| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be discussing next steps. On Third Reading, he should discuss only what is in the Bill, and not what should be done in future.
Mr. Burstow: I am still on a learning curve in respect of the procedures of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Please forgive me for not being aware of that.
In conclusion--[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear"]--I thought that those words would be popular. We still regard the Bill as a rather crude and dirty measure. We do not believe that it achieves everything that is necessary, but we see it as a stop-gap that we hope will reassure the private sector. However, given the comments by Ministers that they are uncertain whether it will provide all the necessary assurances, we have our doubts. We remain to be convinced that we will not need to make further amendments to the legislation to provide further reassurance to business. That seems to be entirely the wrong approach.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Ordered,
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Graham Allen.]
Mr. A. J. 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 be 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
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:
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?
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended--
(1) by leaving out items 3, 4, 10 and 15 in the Table in paragraph (2) and inserting the following items at the appropriate places:
'Education and Employment/Department for Education and Employment/17/5';
'Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs/Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions/17/5';
'International Development/Department for International Development/11/3';
(2) by leaving out line 10 and inserting the words 'The Education and Employment Committee and the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee shall each have the power to appoint two sub-committees; and the';
(3) in line 25, at the end, by inserting the words 'and to lay upon the Table of the House the minutes of the proceedings of sub-committees';
(4) in line 36, after the word 'House', by leaving out the word 'and'; and
(5) in line 37, after the second word 'place', by inserting the words 'to report from time to time the minutes of their proceedings, and to meet concurrently with any committee appointed under this order or any sub-committee thereof for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence'.--[Mr. Graham Allen.]
That Standing Order No. 146 (Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration) be re-named 'Select Committee on Public Administration'; and that the said Standing Order be amended, in line 7, after the word 'therewith', by inserting the words 'and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service'.--[Mr. Graham Allen.]
8 Jul 1997 : Column 840
8.16 pm
"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.
"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 that 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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |