HC Deb 28 April 1995 vol 258 cc1159-66

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

2.36 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

I welcome the opportunity to raise in this short debate a matter of great concern to my constituents—low-flying military aircraft. I want to talk specifically about the Tornado, one of the three fast jets flown by the Royal Air Force.

In one way or another, my constituents have long been associated with aviation. Tornado aircraft parts are manufactured in Pendle, and Rolls-Royce makes aeroplane engines in Barnoldswick in my constituency. Aviation is part and parcel of the region, but so too, unfortunately, is low flying. I pay tribute to the courage and skill of our pilots. So far as I have any criticism, it is not primarily directed at them.

Let me make my position clear at the outset. Low flying should not be allowed over built-up areas. I do not include here tiny hamlets. Low flying over towns and other populated areas should generally be prohibited. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces told me, last month I think, that towns listed for low level avoidance were generally those with 10,000 or more inhabitants, and that all other populated areas were to be avoided by military aircraft wherever possible.

That is not good enough. In my constituency, the two towns most affected are Barnoldswick, which has a population of just over 10,000, and Earby, which is half that size. My constituents in Earby probably see one or two aircraft a week flying overhead. Other villages such as Foulridge, just outside Colne, are also affected from time to time, but the incident that overshadowed all others happened on 30 January this year, when eight Tornadoes from RAF Bruggen in Germany flew very low over Barnoldswick and Earby.

That incident was widely reported in the local press. One of my constituents, Mr. Paul Howarth, of Alma avenue, Foulridge wrote to the Barnoldswick and Earby Times to say: Living in Foulridge, I was one of the residents whose houses the RAF Tornados flew over during recent low flying night exercises.Mr. Pendle's Diary"— an editorial or comment column in the local newspaper— suggests that this must have been a terrifying experience for me and that I have a right to know who chose the route for the planes to fly on. On these two points I must disagree with Mr. Pendle. No, I did not find it a terrifying experience—not in the least—and secondly, I do not accept that I have a right to know who planned the route. I presume the RAF, possibly in conjunction with NATO, planned the route and here I do agree with Mr. Pendle that flying over the outskirts of built up areas is an essential part of training for the defence of the United Kingdom. Mr. Howarth then went on to criticise me on other matters in trenchant terms.

Not everyone, unfortunately, is made of such stern stuff as Mr. Howarth. I have passed the names of those affected by the low flying on 30 January to Lord Henley, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence. Those people will be interviewed in due course by RAF police. They will speak, for example, to Mrs. Whiteley of Albion street, Earby and to her son, Paul, who edits the local paper, "The Town Crier". That paper was inundated with calls from local people. The RAF police will also want to interview Mr. Cliff Garnett of Gisburn road, Barnoldswick and Duncan Smith, a reporter on the Craven Herald and Pioneer, who happens to live in Earby.

Duncan Smith saw the jets at first hand, and he described the experience for that newspaper in the following terms:

I was just leaving the house to take my dog for a walk when I heard the first formation approaching and as they came over, they did seem very low, very fast and very loud. I certainly checked the house roof to see if the tiles were still on! But the second formation took me completely by surprise. By then I was near the Station Hotel and directly under the flight path. The first I knew was when the lead jet soared above me, and the noise was incredible. It felt like being inside an explosion, like a volley of cannon fire exploding right above my head. Before I knew it, I was virtually crouching on the ground, having instinctively ducked low, and my heart was pounding. My dog was frantically pulling at the lead, obviously very scared. I watched the remaining jets fly over, still ducking instinctively each time at the noise. I wouldn't like to say how low they were, but I have never known them that low before and, having passed over the town, they seemed to pull up to clear Earby moor. With hindsight it was quite exciting. But in all honesty, if I'd been elderly, of a nervous disposition or with a weak heart I might not be here now to write this. A thousand questions spring to mind after reading that account. What about safety? Do we need low flying, and what is its purpose in the post-cold war world? The whole business of low flying is phenomenally expensive. It cost £177,000 for those eight Tornados to come here from their base in Germany. The local paper carried the headline: £117,000 for night out in West Craven", and described that sum as "staggering".

I hope that the Minister does not bridle too much if I mention that, while that overflight took place, a debate was raging on the ground about cuts to the education budget and how they will affect West Craven high school in Barnoldswick. That £117,000 would be an absolute godsend to that school. People make such connections.

No one would want the country to be left without air defences, but is all low flying necessary? If it is absolutely necessary, why are people not warned beforehand? The Minister has told me that it would be impracticable to provide prior notice of all low-level sorties to Members of Parliament, but surely a flight of eight Tornados is worthy of a brief note to me.

