HC Deb 22 January 1980 vol 977 cc153-5W
Mr. Freud

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will explain his reasons for not making a statement on the findings of the Wisbech air crash as promised in his correspondence over the last 16 weeks;

(2) what he meant in internal memorandum D/D58/2064(16/80), sent to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely by the sentence this PQ has been tabled to permit a written reply to be published".

Mr. Pattie

It would have been improper to have made any form of statement until the inquest had been completed on 14 January. It then proved impossible to make an oral statement as soon as I would have wished and rather than delay matters further it was decided to make a full written statement in reply to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker).

Mr. Freud

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why he sent to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely a draft answer and four pages of press cuttings on the Wisbech air crash when his Department had promised to provide an advance copy of his reply to a written parliamentary question.

Mr. Pattie

I regret that a clerical error in my office caused the hon. Member to receive a copy of internal departmental correspondence, rather than the material which I had intended he should receive. For this I tender my apologies.

Mr. Freud

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why, in his written answer to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) he decided to omit the section on claims in the original draft.

Mr. Pattie

In the event I decided, after considering the advice I had received, not to omit the material on claims.

Mr. Freud

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will explain the omission of one or two of the courtesies which are not really called for in a written reply as set down in his memorandum from the Head of DS8, which was sent to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely.

Mr. Pattie

Because it is customary for written answers to parliamentary questions to adopt a style slightly different from that used for oral statements.

Mr. Freud

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the reasons for the 16-week delay between the Wisbech air crash and the publication of his Department's findings at the coroner's inquest.

Mr. Pattie

The accident investigation was pursued as swiftly as possible, but it was not complete until shortly before Christmas. Thereafter it would have been improper to have released information on the outcome of the investigation in advance of the reconvened inquest.

Mr. Freud

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Reportthe names of the pilots of the Harrier aircraft which collided over Wisbech on 21 September; and why representatives from his Department did not attend the inquest into the deaths of three civilians caused by the crash.

Mr. Pattie

It has never been the practice to release the names of the RAF pilots involved in accidents such as this, nor would it assist parliamentary or public understanding of the circumstances were we to do so. My Department was represented formally at the inquest by a solicitor acting for the Department and by a senior RAF officer who was called as a witness. MOD officials were also present as observers.

Mr. Freud

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Reportdetails of the composition of the board of inquiry into the Wisbech air crash of September, the date on which it met, the duration of these meetings and the number of people who gave evidence.

Mr. Pattie

No. This would not be in accordance with normal practice.

Mr. Freud

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total sum paid in compensation to the relatives of the victims of the Wisbech air crash of 21 September.

Mr. Pattie

A total of £31,500 has so far been paid to the relatives of those who died. Negotiations are continuing on other claims.

Mr. Freud

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Reportthe dates upon which compensation was paid to the various householders whose homes were demolished in the Wisbech air crash of 21 September and set out the reasons for the individual delays.

Mr. Pattie

Three houses were demolished as a result of the crash on 21 September. Initial payments were made to two of the families on 26 and 27 September, the third family having said that a preliminary payment was not required. Further payments, mainly for loss of houses and contents, were made to all three families, either as they requested them or as parts of their claims reached the settlement stage, on 5 and 7 November, 11, 18 and 19 December, 7, 11—two payments—and 15 January.

A substantial interim offer made to one of the families on 20 December has not yet been taken up. Some payments have also been made by insurance companies, who will no doubt seek recovery from my Department. I am sorry that negotiations to reach agreed valuations of two of the demolished houses took longer than I would have hoped.