HC Deb 08 July 1997 vol 297 cc840-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

8.16 pm
Mr. A. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities at the Ministry of Defence. He will often be preoccupied by the issue that I am about to raise in relation to various parts of the country, but I shall seek to show that the position in Northumberland is especially difficult.

Most people in Northumberland accept that low-flying training is necessary and that we have to take a share of it. The issue is how much and what limits and controls there should be. It has been a local issue not only during my twenty-three-and-a-half years as a Member of Parliament, but during the time of my predecessor who changed from being one of the hon. Members complaining about low flying to being the Minister with responsibility for these matters, who had to sign the letters explaining why it was essential.

I acknowledge the assistance that I have received from the Royal Air Force, the RAF police and the Ministry of Defence in dealing with the great deal of correspondence and the many inquiries that the subject generates and in securing avoidance of major equestrian events by low-flying aircraft.

The problem in the public mind is low-flying military jet aircraft. We also have extensive low flying by helicopters, but that does not create as much public anxiety, partly because helicopters do not appear so suddenly and partly because of the perceived high value to the community of the search and rescue work by RAF Boulmer. Indeed, the helicopters earn applause and enthusiasm when they visit local events. Nor do the Hercules low-level transport flights arouse great public concern except when they are involved in evasion exercises that also involve Tornado F3s.

The difference lies in the speed and the surprise or shock created by the sudden appearance at close quarters of a fast jet fighter or two jets chasing each other. Motorists are taken aback when aircraft appear below them when they are driving on the hillside roads. Horse riders fear for their safety. Many people feel that their isolated house or the landmark close by is being used as a target, attracting a succession of dry-run approaches right at the minimum permitted height limits. It is notoriously difficult to judge the heights accurately, and speed makes identification difficult if a member of the public wants to make a complaint.

For many years, it was impossible to get figures for the number of flights taking place but, in March, the Ministry of Defence produced a report on the geographical distribution of military low-flying activity in the United Kingdom. I have been making use of the figures, which show that Northumberland gets a greatly disproportionate share of low flying. I should like first to ask some questions about the figures themselves.

My constituency is in low-flying area 12, with slight overlap from areas 16 and 13. It includes an area where flying can take place not merely down to 250 ft but right down to 100 ft. The figures are dramatic enough so far as Northumberland is concerned, but they do not show the further impact of night low flying, and might be artificially reduced by the exclusion of sorties, which are primarily over the sea or mainly, in the case of Tornado F3s, at medium height—although in both instances some of those sorties will include low flying. Will the Minister confirm whether I am right in assuming that, if such qualifications of the figures had not been made, Northumberland's share would appear even higher? It is also unclear whether the figures include operational low flying which is below 250 ft.

The MOD's figures for 1996 show that, taking 100 per cent. as the average figure for fixed-wing low-flying intensity in the 15 areas included in the UK low-flying system, Northumberland—area 12—had 301 per cent. No other area had more than 175 per cent. One has to bear in mind that those are the averages for areas where military low flying is permitted and do not include London or the Thames valley. Moreover, within each area, there are exclusions around airports and centres of population.

In area 12, low flying is concentrated in the area between Morpeth and Berwick and in the Tyne valley. To some extent, the figure might he particularly high because the area provides access to the Otterburn and Spadeadam ranges, although low flying in those areas is much less intense than over the coastal strip of Northumberland. I put it to the Minister that, precisely because we have and accept obligations in support of the ranges at Otterburn and Spadeadam, which are important to Northumberland, there should be some compensating reduction in the amount of other military low flying that is allowed over area 12.