My constituents also want to know why we do not use other, less densely populated countries for low flying, if it is needed. Why do we not make more use of Goose bay in Labrador, or of areas in central and eastern Europe where countries are crying out for hard currency, instead of inflicting this scourge on heavily populated areas such as Pendle and the north of England generally?

I have had the benefit of reading the seventh report by the Select Committee on Defence, which was published in July last year, and the Government's response to it. I do not have time to deal with all the issues raised in the report, but I want to touch on a few. I mentioned that I wanted low flying to be banned for safety reasons. I do not want to be alarmist, but I must tell the Minister that the Station hotel, where Duncan Smith had his frightening experience, is only 300 or 400 yards from Earby county primary school. That is the blink of an eyelid for the pilot of a fast jet which is streaking across the sky.

I was reminded of the tragic incident in September last year when two RAF airmen died when their Tornado crashed into a hillside in Perthshire. It was the fifth Tornado crash in 1994. A report in The Herald on the following day, 2 September, quoted a Lochearnhead schoolteacher who said that low-flying aircraft often passed over her school. She said:

This plane crash was within half a second (travelling time) of this playground with 16 children in it. That incident prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to call for a suspension of all military low flying until the cause of the crash became clear. He said—he was not being alarmist, either—that it was only a matter of time before there was a "Lockerbie-style" incident involving low-flying jets crashing into populated areas.

I have read about the ALFENS project, the new notification procedure which is supposed to improve safety. From my reading of the Defence Committee report, it is clear that it is scandalous that the project is running years late. I hope that the Minister can tell me whether the project is likely to come on stream this year as promised.

The Minister also told me in answer to a parliamentary question last month that 27 Tornado aircraft had crashed while on exercise over United Kingdom land and sea. The idea that we might witness an aircraft crashing in a populated area is not fanciful. I was told that 17 aircraft had crashed on land—mercifully, none into a built-up area. Tragically, 17 RAF personnel and two civilians were killed in the crashes. A further 15 Tornado aircraft have been lost overseas; six were lost in combat over the Gulf, another six as a result of air crew error and three others as a result of mechanical or similar failure.

Leaving aside the human cost, the total cost of all the crashes is close to £1 billion. The Library tells me that, at 1994 prices, the cost of a Tornado aircraft is an astonishing £28 million, so the crashes in the United Kingdom since 1981 have cost £644 million, and those overseas have cost £345 million. It seems to me as a layperson that it is self-evident that flying at very low altitudes will increase the risk of something going wrong.

I know that the normal minimum height for low flying in the United Kingdom is 250 ft. Operational low flying is allowed down to 100 ft. Planes are literally skimming across the treetops in three tactical training areas: in the north of Scotland, just north of the Great Glen, in the borders and in central Wales. It is not surprising that shoals of complaints are generated when planes travel at such altitudes.

Last year, there were 5,778 complaints, which had risen from 5,738 the year before. I am absolutely convinced that those figures do not convey the real number of complaints. People generally do not know who to complain to, other than their Member of Parliament, if they see a warplane streaking overhead and disappearing over the horizon. They tend just to shrug their shoulders and get on with life. Most people have not even heard of the Royal Air Force police.

To illustrate the point, only a few days ago I was speaking to another constituent of mine, Jim Skinner, who lives in Manchester road, Barnoldswick. I mentioned to him in passing that I was raising this important issue in the House, and he told me, completely unprompted, that at 11 o'clock—I hope that the Minister will want to take note—on Friday 21 April, another Tornado had screamed up Manchester road at a height of 300 ft before disappearing over the horizon.

Our planes fly at lower altitudes than those of all other NATO countries. Does that necessarily produce better results? Malcolm Spaven of the International Security Information Service made some constructive points when he told the Select Committee on Defence:

It has been argued that the more frequently aircrew fly, the better their flight safety record. On that basis, one would expect the RAF to have a lower accident rate for its fast jets than similar types in other NATO air forces. If this was the case, then it could be put forward as a justification for the expense of additional flying effort, since it would have a pay-off in the husbanding of expensive combat aircraft resources and of aircrew trained at great expense. However, the reverse is true. Consistently throughout the 1980s and until 1992, the RAF's combat fast jets have had an accidental loss rate twice that of their US Air Force equivalents. Mr. Spaven went on to talk about the RAF's predilection for very low flying and of the experience of the Gulf war. He said: One lesson learned from the Gulf War was that the RAF's hitherto exclusive concentration on low level attack was insufficiently flexible. The rapid switch of air-to-ground operations from low level to the medium level airspace was carried over to some extent into post-Gulf War training. Mr. Spaven also said that medium-level training is very much regarded—even now—as a secondary option by the RAF. In effect, that means that, for the foreseeable future, we have to suffer increased very low flying in my area.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley commented in September, he said that the Minister of Defence had broken a promise made in 1991 to cut the number of low-level flights by 30 per cent. He said then that the real fall was nearer to 3 per cent., mostly due to the reduced number of flights by the United States Air Force. Will the Minister comment on that?

