RAF GREENHAM COMMON

HC Deb 26 May 1978 vol 950 cc1969-83

2.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)

Before I start my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I have your guidance? I am listed on the Order Paper as starting the debate at 2p.m. You have allowed the debate on unemployment in West Belfast to go on for a further eight minutes after 2 p.m. May I hope that you will allow me the same leniency, so that my debate will not be foreshortened, as clearly the Order Paper requires that it should not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

I quite understand the concern of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I can put his mind at rest. The matter is entirely in the discretion of the Chair. Although the previous debate overran, and I know that two other hon. Members, as well as the Minister, desire to intervene in the hon. Member's debate, it is conceivable that I shall show latitude there as well. I hope—piously, perhaps—that in later debates the time may be made up in other ways. The hon. Gentleman does not need to worry unduly.

Mr. McNair-Wilson

I am most grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and most grateful to have the opportunity this afternoon to debate the future of RAF Greenham Common in my constituency. As you may be aware, the future of the base and whether it is to become fully operational again has been exercising my mind and the minds of many of my constituents since February of this year, when I was informed that the United States authorities had requested the reactivation of Greenham Common as a fully operational air sta- tion from which to operate 15 KC135 tanker aircraft.

The KC135 is generally acknowledged to be one of the noisiest, if not the noisiest, four-engined jet aircraft flying anywhere in the world today. It was the forerunner of the Boeing 707 airliner. Because it is a military aircraft, it has none of the sophistication in terms of noise suppression machinery which might be found in existing marks of the 707. Fully laden with 27,000 gallons of aviation fuel, the KC135 has a long, low take-off and climb, during which it emits a very high level of jet noise, which has been described as a shattering roar. Local officials in my constituency estimate that operating these aircraft from Greenham will mean that literally tens of thousands of people living along an 18-mile by 2-mile-wide corridor through West Berkshire from the end of the runway will be subjected to noise levels of not less than 100 pndB, a level which will be extremely instrusive and disturbing. Those living close to the base and immediately below the flight path will be subjected to noise levels as high as 135 pndB, a level which outside their houses could cause physical pain.

As well as the thousands of houses around the base, there are also 12 schools and two hospitals, one of which is for geriatric and maternity cases and lies directly under the flight path. On take-off the KC135 emits a large quantity of dark smoke and unburnt kerosene which causes an odour and fall-out nuisance. By anybody's standards, it is a very unsocial aircraft. Yet if Greenham is reactivated that is what my constituents will have to live with, plus the danger of one of these aircraft being involved in an accident and falling on parts of Newbury, Thatcham, Greenham, Brimpton or, conceivably, even Aldermaston, with consequences which could be catastrophic.

That is the nature of the threat to those living around Greenham and in West Berkshire. At least, that is what we suppose it to be. In fact, since the United States proposal was put in at the beginning of this year nobody, either from the United States Air Force or the Ministry of Defence, has proffered any details as to exactly what we should expect.

Such details as I may myself have gleaned I owe in part at least to a visit paid to me by an American general in 1977, at the instigation of the Minister of Defence, when he gave me certain facts and figures on a confidential basis and until the proposal was put in. Those are all that I or my constituents have had to go on. We are at least grateful to General Rosencrans for his candour and responsibility in telling us what he thought we might have to put up with. I therefore hope that this afternoon the Minister will show the same candour and responsibility. I hope that he will break the wall of silence and tear away the veil of secrecy which surrounds the American proposal.

Before asking a number of key questions with regard to the American proposal, it might be helpful if I explain the genesis of RAF Greenham Common and show how we have come to the situation in 1978 that this non-operational air base is now threatened with reactivation.

Greenham Common was first requisitioned in 1939 by the Air Ministry and was used as an airfield by the RAF until the end of the war. It was then partially derequisitioned, so that by 1950 part of it had been returned to agriculture and several of the air base buildings had been demolished. In 1951 it was requisitioned again, this time for the use of the United States Air Force, which operated from it until 1964, when it was closed. It was closed in such a definite way that in 1964 a civil servant in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government wrote to the Berkshire County Council that The Ministry of Defence no longer has any interest in the use of this airfield for flying purposes. In fact, the base has remained non-operational ever since, although in 1968 it was designated as a standby deployment base for the United States Air Force in the event of an emergency.