In 1979, there was a substantial reorganisation of low-flying areas, and that was supposed to lead to a more even distribution and, therefore, a reduction in intensity over Northumberland. That it did not was primarily due to the introduction of the Tornado aircraft, which doubled the amount of low flying. The report concerned said that the withdrawal of some units from overseas stations to the United Kingdom should result in no noticeable increase in the amount of low flying in the UK. In an article in Scotland on Sunday in May 1996, Malcolm Spaven predicted a 10 per cent. increase arising from the RAF's withdrawal from Germany. He has also referred to the amount of low flying by aircraft from allied countries, which is not on a reciprocal basis but may be in return for cash payments or supply of equipment, or generated by the need to promote greater use of the Spadeadam range by other countries so as to support its continuance.

I am told that Italian aircraft use the low-flying facilities despite refusing similar facilities to the RAF in Italy. Furthermore, the RAF does not appear to have been allowed to make full use of the opportunities that it could have in Goose bay facilities in Canada. The Dutch and German air forces use those facilities, which are expensive to maintain, and I believe that they could relieve some of the pressure on Northumberland.

What particularly annoys the inhabitants of Northumberland is to be told that they have to accept most of the low flying because it needs to be over uninhabited areas. The area is not uninhabited. Northumberland is sparsely populated, but more than 200,000 people live there and hundreds of thousands of tourists are to be found there, especially on the fine days that are favoured for low flying.

To the extent that there is a risk, it is a risk to the towns and villages and activities of Northumberland, just as it would be to anywhere else. As the RAF would want to point out, however, the risk is very low indeed, and those most at risk are the courageous and highly skilled men and women who fly the aircraft. There has, of course, been a substantial loss of aircraft from accidents over the years, although thankfully not of aircrew or civilians.

The disturbance is a much more apparent problem than the risk. Since we all benefit from air defence, we should all share as far as possible the disturbance that is required to maintain it. That seems a reasonably fair principle. Whether we live in a sparsely populated area or in a more populated area, we all benefit from the defence capability that is being maintained, so we should all share in the disturbance which it generates.

The exception must be areas where low flying is incompatible with civil aircraft activity. Indeed, those who live on the flight paths of civil airports put up with considerable disturbance. I see and hear more aircraft from my London flat than I do from my home in Northumberland. since they go into Heathrow at about one a minute. Some low-flying areas are, however, not carrying a fair share of the burden, and within LFAs, there may be too many exclusions, some of which are out of date or unjustified.

I was very pleased to get a letter dated 9 June from the Secretary of State, in which he said: It is clear from my Department"s recent analysis of the distribution of military low flying in the UK that in recent years our use of airspace in the north-east has been heavier than we would have … liked. I can assure you dial my Department is looking to see what can be done to achieve a more equitable balance for the future. That is a very important and honest admission. I therefore look to the Minister to put some initial substance on that promise.

Does the Minister accept, as the Secretary of State clearly does, that Northumberland should not be getting three times the average of military low flying? I ask him to take active steps to see that it is distributed more fairly. In particular, will he tell the House what assessment is being made of the operational importance and value of low flying? There is some argument about this. There are those who say that the air forces of allied countries do not find it necessary to place such dependence on it, but it is clearly a skill that is highly developed by the RAF and one that it believes is important to its combat role.

Will the Minister say whether the total amount of low flying will increase or decrease? What provision has been made for the use of our low-flying facilities by aircraft from other countries on a non-reciprocal basis? I was pleased to note that an exercise involving French aircraft, which was announced the other day, involves reciprocal use by the RAF of facilities in France. What provision is being made to ensure that, when other aircraft come to this country to use our facilities, wherever possible reciprocal arrangements are made?

What prospects does the Minister see for the wider use of simulators in low-flying training—an issue that is regularly raised? Will he seek to make increased use of Goose bay and other overseas facilities? Will he review the exclusions, so as to ensure that those which remain are fully justified? Will he take active steps to reduce Northumberland's share of low flying by redistributing the permitted activity?

Those seem to be reasonable requests to put on behalf of a community which acknowledges the importance of the RAF, is proud of the RAF's work, feels it right to share some of the burden of disruption and anxiety that can result from low flying, but believes that that should be a fair share.

8.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar)

I thank the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for setting out so clearly and reasonably the concerns of his constituents about military low flying. I hope to cover his specific questions in my reply.

