---

Armed Forces Bill

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his eagle-eyed egalitarianism. Perhaps I could describe the clause, which preserves a long-standing offence whose effect remains unchanged. It operates where a service pilot flies an aircraft in such a way that he annoys, or is likely to annoy, any person but he could reasonably have avoided doing so. Intent, recklessness or negligence by the pilot in relation to the annoyance caused must also be proved. Unlike the offence of low flying, the annoyance offence can be committed where the pilot is flying the aircraft in accordance with regulations and in an authorised flight plan. For example, the last RAF prosecution, which was in 1996, involved a pilot who was authorised to fly low in a particular area. He flew over his parents’ house several times, allegedly, and understandably, causing annoyance to their neighbours. The offence is considered to serve a valuable purpose in deterring such conduct, which might bring the services into disrepute with the general public. I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. If it is an issue, perhaps we can revisit it in another place if we have to do so.