In 1976 it was used by the United States Air Force for its F111 strike aircraft while the runway at Upper Heyford was being resurfaced. The noise of those aircraft brought me literally shoals of letters demanding to know whether the Americans were remaining at Greenham for only the three months which they promised or whether their temporary stay would become something rather more permanent. I have passed many of those letters on to the Minister. He may remember that on 16th December 1976 he was able to write to me, and I was able to write to my constituents that the Minister had said: There is no intention to alter the standby status of RAF Greenham Common and consequently, of course, no plans to station any aircraft there permanently. The Minister's assurance set the minds of my constituents at ease, and mine with them.

Since the F111s had flown away and peace had been restored to Greenham Common, we thought that that was the end of the matter. But, of course, the Minister's assurance was just one more assurance along the line since 1964. It was his assurance and assurances like it which prompted local authorities in Berkshire to allow so many houses to be built near the air base. It must have been that sort of assurance that the Department of the Environment was working on in 1975 when, on appeal, it consented to allow the construction of 81 houses in Russell Road, very close to the air base. Then, emboldened by that decision, and no doubt by its conversations with the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Environment gave consent on appeal in 1976 for 620 houses to be built at Thatcham, again extremely close to the base.

I remind the Minister that that was far closer than the advice which the Government gave to local authorities in their White Paper on airports policy earlier this year, when they stated: New housing developments should not be permitted in areas close to major airports seriously affected by aircraft noise. The White Paper acknowledged that Of all the problems associated with airports, the disturbance caused by aircraft noise remains the most serious. Yet those consents were given although the local authority had originally turned down the requests.

Today we have around Greenham many thousands of houses which will be very seriously affected if the base is reopened. Many hundreds of people have bought those houses on mortgages and have used their life savings. Since February of this year, when the American proposal went in, they have seen the value of their houses plummet. It is estimated that £1 million has been wiped off the value of houses in and around the Greenham air base.

The Minister will know that I have asked him what compensation the Ministry of Defence is prepared to give to those people if it is decided to let the Americans use Greenham. What sort of grant is the Ministry prepared to give to all those other people whose lives, from the moment of reactivation, will be intruded upon by excessive noise which will spoil the quiet existence which they are now enjoying? I remind the Minister that if Greenham were a civil airport both the compensation and the noise insulation grants would be given as a matter of course. It would be less than justice if my constituents could not enjoy the same privilege.

I have outlined the American proposal and how we believe it will affect us if Greenham is reopened. I have traced the history of the base to the present day. I should now like to ask the Minister to spell out the details which so far no one has given us. Will he tell me just exactly what the American proposal involves? Will he tell me whether the 15 KC135s are all the aircraft that will be stationed at the base, or are they just the thin end of a very much bigger wedge? Will he say how long the Americans intend to keep the base open if he gives them consent to use it?

Will the Minister say what are the most up-to-date noise levels of the KC135 and what sort of noise footprint they will create around the base and in West Berkshire? Will he tell me what noise suppression procedures American military pilots are required to follow? Will he say how many American service men will be stationed at Greenham? Will he say what sort of build-up in road traffic we should expect? Will he tell us that the MOD and the USAF are working out compensation plans for householders whose properties have been blighted and that they are prepared to give noise insulation grants? Will he perhaps tell me that a decision has been made whether it is to be Greenham?

My constituents and I believe that Greenham is the wrong place for the tanker aircraft, for some of the reasons that I have tried to explain. If anyone seeks to tell me that it is the cheapest of the alternatives available, I think that I can and will reply that perhaps it is cheapest in physical terms, but what about the cost in terms of human suffering from excessive noise, what about the blight on house values and what about a despoiled rural environment? These, too, have a cost, and they have to be put in the balance before any decision is made.

We all recognise that NATO needs strengthening. We recognise that new air bases may be required and may have to be reopened because the existing ones are utilised fully—if they are. I submit, however, that Greenham is not the only air base standing vacant and that the problems surrounding its reactivation outside an emergency or war-time situation require that it should remain on standby and nothing more for as far ahead as anyone can see.

2.23 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for allowing me two minutes of his time.

The Minister knows that both the Lincolnshire County Council and hon. Members representing Lincolnshire constituencies have urged that this United States Air Force base should come to our county. I ask him, therefore, to give an assurance that before he makes a decision about choosing a base other than in Lincolnshire he will first meet a deputation from the Lincolnshire County Council so that its case can be put to him.