It is some two years since the last debate on military low flying. Tonight's debate therefore gives me a timely opportunity to set out clearly why the ability to fly low continues to be an essential requirement for our armed services in the post-cold-war years and to explain why we must continue to train aircrew in that specialised skill.

It has been said many times that we live in an unstable and unpredictable world; we do. It has also been said many times that we, as a nation, expect to have well trained armed forces ready to defend our interests and those of our allies anywhere in the world and at short notice; we do. Because we have those expectations, we must ensure that when we send our armed forces off to deal with the unexpected, they are able to achieve their objective and take control of the air, at the earliest opportunity.

Why do we need aircrew well trained to fly low and fast? Low flying is a vital element in our armoury of tactics, not just to deliver weapons on target with pinpoint accuracy. but to enable aircrew to penetrate and reconnoitre hostile airspace with minimum risk to themselves. The most effective defence against any aggressor is to attack his capability to make war. Aircraft provide the firepower and flexibility to deny an aggressor the sanctuary of secure bases from which to launch attacks.

Both military fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters have to penetrate modern, capable radar and anti-aircraft air defence systems to do that. An aircraft's best chance of survival against those sophisticated weapons lies in flying very fast and low, using ground contours to escape detection. Flying fast and low screens them from hostile fighter aircraft, missiles and anti-aircraft artillery. RAF air defence fighter aircraft must also be able to fly at low level so that they can, should the need arise, intercept and defend against enemy aircraft using the same tactics. Our aircrew must be able to reduce the effectiveness of an enemy's air and ground defences when required to do so. They must train to be able to do so.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the need for low flying is kept under review. It is an essential tactic for a modern air force and, as I have said, one of the most effective ways of penetrating hostile air defences.

The Gulf war demonstrated so well how low-flying missions by RAF Tornados made an important and unique contribution to coalition air operations. Flying low-level missions because of the threat from enemy air defence systems at medium level, they contributed greatly to the success of the coalition air campaign which achieved air superiority as early as the fourth day. They were a great success flying against heavily defended targets, and that says a great deal for the skill of our RAF aircrews.

Low flying is a specialised and perishable skill. Like other professional skills, it is perfected only through rigorous training and continuous practice in a realistic environment. Without that, it is a skill which, like many others, quickly fades. Although the Gulf war was six years ago, and the threat of an all-out war has diminished, the warning time to prepare for the type of operations to which our forces are now deployed—such as those in Bosnia, and so nearly in Zaire—mostly allows only for the honing of flying skills, not their creation.

Aircrew must attain and continuously maintain a high standard of proficiency in peacetime. We cannot, and will not, put their lives at risk by sending them off inadequately trained, and unprepared for their task. Regular low-flying training is essential if we are to meet our defence commitments. Our Navy, Army and RAF aircrews are rightly respected throughout the world for their skills and professionalism. We are most grateful for the support and understanding that they receive from all parts of the country as they carry out their training.

I assure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that maximum use is made of simulators, which he mentioned, for those activities, such as cockpit procedures and general handling, for which they are, currently, best designed. Unfortunately, even the most advanced technology available today cannot replicate, or impart the necessary physiological and psychological pressures to substitute for, actual low flying. We monitor carefully modern advances in simulator technology to assess the scope for their use for the future, but, in the meantime, they complement, rather than replace the need for, low flying.

As the right hon. Member mentioned, the United Kingdom low-flying system comprises the open air space of the whole of the UK and the surrounding over-sea areas from the surface up to 2,000 ft above ground level. The normal lower limit for fixed-wing aircraft is 250 ft, even though aircrew are required to fly much lower in operational theatres. The training value of that combat skill degrades rapidly as height increases, and is considered of little value above 500 ft.

