HC Deb 06 March 1989 vol 148 cc605-7 3.34 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) (by private notice)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed live bombing exercise to be conducted in the Moray firth on 13 March.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert)

There is no question of live bombs being dropped in the Moray firth. On 13 March, which is the day of delivery of the 1,000th Stingray torpedo to the Ministry of Defence, it is planned that three wholly inert practice Stingray torpedoes will be dropped in the Moray firth to demonstrate to the press the ability of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy to utilise this important weapon. All appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that shipping is not affected by this demonstration.

Mrs. Ewing

We welcome the fact that live bombs will not be used, but why did the Minister not take the opportunity that was offered on Thursday when I tabled a written question on the matter to deny that they would be used? When the Ministry of Defence was contacted by the press in Scotland during the weekend, it did not take the opportunity to deny that live bombs would be used. That has caused a great deal of worry to people involved in fishing, the oil industry and aviation in the north and north-east of Scotland. Why is it so important to drop even inert bombs in territorial waters rather than in international waters, as is usual?

Mr. Neubert

I learnt of the confusion only through the medium of the United States navy exercise called Exercise North Star 89 which is taking place from today until 15 March. During the exercise, aircraft from the US navy aircraft carrier USS America will undertake practice bombing missions. They will drop live ordnance on Garvie island and practice bombs on the training range at Tain. There is no question of live bombs being dropped in the Moray firth or anywhere else in United Kingdom territorial waters.

The concern has arisen as a result of a pamphlet, published by Mr. Malcolm Spaven, entitled "Scottish Defence News". He is an academic and adviser to several Opposition Members on aviation matters. He has confused the two events, and caused confusion and a great deal of unnecessary anxiety, for which I cannot be held responsible.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is irresponsible of Opposition Members to raise this matter and to criticise the Royal Air Force for carrying out its training obligations within all the rules and regulations? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the two RAF stations—Kinloss and Lossiemouth—operate to the very highest standards in the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Neubert

That is undoubtedly true. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that this is, if anything, a mischievous attempt to confuse issues which would otherwise be entirely straightforward.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

When will Scotland stop being used as the playground of the Royal Air Force? Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) joined me, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) to protest strongly at the huge increase in low-level flying—down to 100 ft—over the whole of the south-west of Scotland?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The question is about bombing.

Mr. Foulkes

If they were doing it over Croydon you. would understand, Mr. Speaker. It is all the same kind of thing. The Royal Air Force in Scotland and Cumbria does everything that it wants to. Does the Ministry of Defence ever say no to requests made by the RAF for such exercises and low flying?

Mr. Neubert

I must repeat for the benefit of the hon. Member that this request arises from a press facility arranged by Marconi Underwater Systems to demonstrate a very effective weapon. The use of ranges is entirely different and well established, and I am sure that the Scottish people want to contribute to the defence of the nation.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for Opposition Members to complain about the RAF's activities when everybody knows that Scotland's location and the RAF bases there are essential to the well-being and safety of the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend agree further that the people who look after the servicing and supplies to those Royal Air Force bases would find it offensive if all such activities were stopped because they are the reason why those bases are there? If the Royal Air Force wants to continue low flying in my constituency, I am happy that it should do so.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Keep to the Moray Firth, please.

Mr. Neubert

It is always encouraging to have my hon. Friend with his long experience of the Royal Air Force behind me on these occasions.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

Will the Minister explain why he did not take the opportunity to deny the story last week? Have not the fear and alarm been caused by a ridiculous public relations celebration to celebrate the 1,000th missile? If all reasonable steps have been taken to alert shipping, why has the Moray coastguard no knowledge of the exercise?

Mr. Neubert

It may be because the press facilities were arranged for a week from today—Monday 13 March. On the point about confusion and the timing of questions and answers, the "Scottish Defence News" pamphlet is dated February 1989. It has taken a long time for this scurillous rumour to surface.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the torpedo to be used in the test, Stingray is easily the best lightweight torpedo in the world and that this test will provide another opportunity to show that the decision made nine years ago to go ahead with it was right?

Mr. Neubert

My hon. Friend speaks well of the weapon and I hope that the 30 press people leaving from London and going to Scotland to see it demonstrated in complete safety off the Scottish coast will be equally impressed by its effectiveness.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

Will the Minister give an assurance that the disruption to the activities of our fishermen will be kept to a minimum? Will he also give an assurance that any debris left on the seabed will be cleaned up in the interests of our fishermen and their expensive gear?

Mr. Neubert

I shall certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's point on the latter question. On the former, I assure him that every care will be taken not to disrupt local fishermen.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

Does the Minister accept that the practice of dropping live bombs on Garvie island, which has been properly regulated for many years, has met with complete acceptance locally because of the way in which it has been conducted and that there is no question of opposing in principle the use of live weapons on those ranges? However, can he tell us when he learnt about what he has described as mischievous rumours and how quickly he moved to quell them?

Mr. Neubert

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. On his second point, I learnt about the confusion from the Sunday Mail, the source of all this anxiety.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

The Minister has been extremely dismissive in his answers. Is it not true that a notification about live bombing was issued by the Civil Aviation Authority in relation to the Moray firth? Is that not another example of the complete lack of liaison between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Defence, which we see in other spheres?

Mr. Neubert

The original premise of that question is wrong. What follows, therefore, is equally wrong.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

Will the Minister answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? Why was the Moray coastguard not informed?

Mr. Neubert

I have already replied to that question. I pointed out that this press demonstration is taking place a week from now and that arrangements for it are made by Marconi. All who need to know will be notified.