Is not increased activity being inflicted on us in Britain because of the decision by the Germans to ban low-level flights over Germany, for environmental and other reasons? Royal Air Force planes, such as the eight Tornados which came from RAF Bruggen, spend useless hours travelling so that they may fly at low level for 30 or 40 minutes in the north of England, before flying back to their home base.

I would like the Minister to address the point that I made earlier about alternative areas in which low flying can take place if it is deemed to be absolutely essential. I am not the only person who wants answers from the Minister but many hundreds of my constituents, who are regularly inconvenienced, frightened and alarmed by low-flying jets screeching over the areas in which they live.

2.54 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames)

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to this Adjournment debate, and will try to deal with a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in the time that he has left me.

I will explain why low flying remains essential, where the activity is carried out, and how it is controlled and monitored. While the prospects of a major conflict in Europe may have receded with the end of the cold war, instability and unpredictability have increased. Events around the world have demonstrated a continuing requirement for well-trained, well-equipped armed forces that will be able to defend our interests whenever and wherever the need arises. Clearly, the ability to fly low remains a vital element in meeting that requirement, and an important reason for low-flying training.

Many nations possess modern, capable air defence systems. Wherever our armed forces are likely to conduct flying operations, we must and will be prepared for them to be opposed by air defences supported by a comprehensive network of surveillance radars and command and control systems. As such systems rely heavily on radar information, low flying is a vital tactic to minimise exposure to those defences.

Attacking aircraft can use natural land features to mask their approach, but to press home their attack and to be successful, they must fly at high speeds and at heights of 100 ft and below. Such skills cannot be learned quickly. Nor can they be maintained without regular, rigorous and realistic training. It is essential that air crews achieve and maintain a high standard of proficiency in peacetime.

We must never—and will never—send air crews into action in hostile operating environments without first training them to the highest levels. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we would never wish to put the lives of air crew at risk in that way. Regular low flying remains essential to meet our defence commitments.

In an ideal world, we would train without causing any disturbance to those on the ground. Maximum use is made of simulators, but even the most advanced technology cannot be a substitute for low flying. Unfortunately, there are no uninhabited areas in the United Kingdom large enough to accommodate our training needs, so we aim at spreading the activity across the United Kingdom as widely as possible, to reduce the burden in any one area.

Certain areas are excluded, such as civil aerodromes, major industrial hazards and large centres of population—generally, towns with 10,000 or more inhabitants, such as Barnoldswick. In addition, air crews do their best to avoid all populated areas, whether or not they are listed for avoidance.

It is not always possible to avoid the outskirts of towns and communities, and people living on the outskirts of major towns, as well as in less populated areas, will see and hear aircraft from time to time. To minimise disturbance, we limit the amount of low-flying training to that which is strictly essential. Since 1988, we have reduced the volume of low flying by jet aircraft by more than 30 per cent., and are committed to maintaining that reduction.

Night training is fundamental, but we keep it to the minimum for air crew to acquire and maintain the required skills. We also aim to complete training as early as possible, and before 11 pm whenever possible. Low flying by fast jets is rarely permitted after that time. The longer hours of darkness in the winter months allow sorties to be flown earlier in the evening, as was the case with the sortie that involved the flying in the vicinity of Barnoldswick and Earby on 30 January, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

We recognise that the general public have a right to be assured that low flying is conducted safely and responsibly. I emphasise that our pilots are subject to stringent flying regulations. Their performance is closely monitored, to ensure that the standards of airmanship, so vital to our operational capabilities, are kept to the highest level. They are brave, skilled and dedicated people—some of the best fast jet pilots in the world.

We take seriously all complaints about low flying, and those that suggest a breach of regulations are investigated by the Royal Air Force police. The RAF police also carry out regular covert monitoring operations, sometimes assisted by a Skyguard radar system, which measures accurately the altitude and speed of an aircraft.