A small amount of fixed-wing low flying, down to 100 ft, is permitted in three specially designated tactical training areas in the Borders, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is partly in his constituency, northern Scotland and central Wales. The amount of that lower level activity, operational low flying, is limited to that absolutely necessary, and is spread across the three special areas proportionate to their size. It amounts to no more than 1 per cent. of the 110,000 low-flying sorties flown annually.

We realise, of course, that military low-flying training can be intrusive, and we implement various measures to minimise it as far as practicable. The amount is limited to that strictly necessary for aircrew to achieve and maintain operational effectiveness. Most low flying takes place during the daylight hours of weekdays. Public holidays are avoided, as are weekends, as far as possible, although some activity may be permitted then, mainly in support of reserve forces who are unavailable for training during the week. Night low flying is required to be completed as soon as possible in the evenings, and it is rare for jet aircraft to be permitted to operate after 11 pm.

My Department announced in 1991 a target to reduce the amount of jet low-flying sorties across the UK by 30 per cent. by the end of 1994 against the 1988 baseline. That target was achieved by the end of 1993, ahead of time. It is our intention that the reduced figure will be maintained.

I also wish to reassure the right hon. Member that each request for foreign aircraft to use the UK low-flying system is considered on its merits, taking into account the principle of reciprocity, the mutual benefit of such flying to the UK and our allies, and the wider defence interest. The right hon. Member will know that, wherever possible, we try to inform him, and other hon. Members whose constituencies might be affected, in advance when large-scale exercises are planned, and about unusual activity such as the very low-level operational low flying.

Mr. Beith

Can the Minister say whether some low flying by foreign aircraft is done in return for equipment supplies, use of other range facilities or for other reasons than reciprocity?

Mr. Spellar

As far as I am aware, reciprocity is one of the key elements, but I will note the right hon. Gentleman's comments and look into the situation.

We are unable to inform hon. Members when it comes to the routine day-by-day flying training, since the sorties are generally arranged at short notice to take account of variable factors such as the prevailing weather at the time.

We are frequently asked to avoid overflying certain locations such as schools during examination periods, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife, bird colonies during nesting time, horse riders, and much of the country during the lambing season. While we are sympathetic to the requests—the right hon. Member mentioned some of them—it would be invidious to accede to some and not others. Granting all the requests would exclude aircraft from large areas of the country for most of the year, making it impossible for us to meet our essential training requirements.

As the right hon. Member will know, there are no uninhabited areas of the UK large enough to meet our essential low-flying training needs, which is not surprising when an average fast jet sortie may cover some 500 to 600 miles. As I said, in principle, the whole of the UK is open to low flying, but certain areas, such as restricted air space around civil aerodromes, glider sites, major industrial hazards, and major conurbations of 10,000 or more inhabitants, must be avoided. With those exceptions, however, it is our aim to spread low-flying training across the whole of the country, thereby spreading the disturbance caused as broadly as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned reviewing areas excluded from low flying. He can be assured that we carry out a continual review of the UK low-flying system to ensure that it remains properly reflective of current environmental and flight safety considerations.

I shall deal specifically with the position in Northumberland. As the right hon. Gentleman said, most of Northumberland is in LFA 12, with some of the area in the adjoining LFAs 13 and 16. In March this year, my Department published an analysis of the distribution of military low flying activity in the United Kingdom, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It did so because the volume and location of low flying had increasingly become the subject of uninformed comment based on inaccurate and misleading information, especially in the media.

In response to the right hon. Gentleman's questions about the abatements used when calculating the figures in the paper, I can say that it is true that, without them, the figure for Northumberland's share would have been higher, but I must stress that that would also have been the case for other low-flying areas across the country.

The figures given represent the amount of activity, including operational low flying, over the land areas that give rise to disturbance on the ground. They provide a clear picture of the intensity of low-flying activity across the country as a whole. We found that the areas that generated the largest numbers of complaints did not necessarily see the most activity.

