§ 11. Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater)What was the outcome of the Skyguard test at Minehead last year. [31902]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DefenceA Skyguard mobile tracking unit was deployed to a location at Dunster beach near Minehead, Somerset from 4 to 7 December to undertake covert monitoring of military low-flying aircraft, recording their heights and speeds. During the observation period, a total of 43 military aircraft were monitored; none was found to be in breach of regulations.
§ Mr. Liddell-GraingerI thank the Minister for that reply. Will he cast his mind back a little further, before Skyguard came to Dunster beach? There was low flying over the nuclear power station at Hinckley Point, which, as the hon. Gentleman can imagine, caused enormous consternation in my constituency. Although the aircraft was just above the legal height, the Skyguard did much to reassure people that the Ministry of Defence was taking low-flying aircraft seriously. There is a large military installation in my constituency that shares the worries. In the height of a crisis, could Skyguard be used not only to reassure people, but to give warning of low-flying aircraft over important installations in the United Kingdom?
§ Dr. MoonieI am well aware of people's anxieties when aircraft approach sensitive installations. Clear rules govern that. I found the Skyguard system useful. It is done covertly; no one is told of it in advance apart from local Members of Parliament who always ensure that the matter is kept out of the public eye. I have been struck by how seldom infringements of the rules occur. Our pilots act responsibly. Although I appreciate that low flying is a great burden, we do what we can to spread it and minimise the load. However, the current system ensures that we carefully monitor what happens and that rules are kept and not broken.