HC Deb 25 November 1975 vol 901 cc652-5
15. Mr. David Steel

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the complaints sent to him by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles of low-flying aircraft over Peel Hospital.

Mr. John

The hon. Member will be aware from previous correspondence that Peel Hospital lies within an extensive area that is regularly used by military aircraft for low-level training, but that it is clearly laid down in the regulations that, in recognition of the special needs of Peel Hospital, no flying below 2,000 feet should take place within one nautical mile of the hospital. I have called for an investigation into the most recent complaints and I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as the results are available.

Mr. Steel

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what concerns me is that after he extended the protected area in response to complaints back in February there were subsequent complaints in April, when he wrote to me saying that the new instructions had not yet percolated through? We are now in November, and there have been further complaints. Surely the instruction should have percolated through by this time? I shall be grateful if the Minister will look into the matter thoroughly, and I look forward to hearing his explanation why the instructions do not seem to reach the people flying the aeroplanes.

Mr. John

The hon. Gentleman is making an assumption about the results of the investigation which is not justified at this stage. Of the complaints in April, one was about an incident that came about because the instructions had not yet percolated through. The other aircraft were revealed, on investigation, to have been conforming to the regulations, but because of climatic difficulties, or because of the surrounding countryside, the sound was magnified so as to make the aircraft appear to be breaking regulations when they were not.

Mr. Monro

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the correspondence that I have had from him about low-flying aircraft in the south of Scotland. Does he agree that there is still a great deal of unhappiness about the frequency of low flying, which I accept must be undertaken by the Royal Air Force to some extent? Will he reconsider the matter before the spring, when low flying affects farming, and particularly lambing?

Mr. John

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I tell him that the matter is under almost constant review because of his own and other hon. Members' representations. As he realises, we have to fly low, and low flying must be done where it will cause minimum disruption to people's lives. That means that it must be done in the more rural areas. Within that restriction, we try to share it out as fairly as possible. There is no evidence that Scotland is having an undue share of low flying.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans

In view of the distress caused throughout the Carmarthen constituency by low-flying aircraft, will the Minister press for the rerouting of the exercise "Advent Express?" Perhaps the people of Pontypridd would enjoy a visit.

Mr. John

I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's prescription for low flying, which is that it should be directed over urban areas. If that is what his party is saying, I am sure that the people of Pontypridd and industrial South Wales will welcome that news!

We carry out only the minimum of low flying necessary for operational efficiency, and we take infinite pains to try to avoid all sensitive routes. We take as much care as we can to avoid disrupting people's lives. Low flying gives us no pleasure. We realise that it causes some heartache to people, but it is unavoidable. We hope that the benefits of the Services' presence in, for example, Carmarthen, outweigh the disruption that we must cause to people's lives.

19. Mr. Wigley

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures are followed before permission is given for low flying by RAF aircraft over land areas where the agricultural industry may suffer adverse effects from such activities.

Mr. John

We carry out only the minimum amount of low-level training which is essential for operational reasons. In order to affect the least number of people by such flying, we aim to distribute this training evenly over the most sparsely populated areas. When major low-flying exercises are being planned we inform the National Farmers' Union in advance, so that it has an opportunity to make representations and give advance warning to its members. Claims for compensation from farmers, which tend to be relatively few in number, are dealt with sympathetically.

Mr. Wigley

Is the Minister aware that even in rural areas with relatively sparse populations the damage inflicted may be infinitely greater, in terms of the disruption of agriculture and other activities, than in some urban areas? Will he accept that the people of Caernarvon, Merioneth and Carmarthen will see a remarkable correlation in any development of low-flying aircraft?

Mr. John

This is a matter of such burning importance to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that he has waited until today to raise the matter with me either in letter or Question form. The fact is that we accept that low flying cannot take place without some disruption to the local communities. We hope to minimise this activity, and particularly its effects on agriculture. The hon. Gentleman referred to the people of Merioneth. I hope that he will have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and his neighbour in the north about the benefits conferred on local economies by the presence of one or more of the Services.