The analysis showed that, in 1995 and 1996, the right hon. Gentleman's constituents experienced more low flying than the overall average for the country as a percentage, although there was a reduction in the gross numbers. I am afraid that, for a number of valid reasons, it is inevitable that LFA 12 will see a concentration of low flying. Its undulating terrain offers valuable training, and there are a number of training facilities within and close to Northumberland, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The Otterburn training area provides vital training for our ground forces. Those forces will often be moved into the training area, or supported while they are there, by low-flying support helicopters, air transport aircraft and jet aircraft providing close air support. There is also an air-to-ground bombing range, which is used by ground attack fast jets.

The RAF Spadeadam electronic warfare tactics range and the associated bombing range at Wiley Sike provide excellent training for our aircrew in defence and counter-measure tactics under simulated combat conditions. They are the only such ranges in the United Kingdom and they have proved invaluable in preparing our aircrew for operational deployments. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's kind comments about them.

Two low-level operational training areas overlie Northumberland. They are used to facilitate the training of air defence aircraft, which conduct combat air patrols in those areas above 2,000 ft, before descending to low level to conduct affiliation training with ground attack aircraft.

There are also a number of geographical reasons why LFA 12 sees more than average low flying training. Aircraft from the many air bases situated on the eastern side of the country, and from our bases in Germany, fly through LFA 12 on sorties to and from the Spadeadam range or low flying areas in Scotland. That is necessary because of the built-up areas and controlled air space in the midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east, over which they are not able to fly. They must also avoid conflicting with other military activity at RAF bases at Leeming, Linton and Topcliffe.

The increase in movements into LFA 12 since 1992 is also due, in part, to a change in the boundary between LFA 12 and the neighbouring LFA 17, which covers Cumbria and parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire. As a result, a narrow band of air space north of the gap, between the controlled airspace around Teesside airport and the RAF Leeming military air traffic zone, known as the Leeming/Teesside gap, became part of LFA 12. In the past, aircraft flying through that gap had to fly through LFA 17; now, they must fly through LFA 12.

I hope that I have made it clear that there are compelling reasons why Northumberland will see more low flying than the United Kingdom average. However, there is a reduction in the overall number of flights.

Mr. Beith

The number of flights may not be much higher than the average, but it represents 301 per cent., which is way above any other figure. Given the specific reasons why some low flying is bound to take place in the area, does the Minister realise that, to give effect to the Secretary of State's intention to achieve a fairer balance, he will have to find ways of reducing the low flying over Northumberland that could take place elsewhere?

Mr. Speller

The right hon. Gentleman should not have been so precipitate, because I was coming to that.

We are sympathetic to the problems suffered by those in the area: we recognise the burden that they carry. We are not complacent, and we will examine carefully the distribution of activity each year. We do not assume that we can carry out flying training without regard to the intrusion that such activity causes to those on the ground. We will do all that we can to ensure that there is no more flying training than is absolutely necessary.

We said in the published paper that we will try to do better. We have now improved the way in which we routinely record statistics on the daily use of the low flying system so as to manage better the overall distribution of activity. We will say each year how well we are doing in achieving those aims. We will, of course, continue to look for overseas locations in which to train: the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Goose bay. We already make use of the facilities for low flying training in Canada and North America.

One of the results of the work undertaken was last summer's decision to reduce the amount of operational low flying in the Borders area. I am glad to say that we are already achieving that by doing more of that training in the Highlands area, which in the past saw less than its fair share of such activity, in spite of being relatively less densely populated. We will continue to control this activity carefully. I look forward to making available next year the information about the distribution of activity for 1997, and we will continue to provide it annually.

For the reasons I have given, it is simply not possible to promise the right hon. Gentleman that we will be able to distribute all low flying training on a fully equitable basis. Nor can I promise that things will change dramatically and noticeably in the short term. What I can say is that we hope to see a gradual and more even spread of activity. We shall take into account the considerable contribution made by Northumberland.

Low flying is an essential skill for our aircrews. It can be perfected only through rigorous training and continuous practice in a realistic environment. It is vital that our aircrews continue to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minuses to Nine o'clock.