In view of what we have heard from my hon. Friend, it is clear that the main argument in favour of Greenham is one of costs. It follows, therefore, that the Minister must weigh in the scales the costs which can be put in cash terms about going to Lincolnshire—we are told that they may be quite considerable—and the other items which cannot be quantified in money terms of the kind described by my hon. Friend and, perhaps not least of all, the damage which can be done to Anglo-American relations if this base goes to an area where there may be resentment. That resentment will not exist in Lincolnshire, for a variety of reasons, and I hope that the Minister will listen to what those reasons are when he meets a deputation from the Lincolnshire County Council.

On the subject of costs, I refer the Minister to a news item which appeared in The Times recently, and ask him whether it is really true that the Americans propose to spend $15 million on a school alone in Greenham Common. That is £6 million or £7 million, and that is some school. If that is the kind of estimate that we are getting from the Americans, is it not to be questioned? In respect of Fairford, there is an estimate of $35 million for family facilities. If these estimates are correct, I urge the Minister to apply his sharpest critical faculties to all the other estimates, especially those which may relate to the base going to Lincolnshire.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Mc-Nair-Wilson) for allowing me a few moments in which to make a brief intervention.

It will be known that two of the alternatives to Greenham Common which are being considered are Fairford, which is in my constituency, and Brize Norton, which is not in my constituency but which would affect it greatly because a large part of the flight path for the aircarft would come across the central-southern part of my constituency.

It is right for me to say—it is a view shared by the vast majority of my constituents—that we would not wish to do anything to obstruct the proper defence of our islands through NATO with the help of the United States Air Force. If it were proved that it was essential for the base to go to any one location, it would be right for everyone to support that. However, I am by no means convinced—certainly my constituents are not—that either of the two bases that I mentioned would be in that category.

It is right for me to represent in public the fact that about 20,000 people in my constituency would be affected greatly, especially by the Fairford decision if that were to be taken, and that they are greatly alarmed and apprehensive about the pollution and noise which would be caused by the aircraft going to Fairford.

I have every sympathy with the Minister in the dilemmas which face him. One is the dilemma between the need to preserve the environment throughout the country and the even more overriding need to provide for defence and to welcome our American allies. On the other hand, the Minister has the dilemma about which base should be chosen, and I support him in the careful evaluation that he is making of that.

I am grateful to both my hon. Friends for what they have said, and I believe it right to place on record the extremely strong feeling which exists among my constituents that the area in the South Cotswolds which would be affected by either Brize Norton or Fairford would not be a suitable one, in view of the large population, the extremely attractive nature of the countryside, and the fact that many people have moved to that part of the world to avoid the noise which is so much feared from these aircraft.

2.28 p.m.

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

The fact that three hon. Members have participated in this debate and expressed the concern of their constituents at the prospect of the development of an RAF station at Greenham Common or some other place is an indication of the difficulties which we face both in the Ministry of Defence and in the United States in reaching decisions which are vital if we are to provide the sort of defence capability and mechanisms which are so important to maintaining the peace of our country in all its aspects and our security and freedom.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has been in regular contact with me about this matter for some time. I think that he will acknowledge that, both at the meeting on 17th March when he led a deputation which saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself and on 4th April, when the delegation of local authority representatives which he led to the Ministry of Defence saw me on my own, his constituents and his local authorities had a very fair hearing. I can assure him and his constituents that everything that they said has been taken note of and that we are fully aware of the problems at Greenham Common.

I welcome this debate because it allows me to state how matters stand at the moment and perhaps to deal with some of the misunderstandings which have arisen as a result of this vital and welcome request by the United States authorities to strengthen their forward commitment in Europe in the defence of freedom.

I should like first to explain a little of the strategic background to the United States' request. It is one which is welcomed greatly by the British Government and I am sure that the Opposition are pleased by this firm indication from the United States Government of their intention to increase the effectiveness of their ready forces which they have committed to the defence of Europe. One of the most effective and economic means of doing this is by the provision of additional tanker aircraft for air-to-air refuelling of combat aircraft. Tankers have been aptly described in this role as "force multipliers". Their use can increase the operational effectiveness of the aircraft they support several times over. It is, therefore, an important contribution to our total ability in the air.

