places.

From what I have said about the general suitability of Carmarthenshire for low-level flying, hon. Members might have assumed that a high proportion of all Service low-level activity takes place there. This is not the case. The whole of Central and South-West Wales together is host to only about 6 per cent. of all low-level training flights—and, of course, many of these will be in parts of the region outside Carmarthenshire. So, despite the fact that, on average, some 500 low-level flights take place every working day, I doubt whether many of the hon. Member's constituents see, on average, more than one or two of them. I assure him that there is no ground for supposing that the intensity of flying has been increased over recent months or years.

Mr. Jones

There were 640 day flights in Central and South-West Wales in September 1973 according to the letter which the Minister wrote last week. Does that accord with what he said?

Mr. Kershaw

I think the figures will be found to be compatible if checked.

One way of assessing the reasonableness or otherwise of the low-flying programme over a particular area is to compare the proportion of all low-level flights that takes place in that area with the proportion it represents of the land area of the country. Wales covers 9 per cent. of the area of Britain—about 8,000 square miles out of 88,000. The number of low-level flights conducted there during recent years has varied between 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. of the total. It is clear, therefore, that the Principality has been receiving very much its fair share; no less, certainly, but no more, either.

To this the hon. Member may reply: "Yes, but what is the situation over Carmarthenshire alone? Surely it gets far more than its fair share?" But by the very nature of the flying it is not possible to produce meaningful figures for a unit as small as an individual county. From an aeronautical point of view county boundaries have no significance and aircrew rarely confine their flight to a single county. Without breaking each flight down by local authority area—which would be an impossible task—it is not possible to say what proportion of all low flying is conducted within a particular county. I can assure the House that I have no reason to believe that the intensity of low-level activity over Carmarthenshire is in any way disproportionate as compared with other relatively sparsely populated rural areas.

Routes are chosen with great care and pilots are briefed to avoid all built-up areas so far as possible. Regrettably, it is quite impossible to guarantee every small community, still less individual houses, immunity from being overflown on occasion, since the achievement of high speed has necessarily meant some loss of manoeuvrability, and the constant changes of course required would not only be difficult to achieve, but positively dangerous.

In the case of larger communities some more definite protection is possible, and their names are written into our flying regulations as places whose overflight at low level is absolutely forbidden. I am not saying that people in such communities will never hear a low-flying aircraft—especially if they live close to the edge of the built-up area—but their homes should not be directly overflown.

One of the problems which we face is that members of the public are generally not experts in assessing the speed, height and flight path of an aircraft. Seen from the ground, an aircraft travelling at 250 feet above ground level and 420 knots, which is 485 mph, may seem dangerously low. The danger is more apparent than real, however. Military flying is as safe as we can make it, both for the aircrew and for those on the ground, and accidents during low-level training are, in fact, remarkably rare. If, for whatever reason, one should occur, the circumstances are examined exhaustively.

Pilots may not fly where and as they like. They are bound by strict and comprehensive regulations. If hon. Members have specific complaints about low flying I shall be glad if they will let me know exactly how it arose. I shall then have the matter investigated as a matter of discipline within the RAF.

As the hon. Gentleman said, there have been 23 accidents below 2,000 feet during the last 10 years. I am now referring to fixed-wing aircraft. If 2,000 feet is taken as a guide for such accidents, that is not a level at which low flying training—

Mr. Elystan Morgan

rose—

Mr. Kershaw

I have two more minutes. The Ministry of Defence is empowered to pay compensation. We have close liaison with the National Farmers Union and the Claims Commission. I am afraid that it takes rather a lot of time to get the claims worked out because we are dispensing the public's money and we have to find witnesses and have every case properly proved. I am sorry that delays take place. If there is any particular case which an hon. Member wishes to raise, I shall be glad to consider it.

In the course of these remarks I have not been able to deal with the problems raised by the Pembrey range, or Brawdy. I will look into those matters and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

Low-flying techniques are of great importance to learning modern concepts of war in the air and therefore they must be practised by the aircrews. Every effort is made, however, to minimise the impact of low flying on local residents. Carmarthenshire is better suited to this form of activity than many places in Britain from an environment point of view. Nevertheless, only a small proportion of all low-level sorties take place there.

In the light of the facts, I am unable, I fear, to accede to the hon. Member's requests that low flying should be discontinued or reduced in his constituency. I know that the noise made by low-flying aircraft is very considerable and often intolerable, especially when they pass directly overhead, and that the onset of the noise is often so sudden as to be quite startling. For those who live in the areas concerned and are sensitive to aircraft noise I have, therefore, the greatest sympathy. I also know, however, that low-flying training is of vital importance to our national defence. I hope that when, in future, the people of Carmarthenshire in particular, and Cardiganshire and Gower, see service aircraft engaged on these exercises they will regard them not as a nuisance but as a symbol of their country's determination to maintain its armed forces at a level of skill and effectiveness which is second to none in the world.

I apologise to hon. Members for having gone rather quickly. I wanted to say as much as I could in the time available.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

The people of Wales fully appreciate the need for military training by way of low-contour flying, but it is widely felt, in view of what has been said by the Minister, that Wales has been singled out for punishment—

The Question Navin; been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.