I am pleased to be able to assure the hon. Gentleman that those checks have consistently shown that, rightly, there is a healthy respect for the regulations. That is not to say that breaches never occur, but such cases are very much the exception; flouting of the rules is not tolerated, and action is taken when breaches are substantiated.

I emphasise that flight safety is at the heart of our flying regulations and operating procedures. All military aircraft accidents are investigated thoroughly, and any lessons learned are put into effect as a matter of priority. We ensure that our findings are publicised widely, not only among military allies but throughout the aviation world, and summaries of all those boards of inquiries are placed in the Library of the House.

Although there has been a downward trend in the overall RAF accident rate recently, we are certainly not complacent. A range of safety measures is being progressively introduced to improve deconfliction and conspicuity in the lower air space. In addition, my Department has regular discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority and other civil agencies about a wide range of safety issues. Of course, no flying activity is entirely risk-free, but the risks need to be kept in perspective.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, taking his line from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who is perhaps the last master of the understatement in the House of Commons, the flying safety record of the Tornado compares extremely favourably with all other fast jet types. The number of losses since the Tornado entered service in 1981 is well within the expected attrition rate.

I shall now discuss the incident on 30 January 1995. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, investigations by the Royal Air Force police continue. Those have so far established details of the sortie and of its planned route through the Barnoldswick and Earby district. It has not, however, yet been possible to determine the precise route followed by the aircraft, and especially whether any of them overflew the centre of Barnoldswick, which, as I said, is listed for avoidance. It is therefore necessary to speak to witnesses of the incident.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally providing—after three attempts on our part to obtain those from him—the names and addresses of those of his constituents who are willing to be interviewed by the RAF police, a matter in which he has proved to be dilatory. Those interviews will now be conducted as soon as possible, and we expect the investigation to be completed shortly afterwards.

Having read the coverage in the local newspaper, I have read the gross exaggerations that the hon. Gentleman used in describing the flight, and the stricture that has been administered to him in a leading article in the same newspaper.

Mr. Prentice

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames

No; I will not.

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will then write to the hon. Gentleman setting out the conclusions that have been drawn.

The sortie concerned was a routine training sortie by eight Tornado GR1 aircraft of No. 9 squadron, based at RAF Bruggen. It was intended to simulate a typical attack mission involving the penetration of a highly hostile air space at low level, under cover of darkness—not a mission that would be lightly flown.

After carrying out a simulated low-level attack on a target in the lake district, the aircraft were transiting at low level to carry out a further attack on the range at RAF Wainfleet when they flew through the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The aircraft were authorised to fly down to 500 ft minimum separation distance; that is to say, they were required to maintain a distance of at least 500 ft from all objects, including the ground. They were making use of terrain-following radar, which maintains a fixed separation from the ground and allows the aircraft to be flown safely at low level at night.

The planned route of the aircraft involved a turn from a south-easterly to a southerly heading slightly to the east of Barnoldswick; the aircraft should therefore have passed between Barnoldswick and Earby. As I have said, it has not yet been determined whether any of the aircraft deviated from that route. Because the sortie was being flown at night it was arranged in accordance with the rules of the United Kingdom night low-flying system. Those are specifically designed to minimise the risk of mid-air collisions between aircraft.

The country is divided into a number of night-flying sectors, with only one squadron or unit allowed access to any sector at any one time. That squadron is then responsible for ensuring safe separation between its own aircraft. That is often achieved by all the aircraft involved flying the same route, with time gaps between them, which is what was done on this occasion.

The eight aircraft involved were split into two groups of four. A 40-second gap was maintained between the aircraft in each group, and a three-minute gap between the two groups. I appreciate that flying in stream in that way, which would not generally be done in daylight, increases the disturbance experienced by those who live close to the route, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand the overriding safety considerations which make that necessary. Air crew do, of course, seek to vary as far as possible the routes chosen from day to day.

I hope that what I have said has shown that, in planning and carrying out this essential training, due regard is given to safety and to minimising disturbance to the general public. Unfortunately, it is not possible to avoid disturbance completely, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman's constituents who were affected by our training on 30 January, although I think that the hon. Gentleman exaggerates the concern.

I believe that we have the best air force in the world. Its deservedly high reputation owes much to the disciplined and thorough training and professionalism of its air crews. I note with pride that, already this year, every type of front-line aircraft in the Royal Air Force has been deployed or is deployed on operations around the world. Their ability to contribute so effectively to our security owes a great deal to the training which our air crews carry out at home. We are most grateful to the millions of people who have supported us in that training for more than 75 years.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o'clock.