As has been recently announced by my right hon. Friend, we plan to strengthen our own RAF air-to-air refuelling capability by buying extra VC10s for use in this role. The United States Air Force in this country already has KC135 tanker aircraft based on RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk. The United States Air Force has, with our agreement, recently increased the number of its tactical aircraft stationed in this country. To maximise the contribution of these aircraft to NATO's defences there needs to be a parallel increase in the number of supporting tanker aircraft. I am sure that all those who have spoken, and the Conservative Party as a whole, will agree that this is an important request by the Americans. It is certainly one which, in principle, has the full support of Her Majesty's Government.

As the debate reflects, what we are now faced with is the difficult problem of finding the most suitable location for these aircraft. There has been a lot of attention given by the media recently to the request of the United States. It would do no harm if I were to reiterate some of the basic facts about the request which seem to have been overlooked. In doing so I shall probably deal with a number of questions which the hon. Member for Newbury posed. There is, first, the question of numbers. What the United States authorities have asked for is agreement to base up to 15 more KC135 aircraft in this country. This deployment, if agreed, would be introduced gradually over a period. Secondly, there would not be round-the-clock flying, seven days a week. The number of sorties which would eventually be generated would amount to about eight a day and in general there would be no flying at night or at weekends.

Thirdly, the United States Air Force has recently started a programme to change the fuel used by its aircraft in this country to the type used by the RAF, which is similar to that used by civil airlines. This is in accordance with the NATO decision to standardise fuel for land-based jet aircraft. The tanker aircraft will not, therefore, normally carry the so-called highly dangerous JP4 fuel. They will fairly shortly be converting to the new—for them—fuel which is the safer type of aviation fuel already used in military and civil aircraft in this country.

Fourthly, fears have been expressed that because this is a defence matter there will, for some reason, be a bar preventing local people from voicing their opinions. I make it clear that the Ministry of Defence, in common with other Government Departments, has agreed to follow the procedures set out in the Department of the Environment's circular 7/77 regarding development by Government Departments and specifically concerning the question of consultation with local planning authorities on development proposals.

On the question of compensation, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the general position is that the Ministry of Defence will follow the policy laid down in the White Paper "Development and Compensation—Putting People First", Cmnd. No. 5124. Obviously at this stage I cannot say whether all of the claims which might be put forward will fall within the ambit of the White Paper, but I can give an absolute assurance that any claims for compensation in respect of these matters will be considered most carefully.

It follows from what I have said that some of the public reaction to the United States' request has been out of proportion to its real scope and implications. It would be wrong of me to pretend that the KC135 aircraft is not noisy. The nature of its role, however, means that its sortie rate is very low and, in any case, it is planned to be replaced in a few years' time, within the United States Air Force, by the quieter DC10 in the tanker role.

There have been some criticisms of the handling of the United States request over Greenham Common. I ought to take this opportunity of seeking to put the record straight. RAF Greenham Common is at present a United States Air Force standby deployment base. This has been its status for about 10 years. The principal purpose of a stand-by base is, of course, to be available for use if required. As such, the base needs to be maintained in a condition which will enable it to fulfil the role for which it is intended. In addition, such a base can be used for exercises designed to rehearse wartime plans and also for temporary deployment of aircraft from other bases. This is precisely what has happened in recent years, and some of the matters which the hon. Member for Newbury mentioned fall into that category.

I must make it clear to the residents of Greenham Common and Newbury that Greenham Common is a stand-by base. It can be, and will be, used from time to time for all sorts of activities which are essential for the training and maintenance of an effective air operation to protect this country and to enable the base to play its proper part in NATO plans. I must emphasise that a stand-by base, by its nature, is available for possible reactivation as a fully operational peacetime base as defence plans are changed, as they become out of date and are updated in view of developments like the increased Soviet threat. All of these things have to be taken into consideration.

The case history of Greenham Common has been exactly in accord with this role during the 10 years in which it has been a stand-by base. In the summer of 1976 F111 aircraft from the United States Air Force base at RAF Upper Heyford, in Oxfordshire, were deployed to Greenham Common while the runway at Upper Heyford was being resurfaced. This was followed by a NATO exercise involving over 30 transport aircraft. Plans were also announced at this time for the construction of hardened aircraft shelters at the base, and I repeat now what I have said to the hon. Member for Newbury many times, namely, that these shelters were related to the standby role of the base and not to any plans to reactivate the base, because at that time no such plans existed.

In contrast, 1977 has been a quiet year for Greenham Common in respect of aircraft activity. Much work has been going on at the base, including the resurfacing of the runway at a substantial cost. This work was also related to the stand-by role of the base and had been planned for many years.

The hon. Members for Newbury and Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) referred to the state of Anglo-American relations. I can tell the House, from my own experience and from careful study of the record over a considerable number of years, that in this country the relationship between locally based United States forces and the local population has been very good indeed. The United States the authorities rightly go to great lengths to ensure that they maintain the highest possible links with local authorities, achieving an understanding of their problems and co-operating with the local community.

The hon. Member for Newbury referred to General Rosencrantz, who, for a number of years, served with great distinction as the commander of the United States Air Force in this country. I have met him on a number of occasions since I have held this office and have always been most impressed by his dedication not only to his professional requirements as an airman but, as a human being and as a citizen, to the requirements to maintain those good relations.

I take this opportunity of saying clearly that we, as a country, are indebted to such fine officers as General Rosencrans and his successor, General Norris, for the steps and the care that they take to maintain and foster good Anglo-American relations wherever United States forces are based in this country. I am, fortunately, able to inform the House that only this morning my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was informed by the United States charge d'affaires of the United States Government's views on the results of surveys, which our two air forces have conducted in recent weeks, of possible candidate airfields in the United Kingdom. It is my intention to hold a meeting in the Ministry of Defence next week to seek to come to a decision. I hope to make an announcement in the following week.

The House will appreciate that this is a most complicated and difficult matter. It would be wrong for us to rush into taking a decision until all the relevant data has been fully and carefully considered. We shall inform the hon. Members and the local authorities concerned before an announcement is made. I have already made it clear that the procedures laid down in the Department of the Environment's circular 7/77 will be followed, and we, like all Government Departments, will be governed by those requirements wherever they are applicable.

Mr. Body

rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved

I assume that the point that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston is about to intervene upon concerns his request that I should see a delegation from his area. I can tell him that because of the need to reach a decision as soon as possible, for a host of perfectly sound and justifiable reasons, I would not completely set my face against seeing such a delegation, but it would need to be mounted with considerable speed. I can also tell him that in our evaluation we are considering the position of certain airfields in the Lincolnshire area.

We and the Americans are conscious of the problems that would be caused by any plan to base these large and heavy aircraft at Greenham Common. Whatever the history is, it is a fact that this airfield is now surrounded by new housing development, including many schools and hospitals. Though the number of aircraft sorties has been exaggerated, there would undoubtedly be some disturbance to the local population.

Moreover, the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston is not far away. Although, for safety reasons, aircraft approaching Greenham Common would not normally overfly the prohibited air space that surrounds this establishment, one cannot rule out the possibility that on some occasions one of these aircraft will inadvertently infringe this air space. This is an important factor, which we must bear in mind. While this would not rule out the use of Greenham Common by more manoeuvrable aircraft, or be an overriding consideration in a time of tension or war, it seems an unnecessary risk to take in peace-time, when there are alternative locations for the KC135 tankers, as now appears to be the case. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have therefore agreed that they should not be based at Greenham Common.

I would also like to say a few words about the planned delegations by the citizens of Newbury to explain their case to the United States Government in Washington next week. They will appreciate from what I have just said, that since the United States Government have given us their views, the matter now rests entirely in the hands of the Government, who I undertake will make their decision in a short time.

This is one of those decisions with which Ministers are from time to time faced. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) rightly drew attention to the terrible dilemma that Ministers are put in when they have to judge between, on the one hand, the legitimate apprehensions and fears of a local community and, on the other, the overriding—I use the word "overriding" advisedly—importance of ensuring that this country, in co-operation with its allies, has ready in Europe, in the United Kingdom, sufficient forces and supporting refuelling tankers to enable us to perform our part and the Americans to perform their part in the defence of peace and the freedom and the security of all the people who reside in this country and in the countries of our NATO allies. It is in this sense that we shall be taking our decision fairly shortly, and we shall be announcing this to hon. Members concerned and to the House.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is not out of order, may I thank the Minister for his answer this afternoon, which will bring great relief to my constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. Both the previous Adjournment debates have overrun their time. We are now running a quarter of an hour late. If I may have the co-operation of those who are taking part in the three subsequent debates, which must be finished by 4 o'clock, speeches can be confined to 12 minutes each and we can get them all in.